{"id":29178,"date":"2022-09-24T13:10:00","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-211\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T13:10:00","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:10:00","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-211","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-211\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 2:11"},"content":{"rendered":"

Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

11 22 . Regeneration of the Ephesians, an instance of the equal welcome of Gentiles to the Covenant Church, the true Temple<\/p>\n

11<\/strong>. Wherefore remember<\/em> ] Here first the Apostle deals with the special fact of the previous Gentilism of his converts. Hitherto he has spoken of their regeneration, and incorporation into Christ, with regard to the state of fallen humanity<\/em> in general; “when we<\/em> were dead He quickened us<\/em>,” &c. The further element in the phenomenon now appears, that the recipients of the Epistle had been “outsiders” as regarded any explicit covenant of redemption. In itself<\/em>, spiritual regeneration was equally gracious and sovereign for Jew and for Gentile. But as to any previous intimations<\/em>, it must needs come with a greater surprise to the Gentile.<\/p>\n

It is perhaps impossible in the nineteenth century of Christendom to realize fully what was the marvel in the first century of the full revelation of an equal welcome for all nations<\/em> to the Messiah’s covenant. But the fact that it was then a marvel remains a matter of permanent Divine instruction. Cp. in general on the subject Acts 10<\/span>; Romans 2, 3<\/span>, 9-11<\/span>; Galatians 2-4.<\/p>\n

in time passed<\/em> ] Lit., once<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Gentiles<\/em> ] Lit., the Nations<\/strong>; Heb., haggym;<\/em> the races outside Israel. Rabbinic Judaism regarded them with feelings akin to those with which an old-fashioned high-caste Hindoo regards a European. Some precepts of the Talmud (though much later, in their collected form, than St Paul’s day,) are fair illustrations: “It is forbidden to give good advice to a Gentile;” “it is forbidden to cure idolaters, even for pay; except on account of fear;” “he that steals from a Gentile is only to pay the principal; for it is said, He shall pay double unto his neighbour<\/em> ” (McCaul’s Old Paths<\/em>, p. 17, &c.).<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, these gross distortions had behind them the spiritual fact here given by St Paul, that “the Gentiles,” before the Gospel, were on a really different level from Israel as to covenant with God in Christ. Pharisaism took a totally wrong line, but started from a point of truth.<\/p>\n

in the flesh<\/em> ] Does this mean, “ physically<\/em>,” or (Rom 8:8<\/span>; and often) “ in the unregenerate state<\/em> ”? Surely the former, for the same phrase immediately below clearly refers to a physical thing, literal circumcision. Here probably the special reference is to the absence<\/em> of the bodily mark of covenant. They were uncircumcised Gentiles, at a time when no way was yet revealed, other than that of circumcision, by which to enter into explicit covenant with God.<\/p>\n

called Uncircumcision<\/em> ] Or, regarding English usage of the article, the Uncircumcision<\/strong>; this was their sobriquet<\/em> with the Pharisee; often used, no doubt, by the Pharisee Saul. The lack of the bodily mark was the condemning, and characteristic, thing, supplying a short expression for a state of entire difference and alienation.<\/p>\n

called the Circumcision<\/em> ] The race of the circumcised, the Jews. The point of this clause is best given by paraphrase: “So you were called by the bearers of the mark of the Abrahamic covenant, a mark divinely ordained, but spiritually valueless where there is no spiritual contact with God, and therefore, when vaunted as a title (‘ called<\/em> the Circumcision’) by the unspiritual Pharisee, no better than a mere bodily operation, (‘circumcision in the flesh, wrought by hand’).” The best illustration is the close of Romans 2<\/span>, where the theme is the uselessness, for spiritual purposes, of the sacramental mark in unspiritual persons. This short clause is, as it were, a condensed statement of the truths fully stated in Romans 2<\/span>. But it is quite passing here; the main point here being, not the harsh estimate of Gentiles by Pharisees, but the real difference in covenant-position which that estimate exaggerated.<\/p>\n

made by hands<\/em> ] Better, wrought by hand<\/strong>. Cp. Col 2:11<\/span> for the antithesis, “the circumcision wrought without hands;” a thing spiritual, invisible, the covenant mark from the Divine<\/em> point of view regeneration of nature. The Pharisees “called” themselves “The Circumcision;” St Paul vitiates the word of privilege, or rather their use of it, by the added words, “hand-wrought, in the flesh.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Wherefore remember – <\/B>The design of this evidently is, to excite a sense of gratitude in their bosoms for that mercy which had called them from the errors and sins of their former lives, to the privileges of Christians. It is a good thing for Christians to remember what they were. No faculty of the mind can be better employed to produce humility, penitence, gratitude, and love, than the memory. It is well to recall the recollection of our former sins; to dwell upon our hardness of heart, our alienation, and our unbelief; and to remember our wanderings and our guilt, until the heart be affected, and we are made to feel. The converted Ephesians had much guilt to recollect and to mourn over in their former life; and so have all who are converted to the Christian faith.<\/P>

