Ephesians 2:11-22

2. Extolling comparison of their previous and their present condition

Ephesians 2:11-22

11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles, [that once29 ye, Gentiles] in the flesh, who are called [the] Uncircumcision by that which is called the 12[or by the so-called] Circumcision in the flesh made [wrought] by hands; That at that time30 ye were [ye were at that time] without Christ, being aliens [alienated] from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of [the] promise, 13having no hope, and without God in the world: But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime [once] were far off are made [were brought]31 nigh by [in] the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath [omit hath] made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us [and broke down the 15middle wall of the partition,]; Having abolished [or done away]32 in his flesh the enmity, even the law of [the] commandments contained [expressed] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain [that he might create the two in himself33 into] one new man, so making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both [And might reconcile them both]34 unto God in one body by [in one body to God through] the cross, 17having slain the enmity thereby [on it]: And [he] came and preached peace to you which [who] were afar off, and [peace]35 to them that [those who] were nigh. 18For through him we both have [our]36 access by [in] one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore [So then] ye are no more [longer] strangers and foreigners [sojourners], but [ye are]37 fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built [Built up] upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ [Christ Jesus]38 himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building39 fitly framed together groweth [is growing] unto a holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are [being] builded together for a habitation of God through [in] the Spirit.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Detailed description of their previous condition. Eph 2:11-12.40

Ephesians 2:11. Wherefore remember.—Διό,“wherefore,” refers, like Ephesians 1:15 : διὰ τοῦτο, to the preceding section (Stier, Bleek), since the object of “remember” is their previous quite as well as their present condition, or the “creating” of those who were “dead,” Talis recordatio gratum animum acuit et fidem roborat (Bengel), taking into view not merely the obtained riches, but also the poverty and misery from which they were released. The reference to Ephesians 2:5-10 (Meyer) is not correct, since Ephesians 2:5 resumes the object of Ephesians 2:1-3, and Ephesians 2:4 contains the subject, nor that to the last thought only (Chrysostom), since this sums up the whole. [Ellicott suggests the reference “to the declaratory portion of the foregoing paragraph, Ephesians 2:1-7; Ephesians 2:8-10 being an argumentative and explanatory addition.—R.]

That once ye, Gentiles in the flesh, ὅτι ὑμεῖς ποτὲ [ποτὲ ὑμεῖς] τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί.—(See Textual Note 1.] The ἦτε (Ephesians 2:12), introduced by the resumptive ὅτε after the apposition, belongs here, so that it need not be supplied. “Ye” means those who are now Christians (σεσωσμένοι), and that they have been “Gentiles in the flesh” is marked by ποτέ. Accordingly τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί is a predicatory appositional phrase. The article marks the designation as one well-known, the substantive, which in itself has no dishonorable meaning, being used with a reference to גוֹיִים, and thus with the additional notion of a fault. Accordingly, Paul adds, “in the flesh.” This is not κατὰ σάρκα (Ephesians 6:5; Romans 9:3; Romans 9:5; 1 Corinthians 10:18), which denotes a relation, while here a status is spoken of, one which has been, but is no longer existing (ποτέ). Joined without the article it forms with “Gentiles” one conception: Goim in the flesh, denoting what is external: Ye former heathen in the flesh, in the natural condition, uncircumcised, without a sign of the covenant, not even externally, in the flesh, endowed with the known sign of the people of God. [Σάρξ is taken in this its simple meaning by nearly all later commentators (Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Hodge, Eadie, for the very good reason that the context plainly points to it, especially ἐν σαρκί just below. Braune’s view of the construction is also the usual one.—R.] Otherwise we must take τὰ ἔθνη without any reference to heathenism and the therewith connected deficiencies, as the nations excepting Israel, and find its quality denoted in the added phrase, as designating what was defective in them. Bengel: hoc considerate Paulus conjungit cum Gentes; nam Judæi gentes simpliciter dicebunt præputium, non præputium in carne—Gentiles, not Gentiles in the flesh. Hence it is incorrect to take ἐνσαρκί=natalibus, origine carnati (Grotius); for this they would continue to be. Nor does it designate the carnal mind, the unholy life (Ambrose, Anselm, Calovius), nor has it a typical reference (Stier) for which Hebrews 7:16; Hebrews 9:10, give no occasion.

Who are called the Uncircumcision by that which is called [the so called] Circumcision in the flesh wrought by hands [οἱ λεγόμενοι .].—Ἀκρο βυστία, “uncircumcision,” is evidently in apposition to “Gentiles in the flesh,” and οἱ λεγόμενοι, already prepared for by τά before ἔθνη, is placed first for emphasis. The nations are called “Uncircumcision” on account of heathenism, the absence of the sign of the covenant in the flesh. The abstract noun, denoting here the essential point, is here a name also; hence it stands for the concrete=the uncircumcised. Colossians 3:11; Gal 2:7; 1 Corinthians 7:19, and περιτομή=the circumcised. In the phrase “who are called the Uncircumcision,” the fact that they were (Luther) and are so termed, is stated here objectively, while in ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς, instead of τῶν λεγομένων, which is called, instead of are called, it is indicated that the thing and the name do not coincide in the same way, i.e., by the so-called circumcision, the so-called circumcised.41 Accordingly the added phrase “in the flesh,” corresponding precisely with “in the flesh “in the last clause, marks the externalness, in the flesh where it takes place.

Χειροποιήτον, “wrought by hands,” is added with special emphasis, forming the antithesis to ἀχειροποιήτῳ, Colossians 2:11, and to what is perfect, wrought by God (Hebrews 9:11; Hebrews 9:24; Acts 7:48; Acts 17:24). It has a typical reference, as the passages in Hebrews plainly affirm, so that this reference is not contained in ἐν σαρκί, which is not opposed to ἐν πνεύματι, either here or in the previous clause (Stier). Hence we should connect closely “circumcision in the flesh,” and explain: which is made by hands in the flesh (Meyer, Bleek). There is indeed a special significance in circumcision, which is mentioned by Moses (Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6), and the prophets (Jeremiah 4:4; Jeremiah 9:24-25; Ezekiel 44:7; Ezekiel 44:9). This the Apostle does not wish to undervalue; he only does not permit it to pass for something merely external, over against that of the heart, wrought by God (Philippians 3:3 : Romans 2:29; Colossians 2:11), to which that wrought in the flesh points.42 He marks here the Jew in the people of Israel; the Jew, who remains satisfied with this external mark of the covenant with Israel, is a so-called circumcised one, and exalts himself without reason arrogantly above the uncircumcised and unclean nations. How miserable must be the condition of the heathen, who are despised by the Jew! So much the more glorious is it that they as Christians are now exalted above the latter. Hence we should not accept here a repugnance toward the Jews (Rueckert), or an advantage of the Gentiles (Chrysostom), or the opinion, that uncircumcision was no detriment to the Gentiles, and circumcision no advantage to the Jews (Clarius). In ea æqualitate, quam antea commemorat apostolus, nunc latentem inæqualitatem profert, ut Gentes, quo longius a Deo abfuerant, eo plura se gratiæ Dei debere fateantur (Beza).

Ephesians 2:12. That ye were at that time [ὅτι ἦτε τῷ καιρᾦ ἐκείνῳ].—Ὅτι, “that,” is a resumption of the first ὅτι (Ephesians 2:11), and connects with “remember,” adding to the status miserabilior of the heathen, already defined, the inner side. The verb placed first for emphasis marks the past, and τῷ καιρᾠ ἐκείνῳ, the dative of time (Luke 12:20 : ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί; Winer, p. 205) renders it even more prominent than work (Ephesians 2:11).

Without Christ, χωρὶς Χριστοῦ.—Χωρίς ad subjectum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur, avev, ad objectum, quod a subjecto abesse cogitandum est (Tittmann, Syn. I., 93 ff.). Thus χωρὶς Χριστοῦ affirms: the heathen are in a condition, where they are deprived of Him: vos eratis procul a Christo; ἄνευ Χριστοῦ esset; Christus non adorat vobis.43 “Christ” refers to the promised One, the eternal Son of God; since a time is spoken of when He had not appeared in the form of a servant. Hence the name “Jesus” is not inserted. Christ, by means of ἐπιδημία νοητή (Olshausen), as the Angel of the Covenant (Rueckert), dwelt already in the people of Israel (see 1 Corinthians 10:4), and the people of God stood in an attitude of longing, hope, trust and faith, towards the coming One. The antithesis is in Ephesians 2:13 : “in Christ Jesus.” Hence we have here the summary which is expanded in the succeeding clause; this is not then a first point followed by a second and third (Schenkel), but a κεφάλαιον. [Hodge takes the following clauses as a confirmation of this phrase, but Ellicott, more correctly, as an elucidation of its significance.—R.] It is incorrect also to explain it as=sine, Christi fide vel notitia (Anselm, Calovius).

Being alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.—This is the first of two co-ordinate members of one thought; it describes the external relation, the other the internal. We have marked here, a separation from the πολιτεία of the people of Israel, which has become and will become ever greater, and at the same time an internal estrangement (comp. Ephesians 4:18; Colossians 1:21). The word indicates, if not an original fellowship, still an earlier nearness and equality. Bengel: Abalienati, non: alieni; participia prœsupponunt, gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum, imo potius ante lapsum Adami fuisse participes lucis et vitæ. So Rueckert, Olshausen, Stier. [Meyer does not think this notion of a previous fellowship is here implied. Alford: “Gentiles and Jews were once united in the hope of redemption—this was constituted, on the apostasy of the nations, into a definite πολιτεία for the Jews, from which and its blessings the Gentiles were alienated.” To which Ellicott adds: “The Gentile lapsed from it, the Jew made it invalid (Matthew 15:6, comp. Chrysostom); and they parted, only to unite again (ἔθνη καὶ λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ, Acts 4:27) in one act of uttermost rebellion, and yet, through the mystery of redeeming love, to remain thereby (Ephesians 2:15-16) united in Christ forever.”—R.]

By πολιτεία (Aristotle: τῶν τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων τάξις τις) we necessarily understand here according to the context the constitution of the State, the external polity, from which the Gentiles were ever farther removed; a reference to the theocracy also is of course included. Hence too the theocratic name of honor, of “Israel” (Genesis 32:28), not “of the Jews.” Tota respublica, Israelis spectabat Christsm (Bengel). Comp. John 1:48; Romans 9:4; Romans 9:6; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Galatians 6:16. The genitive τοῦ Ἰσραήλ denotes the possessor, the usufructuary, of the πολιτεία. [So Ellicott, who rightly insists that the word marks their religious and spiritual, rather than their national or political distinctions. Hodge and Alford accept as more simple the view of Harless, that the genitive is that of the identical nation: “the commonwealth which is Israel.” Alford notices that the word “alienated” requires an objective reality as its reference, hence the meaning mentioned next is to be rejected.—R.] Certainly we should not refer this to the civil constitution (Anselm, Grotius), for which a Roman or Greek could have no desire; what the Gentiles, who became Christians, lacked previously and now possessed, was certainly not “places of honor” or “citizenship in the Jewish State” (Harless). We should not then think of citizenship (Bullinger, Calvin).

And strangers from the covenants of the promise, καὶ ξένοιτῶν διαθηκῶν44 τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.—This clause is closely connected with the preceding (καὶ), as a formula. So too the words correspond: “strangers” to “alienated,” “covenants” to “polity,” “promise” to “Israel.” “Strangers” respects what has come to pass in the course of development or the internal position, which that development furthers (Bullinger: eandem rem significat utraque, nisi quod posterius prius); “covenants” designates the repeated renewal of the covenant from Abraham to Moses (Genesis 12:2 f. Genesis 12:7; Genesis 13:15; Genesis 15:18;. Genesis 17:20; Genesis 22:16 ff.; Genesis 26:2 ff.; Genesis 28:13 ff.), to the prophets; the context speaks merely of the time before Christ. All these repeated agreements, however, serve the one promise given to Abraham referring to all nations as well as characterizing the covenants, and reechoing again and again. So in Romans 9:4 : “the covenants” and “the giving of the law” are placed side by side. Hence this is not to be referred to the two covenants, the old and the new (Calovius and others), or to the two tables of the law (Beza and others).

Having no hope, etc.—Here again we have two clauses connected and belonging together. Ἐλπίδαμὴἔ χοντες, “having no hope,” owing to the absence of the article, denotes that they have no hope of any kind; not merely a definite hope, but all hope is denied in their case. Hence we should not understand it of the resurrection and eternal life (Bullinger, Grotius), or of the promised possessions (Estius, Bengel), as the object of the hope, nor indefinitely of deliverance (Harless). At most we might join to it from the following ἄθεοι, in accordance with Acts 24:15 : “toward God,” πρὸς (εἰς) τὸν θεόν. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13 we find the expression used as absolutely as here. The negative μή is used with the participle in this clause, which is dependent on μνημονεύετε, “remember,” as a subjective negative. Winer, p. 444. Accordingly this clause is not to be put in dependence upon the preceding “strangers,” etc. (Bengel: si promissionem habuissent, spem habuissent illi respondentem; Harless); the clause would thus also be loosened from its close connection with the following one: καὶ ἄθεοι ἐντῷκόσμῳ.

Without God.—Ἄθεος is stronger than χωρὶς θεοὺ, corresponding to θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει (2 John 1:9; 1 John 2:23),=“not having God.” The essence of heathenism is Atheism (Romans 1:21 ff.); the worship of devils and εἴδωλα (1 Corinthians 10:20; 1 Corinthians 7:2) does not take the place of God; “for polytheism is atheistic,” and that philosophy is first correct, which throws this off in its thoughts respecting God. Bengel: non statuerant, nullos esse deos (Acts 19:35): sed verum Deum ignorabant; tantum aberat, ut haberent (1 Thessalonians 4:5). He who is ἄθεος is, not merely as respects religion, but also as respects morality, God-less, and heathen immorality is different from Jewish immorality. Hence Harless should not wish to exclude this, as if it were true enough but not pertinent here, where the distinction from the people of Israel is set forth, they being however included also under sin. Meyer, against the context, weakens the idea, by taking it as passive: God-forsaken. [Of the three senses of ἄθεος: active (opposed to God), neuter (ignorant of God, without the subordinate notion of impiety, which Braune prefers), and passive (forsaken of God, without God’s help), the latter seems most prominent here, and is accepted by Hodge, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, mainly on the ground that the whole passage is passive in its character. This is the gloomiest view, and hence the more probable one, though the others stand so closely related to it, that it is hardly correct to term this a weakening of the idea.—R.] The connection with the preceding clause is evident, God is the God of hope (Romans 15:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:16). Comp. Doctr. Note, 2.

In the world, ἐντῷκοσμῶ, sets forth the antithesis to “the commonwealth of Israel,” denoting the “ungodly where” (Meyer), and marking in any case the fearful element of ἄθεος, the place, where a “sure hope, a firm hold” is so urgently needed (Olshausen), the place without the Creator in the service of nature and the creature, without a Redeemer in need and sin, without consolation and salvation in vanity and nothingness. Hence it is not=inter ceteros homines, in his terris (Koppe), in profane humanity, the heathen world (Meyer), or in the world created and ruled by God (Grotius, Rueckert).

Finally it must be remarked in regard to the structure of this sentence, that the two pair of clauses which unfold the meaning of “without Christ,” each contain two related connected thoughts, and the two in the first pair stand in such a relation to the two in the second pair, that the first corresponds to the fourth and the second to the third. [The various correspondences as well as the relation to the leading clause of the verse are aptly expressed by Eadie: “Being Christless, they are described in regular gradation as being churchless, hopeless, godless and homeless.”—R.]

Ephesians 2:13. Fundamental trait of their present condition.—But now, in Christ Jesus [νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ].—The thought of this verse is still in dependence on “remember” (Ephesians 2:11); the Apostle however breaks off into the independent, antithetical form. “But now” is in contrast with “once” (Ephesians 2:11), “at that time” (Ephesians 2:12). and as there the past was described by “without Christ,” so here the present by “in Christ Jesus;” the latter form being fuller than the former, because the Promised One has come, the eternal Son of God has become man.45 The Apostle does not refer to “the ‘now’ of the present ‘simply,’ but to the present in their fellowship with Christ” (Harless). Still we need not supply either ἐστε (Baumgarten-Crusius) or ὄντες (Calvin), nor connect the phrase exclusively with “now” (Harless); both belong to ἐγενήθητε below, in fact to the whole sentence.

Ye who once were far off were brought nigh in the blood of Christ, ὑμεῖς οἱ ποτὲ ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν τῷ αἴματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ.—The position of the words obliges us to regard ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ as rendered specially prominent, as a general definition of modality, and ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “in the blood of Christ,” as a special one, so that the latter is to be taken as a more precise explanation of the former; it is not then in apposition with it; both belong to the verbal notion “were brought nigh.” Then again “ye” has now another qualification than before: “who were once far off,” as corresponding to Ephesians 2:12 (“alienated”—“strangers”). Comp. Ephesians 2:17; Acts 3:39; Acts 17:27 (“though He be not far from every one of us”); Mark 12:34 (“Thou art not far from the kingdom of heaven”). These words have a reference figuratively to our relation to God; the heathen are thus spoken of in prophecy (Isaiah 49:1; Isaiah 60:3-4; Isaiah 66:19; Isaiah 55:5; Isaiah 57:19) in their relation to both God Himself and His people. Bucer: qui hactenus non fuisti populus domini, jam estis populus domini. The distance and nearness include both the relation to God and that to His people; hence should not be referred either to the former alone (Matthies), or to the latter alone (Rueckert, Olshausen, Bleek). Bengel: procul a populo Dei et a Deo. It is not sufficient to say: longe eratis a cognitione Dei veri et a spe vitæ cœlestis (Grotius), still less: μακράν homines miserrimi, ἐγγύς, felicissimi (Koppe). The approach is something which develops (ἐγενήθητε), has a history;46 the means rest in and proceed from what is expressed by: “in the blood of Christ.” This is almost=“through his blood,” διὰ τοῦ αἴματος αὐτοῦ (Ephesians 1:7); the prepositions ἐν and διά are, however, both used in Colossians 1:16 : ἐν αὐτῷ—διʼ αὐτοῦ. The latter denotes the cause, through which any thing takes place, comes into position or existence, the former the permanent ground, on which it has its continuance.47 (Winer, p. 362. The word “Christ” here has special significance: it marks the Son of God beside the word “blood,” which marks “the form of a servant.”

Closer explanation respecting the nature and genesis of their present condition. Ephesians 2:14-18.

Ephesians 2:14. For he is our peace [αὐτὸς γάρ48 ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν],—The position is emphatic, “He,” not the unemphatic subject, but He Himself (Winer, p. 142). [He and none other; so most commentators.—B.] His Person is “our peace.” The article marks the peace as well-known, more closely defined. Bengel aptly says: pax, non modo pacificator; nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipsi vinculum est utrorumque. The allusion to passages in prophecy (Micah 5:4; Isaiah 9:5-6; Isaiah 52:7; Isaiah 53:5; Zechariah 9:10, etc.; also Psalms 72:0) is unmistakable. This is denied by Baumgarten-Crusius. The Messiah is indeed called שָׁלוֹם, not merely Prince of Peace, εἰρηνοποιός. The genitive ἡμῶν, “our,” merely denotes that the peace belongs to them, does not say whether the peace is among themselves or between them and God. This is determined by the context. On the nature of this peace, see Doctr. Note 3 b.

Who made both one, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ .—He is therefore “the peace” through an act (ἁ ποιήσας with αὐτός, quippe qui fecit), which is set forth here only generally: made one, ε͂ν ποιεῖν. Here we find a closer definition of the idea “peace,” not of “our,” as the neuter requires. Τὰ , like τὰ μωρά, ἀσθενῆ, κ. τ. λ., 1 Corinthians 1:27 f., designates the general: what is of two kinds, “what opposes because sundered” (Matthies). The annulling of an existent variance is thereby noted as the nature of the peace. Hence we may not say that the neuter is=τοῦς (Ephesians 2:16; Ephesians 2:18), τοὺς δύο (Ephesians 2:15), as Koppe, Meyer and others think, nor does the neuter ἕν define the neuter τὰ (Bengel). [“Both” is usually referred to “Jews and Gentiles.” This is a legitimate inference, but Braune holds that the statement here does not require any specific reference.—R.]

And broke down the middle wall of the partition [καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας].—The indefinite notion of “making one” is now more closely defined; καί adds in a figure the main point; hence it is not epexegetical (Meyer). [The explanatory or epexegetical force of καί is accepted by Eadie, Alford, Ellicott. It is correct, if the previous clause has a distinct reference to the Jews and Gentiles: who made both Jews and Gentiles one, viz., in that He broke down, etc. There seems to be nothing gained by adopting Braune’s view, while the other most obviously suggests itself.—R.]

Τὸ μεσότοιχον, τοῦ φραγμοῦ (like ἕρκος ὀδόντων)=the partition wall of the fence, that is, the partition wall which is in the fence, denoting in the figure of an independent object a quality and effect of the hedge. [So Harless]. The leading idea is found in the first noun, the wall set up between the two, the Gentiles without the promise and covenant of God, and the Jews, the people of promise, which contains in itself the notion of separation; the participle applies to it. Therefore τοῦφραγμοῦ is not the genitive of apposition (Meyer) or to be resolved into τὸν φραγμὸν τὸ μεσότοιχον ὄντα (Grimm, Clavis, sub voce); in that case we would have found here τὸν φραγμὸν τοῦ μεσοτοίχου. Luther too is incorrect: and has broken down the hedge, which was between. Nor is it=μεσότοιχον διαφράσσον (Grotius and others). Unserviceable here also is the distinction of Bengel: paries disjungit domos, sepes regiones. From Matthew 21:33; Isaiah 5:2, we are shown that φραγμός (in agreement with Ephesians 2:15) refers to the law, that is, to its quality or effect in separating the people of God, which permits it to be regarded as a partition wall. We may also refer it to the temple in which a type of the spiritual is presented, and to which the expressions here selected point; there was there a court of the Gentiles (Acts 21:28), though only in latter times, in the last temple; a vail, which separated like a wall, rent first at the death of the Redeemer. Hence the word λύσας is aptly chosen (John 2:19; Matthew 5:17; Galatians 2:18; 1 John 3:8; 2 Peter 3:10).49—All reference to the separated residence of Jews in cities, as in Frankfort, Rome and elsewhere (Gronow and others) and the like is to be rejected.

Ephesians 2:15. Having abolished (done away) in his flesh the enmity, even the law of the commandments expressed in ordinances [τὴν ἔχθραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸννόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμα σιν καταργήσας. See Textual Note 4]. The Apostle now adds, without a connecting particle, the meaning of the figure; he construes it thus:τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καταργήσας, but during the dictation inserts after αὐτοῦ the phrase τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν, the banner of this enmity; these two objects in the accusative representing two sides of one object, hence very well allowing the dependence on κατηργήσας. To τὸ μεσότοιχον corresponds τὴνἔ χθραν, denoting simply the literal reality, the division, the hostile separation and antagonism of Jews and Gentiles, and, since there is nothing to indicate any limitation, but as the context rather points to enmity of man towards God which is active behind this hostility of the Jews and Gentiles, including this latter at the same time (Ephesians 2:16). [So Alford and Ellicott: “The enmity due not only to Judaical limitations and antagonisms, but also and, as the widening context shows, more especially to the alienation of both Jew and Gentile from God.”—R.] Bucer: Vera tamen inter Judæos et ethnicos inimicitia, i.e., diversitas erat, quod illi verum Deum colerent, hi minime. It is incorrect to refer it exclusively to the enmity against God (Greek Fathers, Harless and others) or to the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Bleek [Eadie, Hodge] and others), or to understand only the cause of division that is the law (Luther, Calvin and others). It is correct however to understand that the Apostle places by the side of the existing fact, τὴν ἕχθραν, the cause of the same, τον νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι.

The law has its contents in “commandments:” αἱ ἐντολαί, the injunctions to be regarded and executed, are both the purely moral and the ceremonial commandments of God (Matthew 15:3; Matthew 22:36; Matthew 22:38; Romans 7:8-13), called also “of men” (Titus 1:14); the plural marks plurality, and points also to divisions. This is rendered prominent by the phrase ἐνδόγμασιν, joined closely without the article to ἐντολῶν, and defining its quality. Similarly: πίστις ἐν τῷ κνρίῳ (Ephesians 1:15), ἀγάπη ἐν πνεύματι (Colossians 1:8), σοφία ἐν μυστηρίῳ (1 Corinthians 2:7). Comp. Winer, pp. 129, 206. Δόγμα, used of regal orders (Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7), of apostolic determinations (Acts 16:4), means here as in Colossians 2:14 the statutes of the law; δογματίζεσθαι, in Colossians 2:20, is to be ordered or to order one’s self. The idea of a mandate is always contained in it. Erasmus: Ostendens legem imperiosam appellat illam τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐντέλλουσαν)—quomodo? non persuasione et lenitate aut promissis, sed præceptis quæ vocat Dogmata. Every ἐντολή appears then in a special, mandatory precept. [This view of the phrase is now the common one. Alford: “The law of decretory commandments.” For the other interpretations, see Harless and Eadie in loco.—R.]

Of this there is predicated καταργήσας (ἀργὸν ἀεργὸν ποιεῖν, Romans 3:31; 1 Corinthians 13:11): to make unavailing, to do away, to deprive of power. The ideal worth remains intact, so also the theocratic obligation; but in so far as the law imperiously binds the heart and will with casuistic ordinances for all cases, it is done away. In this too lies the cause of the enmity against God and men. [Eadie takes “law,” etc. to mean the ceremonial law. Hodge more correctly: “The idea probably is that the law in all its compass, and in all its forms, so far as it was a covenant prescribing the conditions of salvation, is abolished.” He extends it to all the law of God, written in the heart as well, while admitting a special reference to the Mosaic law.—R.]

This doing away took place “in his flesh.” As the decisive, main qualification it stands in an emphatic position. It means more than “in Himself,” denoting the real “likeness” to our “flesh,” in which He began His sanctifying, expiating sorrows, which slew what was opposed, which helped the right to full right, in active obedience to the law even to the acme, of the death on the cross, the passive obedience, thus, though without sin, bearing, feeling, overcoming the “enmity” with the “law,” thus “by virtue of His fleshly life under the law, which He gave to death, in order to receive it back from death living, glorious, free in spirit for us all” (Delitzsch), putting the law with its ordinances into inactivity, at the same time in His bodily life burying it. Bengel construes incorrectly: Est quasi stilo lapidari scriptum: Christus came sua inimicitiam, dogmatibus evangelicis in totum orbem deditis legem præceptorum sustulit; this is simply untrue historically, impossible logically, unnecessary grammatically, and too artificial. [It seems scarcely correct to render “by His flesh” (Hodge: “i.e., by His death”), since this leaves out of view the life of Christ as a satisfaction of the law. Besides ἐν rarely means simply by. Alford and Ellicott however thus limit it: “in His crucified flesh.”—The question of connection is more disputed. The article would precede, if it should be joined to ἔχθραν. Harless, De Wette, Meyer, Eadie, Hodge agree with Braune in joining it with καταργήσας, in emphatic position. To this Alford, who, with Ellicott and many of the earlier commentators, joins it with λύσας, objects, because it makes the instrumental predication precede the verb. If ἔχθαν is governed by καπαργήσας, the question is decided at once, while in any case this view seems preferable; the general sense remaining the same, although the allusion to the vail of the temple becomes more prominent, if Alford’s view be accepted.—R.]

Meyer and others take τὴνἔ χθραν by itself as in apposition to μεσότοιχον, detaching it from what follows; in that case τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν would stand before ἐν τῇ σαρκὶαὐτοῦ. [This is also the view of Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott. While it does not introduce any material difference into the interpretation of the passage, it modifies its form very considerably. And it seems the preferable view. The objection Braune raises is met at once by saying that his own interpretation assumes an after-thought influencing the order (see beginning of this verse). The emphatic phrase; “in His flesh” thus takes an emphatic position, whatever be its connection. The emphasis is altogether lost in the E. V., as any reader may perceive. This view allows of a nicer discrimination between the accusatives, introduces a needed explanation of the figurative expression: “middle wall,” while ἔχθραν is more usual after the verb λύειν than after καταργεῖν. Hodge thus paraphrases: “He is our peace, because He has made the two one, by removing the enmity or middle wall which divided the Jews and Gentiles, and this was done by abolishing the law.” This is correct, but omits the important description of the law and the emphatic: in His flesh.” Comp. Textual Note4.—R.]

Stier incorrectly joins ἐν δόγμασιν to νόμον; but then the article τόν would necessarily have been prefixed (1 Thessalonians 1:8) or ἐντολῶν have preceded νόμον (Colossians 1:8). Nor is “in his flesh” to be joined with “enmity” (Chrysostom), as though only a natural hatred among his people, among his kindred, were referred to. It is incorrect to understand νόμος τῶν ἐντολῶν as referring only to adiaphora (Grotius), to the ceremonial law (Bengel) [Eadie], or to the moral law alone (Calovius), or δόγματα as referring to philosophorum doctrinas (Grotius), since the readers are not homines triti in philosophorum Scriptis; quite as little can the doctrine of Christ be denoted thereby (Bengel and others), or nova præcepta (Fritzsche). Finally καταργήσας does not point to the removal of the theocratic obligation (Schenkel).

That he might create the two in himself into one new man [ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον].—Ἵνα introduces a final clause, giving here the purpose of καταργήσας, which defines λύσας more closely, and with this explains ποιήσας. He has done away the law in its commandments; destroyed the separating elements clinging to it, that He might κτίσῃ. Thus the ποιήσας is further defined as creating. The objects of this creation, τοὺςδύο, are the two great masses of people regarded as two individualities, as two, not a greater number of separate individuals beside each other, each of whom stands or falls for himself (Olshausen); still less is there involved a series of various specimens of the different races. The masculine denotes the persons, in distinction from the more general idea of the neuter (τὰ , Ephesians 2:14); the choice of words corresponds. That ἀνθρώπους is not inserted, is not to be explained by the wider scope, as Bengel thinks: eleganter omittit homines, antea enim vix humanum nomen tuiti erant. Ἐνἑαυτῷ places the Person of Christ again in the foreground: Ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem quærant (Calvin). [Hodge: “In virtue of union with Him,—union with Christ being the condition at once of their unity and of their holiness.” In His Person, at all events.—R.] The ground of the existence and permanence is in Him; He is the Author (κτίσῃ) and foundation, and at the same time the life-sphere, Creator and Second Adam, Progenitor of the new race, which stands in original peace with God. It is therefore not=δἰ ἑαυτοῦ (Greek Fathers), in order to exclude angels or other powers, as those through whom what is asserted was effected. But still less is it=per suam doctrinam(Grotius).

In this creation (κτίσῃ, Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:10) there is a purpose εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. Ἐνἑαυτῷ conditions ἅνθρωπος in the singular. Comp. Galatians 3:28 : πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; John 10:16. By εἷς καινὸς ἄνθρωπος is indicated: ὁρᾷς οὐχὶ τὸν Ἕλληνα γενόμενον Ἰουδαῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον κἀκεῖνον εἰς ἑτέραν κατάστασιν ἥκοντας οὐχ ἵνα τοῦτον ἕτερον ἑργάσηται, τὸν νόμον κατήργησεν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ. It is Very superficial and perverted to take “one new man” as a third, which is neither heathenism nor Judaism, without thinking of the moral renewal of persons (Baumgarten-Crusius). The preposition marks the purpose or tendency, and thus the creation as one not yet concluded; humanity, consisting of personally free individuals, is potentially renewed in Christ, but not yet actually.

[Alford: “Observe, not that He might reconcile the two to each other only, nor is the Apostle speaking merely of any such reconciliation: but that He might incorporate the two, reconciled in Him to God, into one new man,—the old man to which both belonged, the enemy of God, having been slain in His flesh on the cross. Observe, too, one new man: we are all in God’s sight, but one in Christ, as we are but one in Adam.”—R]

Hence: So making peace, ποιῶνεἴρήνην.—The present participle stands first for emphasis, marking a continued activity of Christ. The act of union does not therefore coincide with the act of creation. Hence Bucer is incorrect: pace facta. Since εἰρηνη has no limitation joined with it, that peace (between Jews and Gentiles) which the context indicates as the most immediate reference, is to be meant, but that which is implied also in “new man” (toward God) is not to be excluded (Schenkel [Eadie, Hodge], and others). Harless should not term the note of Chrysostom (πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ πρὸς ) correct only in the first half.

Ephesians 2:16. And might reconcile them both [καὶ ].—Καί connects this clause with ἵνα, on which the verb depends; so that this too belongs to the purpose of καταργήσας. The emphasis is on the verb which comes first. This compound occurs only here and in Colossians 1:20-21, and is a strengthened καταλλάσσειν, as ἀπεκδέχεσθαι and ἀποκαραδοκεῖν, not merely to expect, but to await, to expect with perseverance. The preposition ἀπό has the meaning “again” in composition (see Passow sub voce), but only when the notion of the verb itself includes this in some measure, as ἀποκαθίστημι of what is healed, restored (Matthew 12:13; Mark 3:5; Mark 8:25; Luke 6:10; Acts 1:6); certainly the notion “again” is near at hand in that of reconciliation, because separation and enmity are not original, and the reconciliation leads away from the present status back to the original one. Hence the strengthened notion is “reconcile again.” [So Calvin, Alford, Ellicott; but Eadie and Meyer object.—R.] Qui ita deposuerunt immicitiam, ut amicitia successerit, neque quidquam reliquum sit, quin concordes vivant ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι, cujus est unum caput Christus (Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 105).50—The object of the reconciliation: τοὺς . [The article renders the object definite: them both or both of us.—R.] Since Paul does not say δύο, which is a mere numeral, but ἀμφότεροι, which denotes diversity, he renders prominent the difficulty and importance of the reconciliation.

In one body to God through the cross [ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ στανροῦ].—“In one body” denotes the sphere in which the reconciliation is consummated: over against “both” there is now only “one body,” in which they are; each does not need a separate one. To supply “being,” ὄντας, in thought is the simplest interpretation. The phrase refers, like ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸς γάρ (Ephesians 2:14), to His Person, as the only one in which both are redeemed, to an organism (σῶμα, not σάρξ) in its outward appearance, thus to the body of Christ, the Church. [So Hodge, Alford, Ellicott.] It is not, sicut Latinis collegia vocantur corpora, corporation=Society (Grotius).

The end of the reconciliation is τῷθεῷ. It is not God that is reconciled with men,51 but men with God. What has all along been implied, conceived of in general, left indefinite in the words “peace” (Ephesians 2:14-15), “the enmity” (Ephesians 2:15), “new man” (Ephesians 2:15), is now definitely expressed as the other side. The added qualification of the reconciliation: “through the [or His] cross” refers to the death on the cross, in which the ἱλασμός the atonement, is marked as the act, which is the condition of the at-onement. Comp. Doctr. Note 3.

Hence it is not justifiable to take ἑνἑνὶσώματι as=εἰς ε͂ν σῶμα (Delitzsch), or to refer it to the body of Christ on the cross (Chrysostom, Bengel: cruci affixo, Harless, Hofmann and others), since then διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ would be altogether unnecessary or should be joined with the following άποκετείνας (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 1, p. 381); nor is the thought to be completed thus: Christ has reconciled in one single body, or made one single body (His own) to a unity, including them in the same fellowship with God; there is no reference to the antithesis of many sacrifices before and outside of Christ. Grotius interprets διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ incorrectly: Simul intelligit doctrinam cruce sanctam; sed crucem dicere malint, ut intelligamus, quanto res ista Christo steterit; Stier too misinterprets: the power and fear of the cross which is to be preached. Nor can we accept a reconciliation of “both with each other, taking “to God” as dative commodi: ut Deo serviant (Grotius).

Having slain the enmity on it [ἀποκτείναςτὴν ἔχθρανἐναὐτῷ].—The aorist participle defines the mode of consummating the reconciliation, explaining τοῦ σταυροῦ, on which account ἑναὐτῷ can refer only to this: the Crucified One, who was slain, the Dying One, slays and has slain “the enmity,” which includes here as in Ephesians 2:15 both the enmity between “both “and against God, the latter being more prominent here, the former in Ephesians 2:15. On the cross the chief matter was, that He who had been rejected by both Jews and Gentiles should through a propitiation in Himself reconcile both to God. It is incorrect to exclude from τὴν ἐχθραν enmity toward God (Schenkel, Meyer) or of the Jews and Gentiles against each other (Rueckert, Harless, Hofmann), for the peace of these with each other does not condition their peace with God, indeed enmity against God participates in the hate these have toward each other, which the law occasions and furthers. [Alford and Ellicott adopt this wide or complex reference. Hodge however says: “The enmity is that which subsisted between God and man.” Many doubt the propriety of predicating ἔχθραν of God, who certainly has ὀργήν. Comp. Romans, p. 165. In the passage there commented on, the active sense of the adjective must be accepted, I think, but that does not seem so bold and harsh as to say that ἔχθραν is “God’s enmity.” The wider reference is better sustained by the context, and of itself tones down the objectionable form without at all interfering with the implied truth respecting God’s anger against sin and the satisfaction rendered on the cross.—The view of Meyer is accepted by Eadie, though there seems to be a confusion in his language. But this limited meaning does not “at all satisfy the solemnity of the sentence, or of the next two verses.” Enmity here is “that between man and God, which Christ did slay on the cross, and which being brought to an end, the separation between Jew and Gentile, which was the result of it, was done away” (Alford). The fact that our participle is aorist, and in all probability denotes an antecedent act, is no objection to this view, as Eadie seems to think, since what Christ did on the cross (here spoken of) necessarily precedes what He designs doing through His cross (“reconcile them both in one body to God”), and the enmity of man against God was as fully and effectually destroyed in that act as that between Jew and Gentile. Meyer’s position takes this distinction of enmity as the basis of the “one body,” in which both are reconciled to God, but this seems to condition the latter on the former.—R.] It is a perversion to understand τὴνἔχθραν as the law (Koppe and others). Comp. on Ephesians 2:14. Ἐναὐτῷ cannot be referred to ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι (Bengel, Hofmann).

Ephesians 2:17. And he came and preached peace [καὶ ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην].—Since the verb is not dependent upon ἵνα, but independent, it cannot be joined with Ephesians 2:16. Καί connects rather with Ephesians 2:14 : He Himself is our Peace and announces that Himself (Harless). What intervenes explains the former statement, by showing its meaning and truth in His doings even unto death: He has established peace, therefore He is our Peace. This is to be regarded as pre-supposed in ἕλθών. Accordingly His coming is after His resurrection. Bengel is excellent: Veniens a morte, profectione ad inferos, resurrectione, victor lætus ipse ultro nuntiavit. To this the verb εὐηγγελίσατο, “preached,” refers, which is not a predicting of the future, but a message from one who is present, who has come. Ἐλθών is added descriptively, and is in accordance with the promise (John 14:18): “I come to you,” denoting there His continued presence, insigne verbum (Bengel). Chrysostom well says: οὐ διʼ ἑτέρου ἔπεμψεν, οὐδὲ διʼ ἀλλοῦ τινὸς ταῦτα ἐμήνυσεν, ἀλλʼ αὐτὸς διʼ ἑαυτοῦ. The Risen One is Himself an actual announcement of the attained victory and peace; He is present in the coming of the Holy Ghost, and also with His messengers and their gospel. So in 2 Timothy 1:10, where the ἐπιφάνεια of the Risen One and His gospel are spoken of.

Thus the proffering and appropriating of the established peace is emphasized, and “preaching peace” is distinguished from “being peace.” Evidently we should understand both peace with one another and with God. Accordingly it is incorrect to regard ἐλθών as redundant (Grotius and others), or to refer it to the Incarnation (Chrysostom, Anselm, Harless); the expression can by no means be referred merely to the resurrection and the salutation of peace (Bengel), or to the coming in the Holy Spirit (Olshausen, Schenkel), or in the Apostles (Ambrose, Calvin and others); nor can it be=caused to be proclaimed (Grotius), since ἐλθών is found here and is not redundant. “Peace” should not be limited to the relation to God (Chrysostom, Harless [Hodge]) or of the Jews and Gentiles toward each other (Bleek, Meyer). [The repetition and emphasis are against this.] As regards the matters here treated of, we should not compare here John 10:16; John 12:20-23; Matthew 8:11; Matthew 14:14, as though this were that which He “came and preached.” We should rather be reminded of the renewal of the Apostles, the conversion of Paul, and of Romans 8:9-10; Romans 8:14-17; Rom 15:18; 2 Corinthians 13:3; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 1:13. [So Eadie, Alford, Ellicott (and Hodge, except as regards the comprehensive sense of “peace”).—R.] The tense of the verb εὐηγγελίσατο defines the point of time of the conversion of individuals; then Christ brought it to them.

To you who were afar off and peace to those who were nigh, ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰνκαὶ εὶρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς.—This is to be taken in accordance with Ephesians 2:13. The readers as originally Gentiles are those “afar off,” and on this account they come first, as indeed historically such were converted to the Church, the Jews, “those nigh,” falling into the background. The repetition of εἰρήνην before this last term marks their need of this, notwithstanding their nearness; ὑμῖν however comprises both, since both (Jews and Gentiles) were in the Church, though the latter constituted the main element.52 Comp. Acts 16:23. The double εἰρήνην is derived from Isaiah 57:19. There שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם refers not inaptly but emphatically, like the double ναὶ ναί, οὒ ὀὒ (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12), to Gentiles and Jews, and hence the repetition. The dative depends on the verb, not on εἰρήνη as dative commodi; the interpretation of Harless compelling him to accept this view of it: the purport of His message was a peace which respected all, Jews as well as Gentiles. [So Hodge, but the other is far simpler, and accepted by Meyer, Eadie, Alford, and most.—R.]

Ephesians 2:18. For through him [ὅ τιδιʼ αὐτοῦ].—Ὅτι is here evidently=quia; it is probatio ab effectu (Calvin).53 The purport of the εὐηγγελίσατο cannot be thus introduced (Koppe); this is set forth in “peace,” and it cannot be preached, that (ὅτι) we have, but only: because we have, or: that we may have. The nature of the “peace” is not to be explained by this clause (Rueckert); this has been already defined. The truth of the assertion: “came and preached” is shown in a reality (ἔχομεν), the reality of the result of this preaching (τὴν προσαγωγήν); because the preaching of Christ is spoken of, διʼ αὐτοῦ stands first. Were the proclamation the main matter, then ἔχομεν would have taken the first place. “Through Him” denotes the mediation by means of the entire Divine-human Person; it is not=“through his blood” (Olshausen). [Hodge suggests this, but not to the exclusion of other thoughts.—R.]

We both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father [ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ].—Προσαγωγή here, Ephesians 3:12 and Romans 5:2 (εἰς χάριν) is the presupposition to the entrance into the holiest (Hebrews 10:19) and “into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord” (2 Peter 1:11) and the occasion of the drawing near (Hebrews 10:22); it is not merely the right and permission to do so, but a fact in which we rejoice as a reality (1 Peter 3:18) that has become ours (ἔχομεν); the drawing near should not be wanting; ἐσχήκαμεν (Romans 5:2) gives prominence to the appropriation as a continuing fact, ἕχομεν denotes only the present possession, the acceptance which has taken place. The underlying figure is according to Hebrews 10:19-22 the entrance into the most holy place. In προσαγωγή Stier finds indicated a free approach and an ever closer approach. [The active, transitive sense: admission, introduction, is preferred by Ellicott, Eadie, and Hodge apparently, following Tholuck (Romans 5:2), while Alford prefers the intransitive sense, access, which does not differ greatly from the other, certainly does mean merely liberty of approach, and leave the actual enjoyment of the privilege out of view. “Introduction” certainly does not bring out the idea of “repetition, present liberty of approach,” as “access” does.—Meyer and Eadie remark that it means more than “door,” John 10:9. Comp. Romans, pp. 160, 161.—R.] We need not with Chrysostom (οὐκ εἶπεν πρόσοδον· οὐ γὰρ ʼ ἑαυτοῦ προσήλθομεν, ἀλλʼ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ προσήχθημεν) and Meyer think of a προσαγωγεύς to the king. [This thought need not be peremptorily rejected, however, though the other is on the whole preferable (Ellicott, Eadie, Alford).—R.]. The notion of “leading into” [Meyer] does not suit the other passages, Ephesians 3:12; Romans 5:2.

The words: οἱ placed in juxtaposition, mark strongly the removed division, the unity, that too in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. They are not merely within the body of Christ, members of the Church, but are animated and impelled by the Spirit ruling there, which He has sent. “In one Spirit” refers to “in one body;” the two expressions being parallel. It is certainly not=unanimis voluntate,ὁμοθυμαδόν (Anselm). [The reference to the Holy Spirit scarcely admits of a reasonable doubt. But the preposition is not instrumental. To take as such destroys the parallelism with “in one body,” and confuses the relations of this clause. It is greatly to be regretted that this verse, so explicit and discriminating in its designations of the work of the Trinity in our salvation, should be thus confused. Dr. Hodge, whose notes on this verse are otherwise so excellent, does not bring out fully the correct interpretation of this preposition. “The Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital sphere or element in which both parties have their common πρωσαγωγή to the Father” (Ellicott).—R.] “Unto the Father,” ad Patrem ut ad Patrem. Hoc versu fit mentio Christi, Spiritus, Patris, eodem ordine, quo Eph 2:12, 1 Corinthians 1:3; 1 Corinthians 1:5; aliter Acts 1:4-5 (Bengel). The choice of prepositions is remarkably apt:πρὸς τὸν πατέρα διὰ Χριστοῦ εν πνεύματι, Unto the Father through Christ in the Spirit.

Sketch of their present condition. Ephesians 2:19-22.

Ephesians 2:19. So then ye are no longer [ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἑστέ].—Ἄραοὖν is very often used by Paul (Romans 5:18; Romans 7:3; Romans 8:12, etc. Winer, pp. 414, 519); it is=hinc ergo [accordingly then, comp. on Galatians 6:10.—R.]; ἄρα draws a conclusion from Ephesians 2:14-18; οὖν continues the discourse. Οὐκέτι, “no longer,” is placed immediately after ἄραοὖν, for the sake of emphasis.

Strangers and sojourners, ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι.—Luther’s rendering: Gäste und Freundlinge, unnecessarily transposes the words. The expression proceeds from the more remote, ξένοι, to the less remote, πάροικοι. The former is the antithesis of ἐπιχώριος, and thus of the following συνπολῖται. So “brethren” are termed (3 John 554) “strangers;” it is=נֵּר. The latter word, πάροικοι=תּוֹשָׁב, which is often joined with the former (Leviticus 25:35; Leviticus 25:40). Leviticus 22:10-11, where the LXX oppose πάροικος ἱερέως and οἰκογενεῖς αὐτου, forbidding the former and permitting the latter to eat of the holy things, seems to have been in the Apostle’s mind. Πάροικοι is then here the opposite of οικεῖοι, and means inquilini (from incolo, incolinus), qui domicilium in aliquo loco habent sine jure civitatis, hospites in urbe aliqua (Grotius). The frequent figurative descriptions of the kingdom of God as the city or house of God (1 Timothy 3:15; Galatians 4:26 and Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 12:22) here evidently pass over into each other (συνπολῖται—οἰκεῖοι); there is not however a union or a mixing of these figures, but the πολιτεία is regarded as a more extended household. It inheres in the matter itself, that the citizens of the kingdom of God, have now filial and household privileges with Him, His whole people become themselves the holy house, the temple in which His Spirit dwells (Harless, Stier). The figure of the house and building predominates (Ephesians 2:20-22). We should not think of proselytes (Stier), nor take ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι as the antithesis to συνπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων, which is enhanced in meaning by οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ (Meyer). [The plausible parallelism of Harless and Bengel, adopted by Braune, is doubted by Alford and Ellicott, but accepted by Eadie.—R.]

But ye are.—The repetition of ἐστέ, in accordance with the best authorities (see Textual Note 9), is emphatic, like Romans 8:15; 1 Corinthians 2:6-7; Hebrews 12:18; Hebrews 12:22.

Fellow-citizens with the saints [συνπο λὶται55 τῶν ἁγίων].—Among “the saints” we can include only those who have been thus termed from the beginning of the Epistle, Christians. Bengel (Israelis cfr. iii. 18), Stier, Bleek, and others, have taken occasion from Ephesians 2:12 to refer it to the spiritual Israel; but this word being without closer qualification scarcely admits of this. Rueckert understands the Jewish Christians alone under the term. Still less are we to think of the patriarchs (Chrysostom), or the angels (Calvin, and others), or to include them here. Still the notion should be extended as it has been by Zanchius: omnium vere sanctorum, qui unquam fuerunt futurive sunt. [So Eadie. Alford: “Not angels, nor Jews, nor Christians then alive merely, but the saints of God in the widest sense, all the members of the mystical body of Christ, the commonwealth of the spiritual Israel.” Ellicott: “The members of that spiritual community in which Jew and Gentile Christians were now united and incorporated, and to which the external theocracy formed a typical and preparatory institution.” This view, which is that of Meyer, Hodge and many others, is preferable, notwithstanding the objection of Braune, since Ephesians 2:13 could not fail to remain in the Apostle’s mind.—R.]

And of the household of God, οἰκεῖοιτοῦθεοῦ.—This means those who belong to the house, to the family, whose Head and Father is God. To the right of citizen is added that of the house, of the child, of the heir, ye are not merely menials, servants, but members of the family, children. They have a relation of fellowship not merely to “the saints,” but to “God” also. Οἰκεῖος by itself would mean only domesticus, one who dwelt in the same house, as 1 Timothy 5:8, and as οἰκιακός, Matthew 10:36, so that it would remain undecided in what precise relation he stood. The genitive τοῦθεοῦ, “of God,” in accordance with συνπολῖται τῶν , obliges us to apply it to the most intimate relation, that of a child. It is incorrect to understand, according to Galatians 6:10 : οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως, religionis socii (Winer, who compares οἰκεὶοιφιλοσοφίας, philosophiæ addicti), here familiares, intimate friends (Theodoret: προσοικειωθέντες, relatives); quite as little should we take the family here as the stones of the house in which God dwells (Harless), even though the next verse passes to that figure.

Ephesians 2:20. Built up upon the foundation, ἐποικοδομηθέντες ὲπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ.—The participle characterizes the οἰκεῖοι as members, who are themselves first wrought, and inserted in the whole as “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5), and that too upon the foundation which is laid. Vulgate and Bengel: superædificate. [We have the noun super-structure, but not a corresponding verb. The phrase “built up” is the nearest equivalent. “Having been built up” has perhaps too strict a reference to the past act.—R.] The aorist denotes the act of being built upon, and the context refers only to what has already been attained, not to the further building, which is emphasized in 1 Corinthians 3:10, but first mentioned here in Ephesians 2:22. Hence we have here ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ not: ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον (Romans 15:20), nor yet: ἐπὶ τοῦ θεμελίου (=from the foundation, over the foundation; see Winer, p. 350), which would point to the further building. The dative here is not then “accidental” (Meyer). [Ellicott remarks on the assertion of Meyer, that the dative of rest, instead of the genitive of rest, is accidental: “the former denotes absolute and less separable, the latter partial and more separable super-position.” The apparent exception (Ephesians 1:10 : ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) is a reading of doubtful authority.—R.)

There is here no leap from one figure (that of the family) to another (that of a building); it is only on the other side of the same figure, which has in the temple its deeper or higher unity. Comp. Numbers 12:7; Hebrews 3:2-6; 1Ti 3:15; 2 Timothy 2:19-21 :1 Corinthians 3:9-10; Colossians 2:7; Judges 20:0; Acts 20:32. [If there be a transition it is quite easy and natural, “the employment of a term in a double meaning. ‘House’ has a similar twofold signification with us, as the ‘house of Bourbon,” or ‘house of Stuart,’—phrases in which the word is employed in a secondary and emphatic signification. We speak too of such houses being ‘built up’ by the wisdom or valor of their founders. In such cases, as Alford says, there is a transition from a political and social to a material image” (Eadie).—R] Whether θεμέλιος is masculine, as in 1 Corinthians 3:10-12; 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 11:10; Acts 21:14; Acts 21:19, or neuter, as in Acts 16:26, can be determined as little from the text as Romans 15:20; 1 Timothy 6:19; nor can it be decided on the ground that the neuter is used only metaphorically, which would be inadmissible here (Harless), but rather from the fact that the masculine seems to be the prevalent usage with Paul.

Of the apostles and prophets, τῶνἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν.—These genitives set forth who has laid the foundation; 1 Corinthians 3:10 : θεμέλιον ἔθηκα; Romans 15:20 : έπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομω. For: testimonium apostolorum et prophetarum substrictum est fidei credentium omnium; per illos jactum est fundamentum (Bengel). Comp. Ephesians 3:5-7. It is not then a genitive of apposition, which would designate the Apostles and Prophets as the foundation (Chrysostom, A-Lapide, Estius, [Baumgarten-Crusius, Olshausen, De Wette, Hodge], and others), for Christ is not primus inter pares (1 Corinthians 1:12-13; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and Revelation 21:14 is a vision, in which the name of Christ is not mentioned, and the names of the Apostles are only inscribed on the foundations. Nor is it a possessive, genitive (Anselm, Beza, [Bucer, Cocceius, Alford], and others), for Christ can at least not be the foundation, where He is represented as the corner-stone.

[This view may be now considered the usual one. It is adopted by Bullinger, Calvin, Calixtus, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Rueckert, Harless, Holzhausen, Bleek, Meyer, Eadie, Ellicott, Schenkel. This takes the genitive as that of “originating cause.” The only possible objection to it is that urged by Alford against the introduction of those who form parts of the building as agents; but on this very foundation they rested even if they laid it. To take the genitive as appositional is grammatical enough, and does not necessarily involve doctrinal difficulties, while it avoids confusing the foundation and the corner-stone, as the possessive sense does; but the whole analogy of Scripture figures seems to be against it. The simplest, least embarrassed view is then: “The doctrine of the Apostles, i.e. Christ preached, is the θεμέλιος; Christ personal the άκρογωνιαῖος; Christ mystical the πλήρωμα” (Ellicott). This view elevates evangelical preaching, while it sends us back of councils and creeds to Christ for our doctrine.—R.]

The context, which admits only of the preaching of the Christ already come, the order of the words and the omission of the article before προφητῶν, thus denoting a single category, compel us to think chiefly of the Apostles alone (Harless, Stier, Hofmann, II. 2, p. 103),—who are prophets also (Ephesians 3:11): the first term referring more to their personal testimony respecting what they have seen and heard, the latter more to the testimony communicated through the Spirit,—and not to the Old Testament prophets (Greek Fathers, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Calovius, Rueckert, [Barnes], and others), or to the New Testament prophets, subordinate to the Apostles (Pelagius, Bengel: qui apostolis sunt proximi, Koppe, Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek). [The reasons for a reference to New Testament prophets seem far more decisive than those which support the identity of Apostles and prophets in this passage. The absence of the article is not conclusive. So Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott. The reference to the Old Testament prophets is untenable; comp. Eadie and Alford in loco.—R.] Of Montanism with its continuation of the Apostolate by means of prophets, Zeller and his teacher Baur alone can think. On the significance of the view here set forth, see Doctr. Note 6.

Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone [ὄντος . See Textual Note10].—Participium ὄντος initio commatis hujus, valde demonstrat in præsenti tempore (Bengel), and marks the being so. Ἀκρογωνιαίον to which some codices add λίθον, occurs only here and 1 Peter 2:6 : λίθον , from Isaiah 28:16; comp. Matthew 21:42 : λίθος—ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. Lapis angularis, ut duos parietes ipse medius contineret (Jerome) καὶ τοὺς τοίχους συνέχει καὶ τοῦς θεμελίους (Chrysostom), is the stone, which upholds the connection of the single ones with the whole, gives support to the whole edifice, is the most important stone, designating here the importance and indispensableness of Christ above the Apostles, just as in 1 Corinthians 3:11 Christ is termed the foundation, and the Apostles those who have in preaching laid this foundation and built others upon it. The foundation on which the Ephesians have been built is the preaching of the Apostles, but Christ is the corner-stone, who gives support to the whole and to the parts, Christ Himself, the living historical Christ. It must not be supposed that the Apostles personally are a foundation; they themselves need the corner-stone and are also built upon it. The various readings (see Textual Note10) do not alter the sense, only αὐτοῦ marks somewhat more strongly the Person of Christ, and τοῦ in א., or Ἰησοῦ in the others the historical Christ. Αὐτοῦ is not to be referred to θεμελίῳ (Bengel and others). The article is naturally wanting after αὐτοῦ, since no reference to what precedes is intended; the “cornerstone” is not for the “foundation;” that would be the support of the foundation; the support of the edifice is spoken of. A reference to the union of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Theodoret, Estius and others) is too remote according to the context, Ephesians 2:19 : “ye no longer are.”

Ephesians 2:21. In whom, ἐνᾤ.—This is to be referred then to the Person of Christ, not to “corner-stone” (Estius, Koppe and others), or “foundation” (Holzhausen), ἐφʼ ᾦ or ἐφʼ οὗ the building might be raised. It is not then: above which (Beza: Super), nor: on which (Luther), nor yet: through whom (Flatt: per), but like Ephesians 1:10 : ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, who is the point of union and support of the framing together and growing, without which the building falls, dissolves, and does not grow (Rueckert, Harless, Stier), [Alford, Hodge, Eadie and most.—R.]

All the building, πᾶσαοἰκοδομή.—Although πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή is the least sustained reading, and the article should be rejected, and the use of πᾶς with and without the article according to Romans 3:9 (πᾶν στόμα—πᾶς ὁ κόσμος) is such that the former would mean; the whole building and the latter: every building, yet here we must in accordance with the context interpret: the whole building, as πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραηλ (Acts 2:36), which however can be regarded as a proper name not requiring the article, see Winer, p. 106. Œkumenius reads πᾶσα οἰκοδομή and explains: ἡ καθόλου ἐκκλησια. Ignatius uses πᾶσα ἐπιστολή, πᾶσα ἐκκλησία in the sense of the whole letter, the whole church. The later Greek usage justifies this explanation and the omission of the article.

[Those commentators who are unwilling to accept the poorly supported reading of the Rec., as a rule take refuge from the incongruous interpretation; every building, which usage favors, in some such explanation as Braune gives. Meyer, whose grammatical accuracy rarely leads him astray, in this case insists on a strict interpretation. Alford: “Are we then to render ungrammatically, and force words to that which they cannot mean? Certainly not”—“the account to be given of such later usages is, that gradually other words besides proper names became regarded as able to dispense with the article after πᾶς, so that as they said first πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα (Matthew 2:23), and then πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ (Acts 2:36), so they came at length to say πᾶσα κτίσις (as we ourselves, ‘all creation’ for ‘all the creation’) and πᾶσαοἰκοδομή, when speaking of one universal and notorious building.” Ellicott accepts this view, but doubts the existence of another distinct instance in the New Testament. Eadie thinks the passages cited above and Luke 4:13; Acts 7:22; Colossians 1:15, at least show a transition to a larger usage. Meyer’s grammatical haste leads him into an unwarranted exegesis, for what warrant is there for calling separate congregations οἰκοδομη.—R.]

Οἰκοδομή is like 1 Corinthians 3:9, building, the edifice in the process of erection, which grows into a temple, especially as Ephesians 2:22 : συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς κατοικητήριον, marks decidedly the process, requiring the substantive idea of this verse to be that of a building going up. [Hence our word is chosen, not οἶκος.—R.] Our verse then contains an entirely general thought, which Ephesians 2:22 applies to the Ephesian church, in the figure of a temple, of the Church as one whole on one foundation; the view that every Christian is a temple of the Holy Ghost (2 Corinthians 6:16), and every congregation also such an one, being quite remote. Hence it does not mean: every building (Meyer), nor “every part of the building,” walls, roof, etc. (Chrysostom), since it is not these parts, but the building as a whole that grows into a temple. [Comp. however Eadie in loco.—R.]

Fitly framed together is growing [συναρμολογουμένη αὔξει].—The present αὔξει, instead of αὐξάνεται, like αὔξῃ (Colossians 2:19), is rare but classical, denoting together with the present participle the process, which the Apostle considers merely as a spectator; the participle sets forth the form of the growth. Συναρμολογεῖν from ἀρμός, groove, joint, member (armus, artus), as Hebrews 4:12, occurs only here and in Ephesians 4:16, and according to this and the parallel passage Colossians 2:19 is=framed together, incorporated together. The figure is derived from the organism of the body.—Αὐξάνειν (sometimes transitive=augere, as in 1Co 3:6-7; 2 Corinthians 9:10, but usually intransitive) is used most exactly of plants (Matthew 6:28; Matthew 13:32), but of men also (Luke 1:80; Luke 2:40; 1 Peter 2:2), of a nation (Acts 7:17), of the word of God (Acts 6:7; Acts 19:20), of faith (2 Corinthians 10:15), of growth in grace (2 Peter 3:18; comp. Colossians 1:10); John the Baptist uses it in a purely external sense of Christ (John 3:30 : δεῖ αὐξάνειν). The growth is not then merely an outward extension, but respects the number of the called and their progress toward perfection (Nitzsch). Hence Grotius is incorrect: quorum jam mœnia surgunt; the citizens themselves are largely involved. Bengel: crescit coagmentata, Vulgate: constructa, but these renderings are insufficient.

[Alford: “Both participle and verb imply that the fitting together and the growing are still going on: and the only way which we in English have to mark this so as to avoid the chance of mistake, is by the auxiliary verb substantive, and the participle. The bare present, ‘growth,’ is in danger of being mistaken for the abstract quality, and the temporal development is thus lost sight of: whereas the other, in giving prominence to that temporal development, also necessarily implies the ‘normal, perpetual unconditioned nature of the organic increase’ (Ellicott).”—R.]

Unto a holy temple, εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον.—The goal of the growth is set forth in the figure of the temple in Zion. It is mere playing with the text to refer it to the temple of Diana, which cedere debet (Bengel) to this. [Meyer remarks: “This is not to be translated: unto a holy temple; for the notion of several temples was foreign to the Apostle in consequence of the Jewish national peculiarity, but: unto the holy temple, which does not require the article.” This accords with the extensive reference advocated above.—R.]

In the Lord, ἐνκυρίῳ.—This phrase is to be joined with “holy,” characterizing the sacredness of their temple as inward, vital, proceeding from, effected and nourished by Him.—[So Harless, Usteri, De Wette, Hofmann, Bleek.—R.] Unquestionably Christ is meant, as the Apostolic usus loquendi (Winer, p. 118) and the context which refers back to ἐνὧ, demand; He is the Mediator, in whom the members become οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ. Hence ἐν κυρίῳ is not to be taken as the simple dative (Beza, Koppe [Macknight] and others), or joined with ναόν κνρίου i.e., Dei (Bengel). Others rightly refer it to Christ, but incorrectly join it with ναὸν ἅγιον as one notion (Stier), or with αὔξει (Meyer), in spite of ἐν ῳ. [The construction last named is rendered still more objectionable by taking ὲν=“through” (Grotius, Wolf, and Schenkel, who has a fondness for this instrumental sense of the proposition). Hodge suggests the same view, but prefers that of Meyer, which is tautological. Ellicott objects to the connection with ἅγιον, that it “gives perhaps a greater prominence to the special nature of the holiness than the context requires.” He therefore prefers the view of Stier, taking the phrase as a kind of tertiary predicate, almost=“and it is a holy temple in the Lord, and in Him alone.” Alford thinks this more in accordance with the Apostle’s style, and it is favored by ἐν πνεύματι, Ephesians 2:22. So Eadie.—R.]

Ephesians 2:22. In whom ye also [ἐνᾦ καὶ ὑμεῖς].—Per anaphoram iteratur ἐν ᾦ (Bengel), which is to be joined to “Christ Jesus Himself,” as Ephesians 1:13. It is not to be connected with κυρίῳ (Harless, Meyer, Schenkel) because the whole clause is parallel to the preceding one; still less however to “holy temple” (Calixtus, Matthies [Eadie] and others), since they are not built in a temple for a habitation. “Ye also” places the readers as being Christians, without any reference to their coming out of heathenism, as Baumgarten Crusius and Bleek suppose, in connection with the whole (“the whole building”). This is in accordance with the parallelism of the application in Ephesians 2:22, which is not tautological, but marks a dialectic advance. [Most commentators take “in the Lord” as the antecedent of the relative. “You also,” not “even you,” “καί with its ascensive and slightly contrasting force marking the exalted nature of the association in which the Ephesians shared” (Ellicott).—R.]

Are being builded together, συνοικοδομεῖσθε.—This is indicative, not imperative (Calvin and others), according to the context, which says what the readers, and the church in general, are, not what they ought to be. The preposition συν as in συναρμολογουμένη makes the connection with each other and with the whole; hence not merely with each other (Meyer), nor only with “the whole building” (Harless). The verb points to internal edification more strongly than αὕξει denotes the process of becoming built, magis magisque coaptari (Bucer); hence with Luther we should retain: miterbaut Werdet, not seid (Passavant). [“Are being builded together” is the nearest English equivalent. The preposition refers to the close and compact union of the component parts of the building (Ellicott).—R.]

For an habitation of God, εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ.—This sets forth the goal, as in Ephesians 2:21. The word here chosen in the stead of ναόν occurs only here and in Revelation 18:2, marking the place of dwelling (Luther: Behausung), while ναόν marks the place of worship. In this there is implied a significant advance, which explains the idea of the church. Comp. Doct. Note 5. The genitive τοῦθεοῦ designates the Master of the house, who goes in and out, doing, regulating, taking care of everything, even to the smallest and most external matters. Hence this is not the same idea as in the previous verse with only a change of expression (Meter, Schenkel), though it is not to be referred to individual Christians (Harless) and quite as little to be taken as dependent on αὔξει, ἐν ᾦ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσαε being regarded as a parenthesis (Griesbach, Knapp), so that the sense would be: that a dwelling of God might arise (Koppe, Rueckert).

In the Spirit, ἐνπνεύματι.—This, being parallel to “in the Lord,” which qualifies “holy,” defines more closely the phrase, “of God,” His relation to the “habitation”: It is God, who dwells in you, in His church, in the Spirit as the element of His presence, hence in the Holy Spirit. The comparison with χαρὰ ἐν πνεύατι ἁγίῳ (Romans 14:17), ἀγάπη ἐν πνεύατι (Colossians 1:8) should not be so decidedly rejected as inappropriate by Meter, as though this were possible only with abstract terms. Ephesians 4:1 : δέσμιος ἐν Χριστῷ or κυρίῳ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 : νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ are by no means abstract. Comp. on the idea of this verse, 1 Corinthians 3:16 : ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν to 2 Corinthians 6:16; Romans 8:11. As the Church is a temple, which is holy not merely outwardly, but “in the Lord,” so it is also a dwelling of God, where He does not dwell as the Shekinah in the temple, but in the Spirit, in His, the Holy Spirit, who is the Regent in this edifice, as He is efficient in its growth and occupation. So Rieger, Harless, Stier. It is not then=πνευματικόν (Greek Fathers, Rueckert and others), in accordance with 1 Peter 2:5 : οἶκος πνευματικός; nor is ἐν = διά (Theophylact [E. V.] and others), nor is the connection with the verb admissible: by virtue of, by means of the Holy Ghost ye are built together (Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek). [Hodge also prefers this view, which disturbs the parallelism, giving the phrase an unwarranted emphasis. The view of Rueckert is against the whole sense of the passage (Alford). Against Meyer’s objection to the interpretation of Braune, see Ellicott in loco, Comp. Eadie, and Galatians 5:5, against the distinction of Harless respecting the use of the article with πνεῡμα The reference to the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly the correct one and thus the verse brings the Trinity into view.—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Trinity. Ephesians 2:18 points to the Trinity: To the Father through Christ in the Spirit. But the allusion in Ephesians 2:22 is more obscure. [Yet Alford correctly says of the latter part of this section: “Thus we have the true temple of the Father, built in the Son, inhabited in the Spirit; the offices of the three blessed Persons being distinctly pointed out; God the Father, in all His fulness, dwells in, fills the church: that church is constituted an holy temple to Him in The Son,—is inhabited by Him in the ever-present indwelling of the Holy Spirit.”—R.]

2. The anthropology of this section.

a. Heathenism in distinction from Judaism. The heathen are termed those “afar off” the Jews those “nigh.” The latter had the theocracy and a covenant of God with them, repeated in many ways, and containing a glorious promise; the former were without hope and without God. For neither in the idol deities of the people, nor in the fancied deities of the philosophers and the educated, did they have the living God; neither nature (Romans 1:19-20; Acts 14:17; Acts 17:27), nor conscience could reveal to them the mercy, and the holy and sanctifying love of God, as this had become evident to the Jews in theocratic training and guidance. The heathen with their natural gifts wallowed ever more deeply in the creature, the Jews with their gracious gifts relied more and more on God’s election, proudly exalting themselves, as did the former. Such distinctions, defining the relation of God to the nations and of the nations to God, define at the same time differences in the moral conduct of the Gentiles and the Jews. The former, left to themselves, did not see the arm of God shown to be so strong in nature, or the finger of God warning in the conscience, but fell into the mire, into the starless night of vile immorality; heathenism becomes ever worse and worse (Romans 1:18-32); modern heathenism, which not only struggles to be free from the arm of God’s power, but tears itself away from the heart of God with its thoughts of peace, is even more loathsome. Judaism falls away into externality (“the so-called circumcision in the flesh,” Ephesians 2:11; Romans 2:14-29) throwing the theocratic feature into the background and out of practice, but giving prominence and power to the national element; modern Judaism has lapsed into the most frivolous emptiness.

b. Heathenism and Judaism are alike in this, that external position, neither in natural endowments nor in the gifts of revelation, decides as to the personal state of salvation. Whether one is a “stranger,” as a heathen, or a “sojourner” as a Jew, amounts to nothing; he ought and must still be and become “of the household of God.” Let him who enjoys the gifts of grace, think rather how to use them, to make them efficient in himself, than in false delight to despise others who lack them. In natural endowments there are indeed ways and means to the knowledge of God, which He can carry further unto eternal salvation, through Christ in the Holy Ghost however. We may not with philosophers, such as Hegel, place upon an equal footing the Jews with their theocracy, or the mission of preserving salvation, and the heathen, with their cosmocracy, or anthropocracy, the mission of moulding in its naturalness the subject attaining salvation, and regard both as united in the The-anthropos Christ, thinking then that they shall all become Christ’s, God-men, instead of new men, God’s men. Still less should we with Abelard, Zwingli and others, make exceptions arbitrarily, placing Socrates, Plato, Cicero and others, among the patriarchs and prophets, Apostles and believers, in heaven, as though we could act as judges in such a matter. Here it is best to keep within bounds, as did Paul, who sticks to what is evident, making no final judgment respecting individuals and their personal state of safety, nor overlooking the distinctions in what is similar.

c. The continued validity of these two forms. This antithesis is perceptible, not merely before Christ, but also in the Church which He established. They are not forms historically concluded, but active categories of human error, showing themselves constantly anew. Man suffers from a defect, though in the rich possession and masterly use of the most important natural endowments, if he is estranged from his Creator, and even in the possession, use and enjoyment of noble gifts of grace, if he has not attained to personal fellowship of life and heart with the Giver. Such a defect does not remain quiescent, but impels to restless opposition and enmity towards God and Man. The onesidedness urges ever deeper into discord, as the abuse of the gifts of nature or of grace is changed into the destruction of the same, coming home upon him who has enjoyed them.

d. Natural and gracious endowments do not exclude each other. The latter direct, purify, elevate the former, making them more productive. Human nature loses nothing, but gains much by means of the latter, if they are but rightly used: the Divine in the human, the Divinity in humanity is thus nurtured. It is thus that the state of things will be brought about when neither the individual, nor nations as a whole, will stand in hostile antagonism to one another, but will complement each other in peaceful contact, furthering each other’s interests through the fulfilment of their calling in life or history, of their ministry with the gifts entrusted to them.

3. Christology.

a. Without Christ the distance from God in the case of the Gentiles is not overcome, nor does the nearness to God in the case of the Jews become fellowship with God. Without Him a man or a people is either “stranger” or “sojourner,” and the advance from “stranger” to “of the household of God” is not through the “sojourner.” As little as sonship of itself develops itself from slavery, so little avail circumcision, Mosaic law, theocracy, promise; only creative renewal (Ephesians 2:15) is of avail among Jews as well as Gentiles, and this is accomplished only through Him and in Him.

b. He is our Peace, He, in His Person; and this peace is here defined by its antithesis, “enmity” (Ephesians 2:15), by the hostility of Gentiles and Jews (Ephesians 2:11), by the estrangement of the Gentiles from God and His law, as well as the distance and separation from God the Father (Ephesians 2:12; Ephesians 2:18) and the externality of the Jews (Ephesians 2:11)—as concord, as unity concluded and secured in agreement, in friendly intercourse. This peace is not a sensation, but a possession. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, II. 1, pp. 374) refers to the etymology, deriving the word from εἴρη and ἶρις, the circle, the place of assembly, or it may be traced to εἴρω, to speak, quiet, friendly, independent intercourse in speech. Stier (Reden Jesu, V., p. 224 on John 14:27) compares it with שָׁלוֹם, and reaches thus the notion of prosperity, welfare. In this concord with its intercourse is found welfare, complete and symmetrical development. Hence the possession of this peace is at the same time a status. The first and main thing is peace with God; on this is based and depends necessarily the peace with our neighbor. Where the latter appears, the former is certainly efficient; hence Paul can here give special prominence to it in accordance with the context. He who has Christ, can speak of His peace (John 14:27), has peace.56

c. The work of Christ culminates in the death of the cross (Ephesians 2:13 : “made nigh in the blood of Christ;” Ephesians 2:16 : “might reconcile them both to God through the cross”), having for its end the reconciliation with God and among each other (Ephesians 2:14 : “who made both one;” Ephesians 2:16 : “having slain the enmity;” Ephesians 2:17 : “came and preached peace:” Ephesians 2:18; “we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father”), comp. Colossians 1:20-22; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20. Enmity is to be overcome only on the side of man, on the part of God “wrath” (Ephesians 2:3). We have only the popular expression: ἱλάσθητί μοι (Luke 18:13) and Malachi 1:5; Malachi 1:5; 2Ma 7:33; 2Ma 8:29 : καταλάσσεσθαι ὑμῖν.—Non Deus inimicus erat hominibus, sed homines inimici erant Deo. Non cœpit homines amare, qui cum eo reconciliati essent, sed quia ab æterno homines amavit, idcirco decrevit homines sibi inimicos per Chrisliani secum reconciliare. Reconciliatio, morte Christi effecta, non est duplex seu mutua, sed simplex, h. e., Christus morte sua non Deum, hominum amantissimum, cum hominibus, sed homines, Deo inimicos, cum Deo reconciliavit (Weber). The enmity against God was extirpated by, through and in Christ; the attracting power of His Person, especially of His cross is so great, that man is won by Him for God. Thus the Father of Christ becomes the Father of men and the contending nations and creatures become peaceful children in one church and one Spirit. This is the reconciliation. It rests upon the propitiation, removing the wrath of God, which is however only the energy of His holy love for sinners against sin. But this is not treated of in this section. By this reconciliation of men resting on the atonement their relation not merely to God but also to the law is changed. In that He fulfilled the law in deed and in truth, performed God’s will and suffered in obedience, He rendered it powerless in its single ordinances, dissolving its separative features; it thus gained through Him internal validity and importance, so that it no longer burdens men, but they stand and walk in and on the same as a common soil within salutary bounds. Here too all depends on His Person and our relation to Him (Ephesians 2:15 : “in His flesh;” Ephesians 2:16 : “in Him;” Ephesians 2:18 : “through Him;” Ephesians 2:21 : “in whom”—“in the Lord”); in Him and through Him that takes place which ought to take place both for us and in us. Ipsa natura suscipienda erat, quæ liberanda (Augustine). Neque Christo imputari potuissent peccata nostra, nisi tum naturæ ejusdem vinculo tum voluntaria sponsione nobiscum unitus esset, neque justitia Christi nobis imputaretur; nisi in unum cum Ipso corpus coaluissemus (Turretine).—He guards against that humanitarianism, which is only the glory of the flesh, as well as against a godless cosmopolitism [“without God, in the world”]; He creates new, real men, who as the children become the possessors and rulers of the world.

4. The law here is the Mosaic law. This follows from the description: τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν (Ephesians 2:15), from the figure: τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ (Ephesians 2:14), and also from the statement that Christ has abolished this “in His flesh;” for it was precisely to this law that He was subject in the flesh; this was the “hedge” of the vineyard of God, the people of Israel; it was this which split the will of God into ordinances difficult to be grasped, and multiplied by casuistry most enormously. But here where the subject is not merely the enmity of the Jews against the Gentiles and against God, an enmity denoted by and connected with the law, but quite as much the enmity of the Gentiles against the Jews and against God, this too being joined with the law, we must admit a secondary reference to the law in the conscience. Romans 2:14-15 permits such a reference, the connection requires it and the nature of the case explains it: the bad conscience is the still active conscience, so far as it is still good. The bad conscience is the justly judging conscience, is enmity, not as it should be with sin and the sinful subject, but with God, before whom it puts to shame, with our neighbor, from whom it divides us; the sinner against the law excuses himself and accuses God and men, by always finding the circumstances, relations, surroundings more to blame than himself. The voices of a bad conscience became for the heathen Furies, but not so easily Eumenides. Nitimur in vetitum. He too, who holds to the law and to conscience, is an object of enmity for the frivolous world; where the law appears powerful, there is in the world discord, opposition—within the heart, in individuals and in the whole, and externally also. Thus enmity toward God and men clings to the law. We do not wish to have the will of God about us, above us, before us, and to know and feel ourselves under the law with its single decrees; it is impossible for us to have the law in us and peace at the same time, unless we have God Himself. Only fellowship of life with God in Christ removes the enmity which attaches to the law, as it appears in its commandments and ordinances over against the natural man.

5. The church is essentially a fellowship, closely united and organic. Her support is in Christ, her beginning in the pure and powerful Word of God, in His Apostles and prophets, her design respects every man and every nation, her task is not merely the worship of God, but abiding fellowship with God, and accordingly each individual must be prepared in the work of the Holy Ghost, freed from his singularity and framed into the whole (Ephesians 2:19-22). She is “the assured residence and abiding working-place” of God, from which He will and does work further into His world. In the world He indeed already has His real, immanent, continued presence, but in the church He is present in an extraordinary manner; she is His palace, His immediate surroundings, His family, while the world is His broad kingdom on which He operates from this, and which is subservient to it. Certain as the permanence of the church is, she is still in process of growth, not yet complete. But she is real, not merely ideal.

6. The Holy Scriptures are referred to in the expression: “the foundation of the Apostles and prophets” (Ephesians 2:20). There is here evidently a reminiscence of the words of Christ (Matthew 16:18 : “Thou art Peter,” etc.), in which He promises to build His church, not upon the person of Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of the Person of Christ. The foundation of the church, the beginning of this building is not the persons of the Apostles, but their witness of Him, the preaching of the Apostles. Scripture is not the producer, but the product, not before the church, but within and for her. The word of God springing up in the Apostles, as prophets of God, as men to whom revelation was imparted by the Holy Ghost, and preached by them, is the foundation, but what is given in fixed form in the Scriptures is the norm for the church. She has her support and deepest ground in Christ, her beginning in the preaching of the Apostles, but her rule in the standard of truth contained in the Apostolic and prophetical Scriptures, the sufficiency of which is such, that no tradition is needed in addition. [“And no other foundation can suffice. When philosophical speculation or critical erudition, political affinity or human enactment supplants it, the structure topples and is about to fall. The opinions of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, Knox, or Erskine (and these were all “pillars”), are not the foundation; nor are the edicts and creeds of Trent, Augsburg, Dort, or Westminster. Such writings may originate sectional distinctions, and give peculiar shape to column or portico, shaft or capital, on the great edifice, but they can never be substituted for the one foundation” (Eadie).—R.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Ponder this: What thou wast and wouldst have been without Him? what thou wast and hast become through Him? what thou wast and shouldst and shalt become, if thou abide with Him?—God is near thee, nearest of all, yet hast thou at first not noticed or known this at all, and still dost thou forget it and fail to feel it; many a one does not learn it and perishes, but he who learns it gains what is most glorious, the everlasting salvation of the soul, God’s gifts, God Himself, as joint-heir with Christ. The moon is by no means so valuable to thee as the sun; it is nearer to the earth with its powerful influence notwithstanding its distance, than the near moon with its borrowed light. So is Christ nearer than Luther; He makes for thee spring with fruit abiding eternally.—See now, what it has cost Him, to bring thee near to God, who is so nigh, to win thee for Him! He must die, that thou mightest live in God and God in thee.—Do not deny it, underneath all hast thou enmity to God; in order not to be obliged to acknowledge His wrath, thou feignest friendship and love to Him, and still wilt not allow Him to rule in thee.—The foundation of religion is not a doctrine but a life, not the Apostles’ life, but Christ and He alone, in His Person and in His life and death, His work and suffering. He disturbs the peace, the false one, in order to establish one which is real and eternal.The Church of Christ is God’s house and our own home, in which we should be children and become heirs. Here we are not only instructed, as in a school, but educated, in order to go out into the world and do what is good and useful; here not only is religion protected from the world, but we ourselves from irreligion.—In the church each one should feel, that the might of the whole is at his command, to be used for himself, to be efficient in him, quite as much as that he must serve with assiduity the whole: thus he himself will grow and thrive. The temple becomes a home: First worship Him, then live with Him. Is the home but a hovel at first, a hovel is still home. Do not take offence at the outward appearance of the church, but look at the internal loveliness!—Builded together on the one cornerstone, Christ, so that we are changed from servants or slaves into children and heirs. We are to become free! God hates the slavery of the world, or hireling service no less than we do tyranny. See to it that with thy hatred of tyrants and raving about freedom thou dost not still remain a slave.—In the Church of Christ we first really become men, the grace of God in Christ leads us directly to nature and to true humanity.

Starke:—Where a soul will have hope toward God, it must have a testament or promise of God as its foundation.—Our life must properly be nothing else than a continued going out of ourselves and going to God. The great glory of Christians as citizens of the city of God and members of His I household. What was Roman citizenship in comparison? Acts 22:28. Thus we are assured of all possessions, liberties, privileges and protection. Psalms 84:5.—What glorious and wonderful thing does not attach to the Church of God? Nothing is more majestic, because it is His temple; nothing more worthy of veneration, for He dwells therein; nothing more ancient, for the patriarchs and prophets labored thereon, nothing more solid, for Jesus Christ is its foundation, nothing firmer and stronger, for He is its corner-stone, nothing more exalted, for it reaches into eternity and the bosom of God, nothing more well-ordered and arranged, for the Holy Ghost is the architect; nothing more beautiful and agreeable in its variety, for stones come from all quarters, Jews and Gentiles, from every age, land, race and condition, nothing more roomy, for all the elect and righteous of all generations have a place therein, nothing more sacred, for it is consecrated to the Lord, nothing more divine, for it is a living edifice animated by the Holy Spirit.

Passavant:—God was not far off, but they were far from Him,—with heart and life far from Him in their darkness. How often are we—notwithstanding revelation and the knowledge of the Lord—far from God in our hearts and lives, while we are “in the world!” And that is the beginning and end of all heathenism. We are of a heathen race and always bring again into all our worldly—yes, Christian concerns, undertakings, plans and labors—something, much, that is Pagan.—Instead of making the holy law of their God serve as a sacred and salutary safeguard from the Gentiles, their customs, sins and enormities, the Israelites turned their hearts toward hate and bitter enmity against all the nations about them.—Though both Greek and Roman occupied the most beautiful isles, the loveliest home; yet were they still on an earth foreign to them and not yet confirmed as their property; above them was a heaven, though so glad and beautiful—still—unknown and strange; under them unknown depths and abysses full of night and horror. As really homeless they walked the earth, not knowing whence they were or whither their living and dying would lead them! The holiest and sweetest of the Here and the Hereafter remained closed and strange to them. With all their advantages of form, of culture and customs,—with all the beauty and brilliancy, in which many of them are to-day still patterns for us in earthly things,—they were, over against the Israelites, at most like guests, suffered to remain or kindly received beside the children and members of the household.—Ask thy heart, thou who art called, and mayhap art, a Christian; hast thou really given thyself to thy God? Hast thou transferred every hall, chamber, nook and corner, all the heights and depths of thine inner man to Him for a living, pure, spiritual indwelling? Art thou His temple? [ Christ our peace; 1) In time and in eternity; 2) Before God, in His Judgment; 3) In all sufferings, in all anxieties of life; 4) In need, is death; 5) In God’s rest, in His love.—Jesus Christ: 1) The cause, 2) Ground, 3) Strength of all peace.—It is Christ’s Cross, that atones for Christians; His blood sanctifies them; His Spirit impels them; His love permeates them; His name unites them in one and the same grace.—R.]

Rieger:—The wretchedness of Paganism is not represented now-a-days in its full extent.—The matter is now inverted; first the heathen are granted a fortunate fate in eternity, that thus afterwards the difference between nature and grace, faith in the gospel and walking by the feeble light of conscience may be altogether ignored.—The distinction between Jews and Gentiles was brought about by man, but fixed by God Himself, and guarded by the entire ecclesiastical polity of the Jews as by a hedge. Then indeed the human heart took occasion from this for much pride and mutual enmity. This too must then be interrupted and removed by another Divine interposition, which took place in the sending of His Son.—He who thoroughly believes the word of the Apostle, accepting Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, in the matter of our salvation, is not only in connection with the foundation, but is in love built in with all the living stones beside Him; abides too for the further work of the good Spirit, who is the master-builder of this edifice, but also the future Possessor and Ruler of every well-erected habitation.

Heubner:—Quesnel distinguishes three kinds of looking back at former sins: a longing, faithless one, destructive of grace, a distrustful, disquieting one, hindering the course of grace, a penitent, thankful one, increasing grace.—Without Christ we can be alive in no church; without Him there is no holy kingdom of God on earth. Christ transfers us into the state of the pious, into the congregation of the saints; with Him we are in a state, embracing all true Israelites, in the kingdom of the just and blessed. Heavenly citizenship is a favor from Christ. Without Him man has no part in the covenant of promise, in the covenant with God, which gives salvation. Christianity is the eternal covenant with God. Without Christ we are without hope.—Without Christ we are without God, because the true God has not yet become ours. First with Christ is God rightly known and revealed; we know that He is our God, who cares for us sinners and desires our salvation. Outside of Christianity God remains as it were only a general idea.—The Personality of God is illustrated by nothing so well as by the Personality of His Son. Losing Christ is losing God, denying Him leads to Atheism. Who can read this description of the heathen condition without horror? Yet that is the picture of many baptized people; they live without Christ, they have fallen away from Christ and that leads to apostasy from God. An unhappy withdrawing of the heart from God continues, unless we are brought nigh through Christ.

Christ’s death is the nations’ peace! Who can quarrel and fight with others under the cross of Christ?—The whole of mankind should be one man, one holy body whose Head is Christ. Humanity must be held together by one Head, else unity is impossible. Who is available for this, if God had not given such an one? The highest union of men is that of becoming one in Christ; then they make one family, one household.—Since the establishment of Christianity, God no longer knows any distinction of nations; all have the same access to the Father, because Christianity gives one Spirit to all. That is the business of Christ, the Only-Begotten, to bring the wandering children to the Father, and to reconcile those divided. He is the only and the indispensable Guide. He, who imagines that he will go alone to the Father, will be rejected, because he comes as a self-righteous one. But he, who clings to Christ, will not be rejected.—Men lost through sin the heavenly family-right or the fellowship with angels, through Christ they obtain it again. Without Him eternal banishment were our fate. Now we belong again to the house and family of God.—The Christian Church is the only edifice, that will last. What others, the free masons for example, boast of as their building amounts to nothing; it will perish.

Stier:—There was a little light even in the midst of heathenish darkness, just as on the other hand Israel with all the light of the law and the promise sat for the most part in the shadow of death.—The enmity between Israel and the Gentiles was at bottom only the prominent manifestation of the enmity of the flesh against God’s truth and love, against the Spirit already in the law itself. The same hate and antagonism to the Living One manifested itself in the scorn and hatred of Israel on the part of the Gentiles, led to false glorying in their pre-eminence on the part of the Jews. Something analogous continues to exist everywhere, where Christ has not made all new and free.—Christ is humanity, on that account He can represent it.—Let us hold fast to the words of the Apostles and prophets as the foundation of the Church, but recognize the words respecting Christ as the pith and marrow of the teaching.

[Eadie:

Ephesians 2:11. The exercise of memory would deepen their humility, elevate their ideas of Divine grace, and incite them to ardent and continued thankfulness.

Ephesians 2:12. The Jewish nation—had the Messiah—not Jesus indeed—but the Christ in promise. He was the great subject—the one, glowing, pervading promise of their inspired oracles. But the Gentiles were “without Christ.”—“The commonwealth of Israel” is that government framed by God, in which religion and polity were so conjoined, that piety and loyalty were synonymous, to fear God and honor the king were the same obligation.—They had hope of nothing a sinner should hope for; their future was a night without a star. They were godless, having no one to cry to, to trust in, to love, praise, and serve. “In the world,” dark, hostile and under Satan’s dominion.

Ephesians 2:15. Deep hostility lay in their bosoms; the Jew looked down with supercilious contempt upon the Gentile, and the Gentile reciprocated and scowled upon the Jew as a haughty and heathenish bigot.—One new man—the Gentile is not elevated to the position of the Jew; but Jew and Gentile together are both raised to a higher platform than the circumcision ever enjoyed, Spiritual blessing in itself, and not merely pictured in type, is possessed by the Jew as well as the Gentile.

Ephesians 2:16. Jesus reconciles us to God by turning away the Divine anger from us. God has shown infinite love to the sinner, and infinite hatred to his sin, in the sufferings of the cross, so that we tremble at His severity, while we are in the arms of His mercy.

Ephesians 2:18. Christians do not approach some dark and spectral phantom, nor a grim and terrible avenger. It is not Jehovah in the awful attitude of Judge and governor, but Jehovah as a Father.

Ephesians 2:20. That man, “Jesus,” who was the “Christ,” the Divinely appointed, qualified, and accepted Saviour, unites and sustains the Church. Is He not in His truth, His blood, His power, His legislation, and His presence to His Church, Himself “the chief corner-stone?”

Ephesians 2:21. Every stone is in its place, and fits its place. One’s ingenuity devises what another’s activity works out. As Fergusson says—“By taking bond with Christ the foundation, they are fastened one to another.”—Jehovah dwelt in His temple: 1. To instruct His people; 2. To accept the services of His people. God inhabits this spiritual fane for spiritual ends—spiritual sacrifices are still laid on the altar to God.—The Church is one, holy and Divine; it rests on Christ—is possessed by God—filled with the Spirit—and is ever increasing.—R.]

[The so-called Circumcision occasionally finds a parallel in the externalness of a so-called church.—Hand-wrought ordinances are a fruitful source of pride.—In discovering the condition of men out of Christ we must reverse the order of the Apostle: we see that they are “in the world,” learn that they are “without God,” and despite their stout denials conclude with certainty that they have “no hope.”—Near the cross, near each other.—Christ came to destroy the works of the devil; He destroys partition-walls, which we are slow to class with these works. Christ came to abolish Jewish casuistry and hair-splitting distinctions and ordinances, but how much of this remains in His church. Such things have not tended to make peace.—The peace Christ preaches is no armed neutrality. As disbanded armies give laborers for a country’s prosperity, so the activities once employed in hostility against God and man, are turned to edification.—We have our access, do we really enjoy it?—Let men sneer at the “saints”—it is a term of privilege, not of presumption, implying here the highest citizenship, the most exalted adoption, while in itself it means that God is making us sinful ones holy like Himself, that we may the more enjoy the blessings of His household.—Let us hold to that church, whose foundation and corner-stone are here set forth, and then despite all the mistakes of the past and imperfection of the present, we shall see in her the reality described in the figures of Ephesians 2:21, and find in our own experience that we, together with this corner-stone, “are being builded together for a habitation in the Spirit.”—R.]

Footnotes:

[29] Ephesians 2:11.—[א.3 D.3 K. L., and a number of versions and fathers support the order of the Rec. (ὑμεῖς ποτέ), which Braune seems to prefer, but Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer and English editors accept the reading of א.1 A. B. D.1 (ποτὲ ὑμεῖς). The former arose from a regard for euphony in all probability. The pointing adopted above accepts τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί as in simple apposition to ὑμεῖς, a view strengthened by the correct reading (see Ellicott).—The usage respecting the article in English differs from that in Greek, as the alterations in this verse indicate.—R.]

[30] Ephesians 2:12.—[The Rec. inserts ἐν before τῷ καιρῷ, with D.3 K. L., and some versions, but it is omitted in א. A. B. D.1F., by most fathers; rejected by nearly all modern editors (Hodge retains it without remark) as an explanatory gloss, the preposition being more usual and perhaps more correct in such cases.—The same gloss occurs in the Rec. again (Ephesians 3:5).—R,]

[31] Ephesians 2:13. [The Rec. reads ἐγγὺς ἐγενήθητε, on the authority of D. K. L., Greek fathers; accepted by Meyer, Ellicott and others, on the ground of the contrast with μακράν. Lachmann, Alford, Braune. and others accept the order of א. A. B., versions, which is quite as well supported.—On the emendations see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[32] Ephesians 2:15.—[As Braune adopts the construction favored by the E. V., only verbal changes have been made in the first half of this verse. But it is doubtful whether this is correct. The other prominent opinions require the following renderings: “Broke down the middle wall of the partition—to wit, the enmity—in His flesh, having made void the law of the commandments expressed in decrees” (Ellicott). This joins ἔχθραν in apposition to μεσότοιχον. and ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ to λύσας. The other view, that of Meyer, De Wette, Hodge (and preferred in the additional notes), accepts the apposition, but joins “in His flesh” to “abolished:” “Broke down the middle wall of partition, to wit, the enmity, having in His flesh done away the law,” etc. In any case we ought to put a comma instead of a colon at the close of Ephesians 2:14—R.]

[33] Ephesians 2:15.—[The Rec., א.3 D. K. L., most cursives and fathers read: ἑαυτῷ, accepted by Meyer, and most commentators. א.1 A. B. F., 10 mss.: αὐτῷ, accepted by Lachmann, Alford. The authorities are about equally divided, the latter being the more difficult reading, too difficult in fact, since the pronoun must be referred to Christ, and that would be intolerably harsh with this reading. Besides the Greek ε might easily be dropped, either from the interchange of forms, or after ἐν, as Meyer suggests.—The E. V. is very unfortunate in the structure of its clauses here, making two co-ordinate final clauses differ as widely as possible in form.—R.]

[34] Ephesians 2:16.—[We may render here: both of us with equal correctness.—Reconcile again may be the true meaning, but I hesitate in adopting it.—In one body is to be closely connected with both. To instead of unto (E. V.) for the simple dative.—Through best expresses the sense of διά.—On it is more exact than thereby, the reference being to the cross.—We might put a period at the close of this verse, but the insertion of the subject in Ephesians 2:17, indicates the want of close connection.—R.]

[35] Ephesians 2:17.—א. A. B. D. E. F. G. and others: εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς. The emphatic repetition is well attested, and an omission by the transcribers is more probable than an insertion. [So all modern editors and commentators, even the most conservative as regards the Recepta.—R.]

[36] Ephesians 2:18.—[The article here is almost equivalent to the possessive.—The E. V. again renders ἐν, by.—R.]

[37] Ephesians 2:19.—[The Rec. omits ἐστέ, with D.3 K. L., versions and fathers; but it was probably deemed superfluous, instead of emphatic it is found in א. B. (both ἀλλά ἐστε), A. C. D.1 F., accepted by modern editors.—R.]

[38] Ephesians 2:20.—[The Rec. reads Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ on the authority of C. D. E. F. G. K. L. several versions and a number of fathers; accepted by Scholz, De Wette, Meyer, Ellicott. א.2 A. B., the Vulgate and other versions, some fathers, support the order: Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Alford and others. א1 has only τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which Braune seems to favor. On the whole the order of the Rec. should be given up.—R.]

[39] Ephesians 2:21.—[The Rec. inserts ἡ between πᾶσα and οἰκοδομή (א.2 A. C., some cursives), but it is omitted in א.3 B. D. E. F. G. K. L. most cursives, and is rejected by nearly all modern editors. The briefer reading is difficult, and the change was an easy way of avoiding it, just as following the Rec. now-a-days saves a little trouble to the commentator.—R.]

[40] [Dr. Hodge gives the following analysis of this paragraph: I. Their former relation,—1. To the church as foreigners and aliens. 2. To God as those who were far off, without any saving knowledge of Him, or interest in His promise

Ephesians 2:11-12.—II. The means by which this alienation from God and the church has been removed, viz., by the blood of Christ. 1. Satisfying the demands of justice it secured reconciliation with God. 2. Abolishing the law in the form of Mosaic institution it removed the wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles—both are united in one body and reconciled to God

Ephesians 2:13-18.—III. The Ephesians are therefore united with God and His people. 1. They are represented as fellow-citizens of the saints. 2. They are members of the family of God. 3. They are constituent portions of that temple in which God dwells by His spirit

Ephesians 2:19-22.—R.]

[41] [The Gentiles were called and really were the ἀκροβυστία: the Jews were called the περιτομή, but were not truly so” (Ellicott).—R.]

[42] [Here again Ellicott is excellent. He renders: performed by hand in the flesh, to bring out the connection more accurately, and calls the phrase “a tertiary predication added by the Apostle reflectively rather than descriptively; ‘the circumcision,—yes, hand-wrought in the flesh; only a visible manual operation on the flesh, when it ought to be a secret spiritual process in the heart; only κατατομή, not περιτομή.’ ”—R.]

[43][On this distinction Eadie remarks: “Not to contradict this refinement, we might add, that ἄνευ, allied to in, un, ohne, might, in a general sense, signify privation; but χωρίς marks that privation as caused by separation. The Gentiles are viewed as being not merely without Him, but far away from Him. Their relation to Him is marked by a great interval—χωρί. But, as Ellicott says, ‘this distinction must be applied with caution, when it is remembered that χωρίς is used forty times in the New Testament, and ἄνευ only three times.’ ”—The connection of this phrase with ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι: “that at that time, being without Christ, ye were excluded from theocratic privileges” (De Wette, following the punctuation of Lachmann, Eadie, though not decidedly in his second edition), is properly deemed harsh by Ellicott and Alford, though it ought not to be termed “clumsy beyond precedent” by the latter, since there are no clumsy tricks possible in interpretation that have not found a field for their exhibition in Biblical Exegesis (?)—R.]

[44] [The genitive seems to be one of privation, or inverted possession. Bernhardy, Syn. 3:49, p. 171; Kühner, 2:163. Comp. Winer, p. 185, who takes the genitive here as one of separation, properly following the noun ξένοι. Ellicott: genitive of the point of view.—R.]

[45] [The reference to the personal Messiah, to Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ, seems to be quite certain (comp. Ellicott and Eadie).—R.]

[46] [The verb is the aorist passive, expressing the effect of a definite event in the past, though the idea of becoming or being gradually brought is not to be forgotten. They were brought nigh, they became nigh through the instrumentality of another.—R.]

[47] [The strictly instrumental sense does not belong to ἐν, even here, where it seems so natural. At all events the idea of immanent instrumentality is as much as can be conceded in that direction. Alford rightly prefers “in” as more comprehensive: “The symbol of a fact in which—the seal of a covenant in which—your nearness to God consists.” Hodge accepts “by” as the proper rendering without question.—R.]

[48][This particle introduces a confirmatory explanation of the preceding verse (so most commentators).—R.]

[49][Eadie, Alford, Ellicott follow De Wette in taking τοῦ φραγμοῦ as the genitive of possession: the wall which pertained to, or belonged to the fence. This view has the advantage of giving a wide reference to φραγμός. Alford finds a primary allusion to the rending of the vail of the temple, a view which is supported by the complex idea of peace running through our passage. He takes φραγμός (of which μεσότοιχον is the instrument) as=the whole legal system, ceremonial and moral, which made the whole separation,—of Jew from Gentile,—and in the background of both from God. (So Ellicott.)—R.]

[50] [Against Tittmann’s distinction, according to which διαλάσσω refers to the cessation of mutual enmity, and καταλάσσω is employed in cases where the enmity has existed only on one side, see Eadie; comp. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 102; Fritzsche, Romans , 1. p. 276; Tholuck, Bergpredigt. p. 192; Trench. Syn. N. T., 2d part, p. 137; and especially the notes of Drs. Lange and Schaff, Romans, p. 166 f., and 2 Corinthians, p. 98 f. We must hold fast here: That the reconciliation is with God, that the ground of it is what Christ did on and through His cross, viz., removed from us the Divine wrath against sin, of which we were the objects in consequence of sin.—R.]

[51] [Inasmuch as “the cross” is here spoken of, we must admit a secondary reference to the propitiary sacrifice of Christ as the condition or ground of the reconciliation. If then we ask respecting the nexus between this ground and the result, there must enter a thought of God’s wrath (Ephesians 2:3) against sin. One thing remains clear—whatever was objectively necessary that men might be at peace with God and with each other was effected by the death of Christ, and what is necessary in the subject is, to take hold of Christ by faith, as to be “in Him” (Ephesians 2:15) a member of the “one body” (Ephesians 2:16).—R.]

[52] [This seems doubtful in view of the repeated εἰρηνην which interposes between ὑμῖν and το͂ις ἐγγύς. Alford is better: “Not ‘to us’ (i. e., in the second category), for fear of still upholding the distinction where he wishes to merge it altogether.’ ’—“Though those ‘who were nigh’ were the first who heard the proclamation based on the commission—‘beginning at Jerusalem,’ yet those ‘who were afar off’ are mentioned first, as they had so deep an interest in the tidings, and as the invitation of Gentiles into the Church—a theme the Apostle delighted in, proving, as it did the abolition of class privileges, and the commencement of an unrestricted economy—was the result and proof of the truths illustrated in this paragraph.”—R.]

[53][Ellicott says correctly that the particle is not merely explanatory, nor yet strongly causal, “because we have,” but with more of a demonstrative or confirmatory force, “as it is a fact that we have.”—Alford finds in this verse a proof of the wide reference of the words “peace” and “reconcile” in the previous verses. “Here clearly the union (not reconciliation, nor is enmity predicted of them) of Jew and Gentile is subordinated to the blessed fact of an access to God having been provided for both through Christ by the Spirit.”—R.]

[54] [The E. V. makes an antithesis in this passage which the original does not at all warrant; “to brethren, and that strangers,” is the literal rendering.—R.]

[55][The word would ordinarily be spelled συμπολῖται, but א. A. B.1 C. D. E. F. G. support συνπολῖται, which is adopted by Tischendorf and most later editors and commentators (Meyer studiously retains the other orthography).—The word belongs to later Greek, and is considered rather inelegant. Alford says the compound verb is found in the purest Attic writers, and the noun in Euripides, Herac. 826. Certainly the compound is necessary to express the Apostle’s meaning, even though it belong in itself to the fatiscens Græcitas.—R.]

[56] [There is little necessity for seeking to sunder the two ideas, peace with God, peace among men, in this paragraph, since the complex notion alone meets the requirements of a fair exegesis. The doctrine to be deduced is one eminently Biblical: Right relations to God are the basis of right relations with man; the former involve the latter of necessity, while the latter constitute the evidence and indicator of the former. The complex notion of peace becomes a simple one, when thus regarded as simple because “He is our peace.”—R.]