That ye being in time past – <\/B>Formerly – (<\/SPAN><\/span> pote.)<\/P>

Gentiles in the flesh – <\/B>You were Gentiles in the flesh, i. e., under the dominion of the flesh, subject to the control of carnal appetites and pleasures.<\/P>

Who are called Uncircumcision – <\/B>That is, who are called the uncircumcised. This was a term similar to that which we use when we speak of the unbaptized. It meant that they were without the pale of the people of God; that they enjoyed none of the ordinances and privileges of the true religion; and was commonly a term of reproach; compare Jdg 14:3<\/span>; Jdg 15:18<\/U><\/span>; 1Sa 14:6<\/span>; 1Sa 17:26<\/span>; 1Sa 31:4<\/span>; Eze 31:18<\/span>.<\/P>

By that which is called the Circumcision – <\/B>By those who are circumcised, i. e., by the Jews.<\/P>

In the flesh made by hands – <\/B>In contradistinction from the circumcision of the heart; see the notes at Rom 2:28-29<\/span>. They had externally adopted the rites of the true religion, though it did not follow that they had the circumcision of the heart, or that they were the true children of God.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11<\/span><\/p>\n

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Remembrance of our miserable condition by nature<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is good to be reminded of this, for it is<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> a ground of meekness towards others;<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> of stirring up groans;<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> of tasting the benefits of redemption;<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> of provoking to fruitfulness;<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> it is the ground of a holy blush, with which all must walk before God;<\/p>\n

(6)<\/strong> it is also a special furtherance of Gods glory, which cannot be safe if His works are not had in remembrance. (Paul Bayne.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Miseries of a pagan condition, a motive to missionary zeal<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>The affecting condition described.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Upon his understanding.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Consider this subject as it affects the conscience. The whole world is guilty before God (Rom 3:19<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>As it affects the character. Where Christ is not, morality sheds but a dim, a feeble, and Often a delusive ray.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>As it relates to the happiness of man in the present life. Without Christ, you leave man as a sufferer under all the unmitigated weight of trouble; you leave him to grapple, unaided and unsustained, with the fierce and uncontrollable calamities of life.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>Trace its operation on the civil and religious institutions of human society.<\/p>\n

6. <\/strong>Consider the relation of the subject to the immortal destiny of man. To live without Christ is dreadful; but oh! what must it be to die without Him?<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>The duty of cherishing a distinct and constant remembrance of this condition.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>The light of reason, and the custom of mankind, are sufficient to Show that we should cherish the grateful remembrance of eminent deliverances.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>The express direction of Holy Scripture. On the Jewish Church such recollection was frequently and solemnly inculcated (Exo 13:3<\/span>; see also Deu 5:15<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>We may appeal to the impulse of good feeling in every mind that is rightly, by which I mean religiously, constituted.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>The practical effects which should flow from this remembrance.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>This recollection should be productive of deep humiliation and self-abasement.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>This recollection should excite sentiments of the liveliest gratitude for the happy change which has taken place in our condition.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>This recollection should endear to us our native land, which the religion of Jesus has hallowed and blessed.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>This recollection should engage us to demean ourselves in a manner answerable to the great change which, through the favour of God, has taken place in our moral situation.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>This recollection should excite in our bosoms the tenderest compassion for those nations who are yet without Christ, deeply plunged in all the miseries of which we have been hearing.<\/p>\n

6. <\/strong>Finally, this recollection will supply the amplest justification of missionary efforts, and urge us forward in the prosecution of missionary labours. (J. Burns, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Remembrance of former sinful state<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>Show what uncircumcision denotes.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Rebellion (Jer 9:25-26<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Exclusion from the privileges of Gods chosen (Eph 2:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Pollution (Eze 44:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>Liableness to death (Gen 17:4<\/span>).<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>The ends for which believers should remember their former state of sin.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>To create shame and self-abhorrence (Eze 16:60<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>To create renewed views of Christ and His salvation (1Ti 1:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>To remind us of the awful state of the ungodly (1Co 6:9-11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>To exclude boasting (Deu 9:6-7<\/span>).<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>As a motive to forgive others (Eph 4:22<\/span>).<\/p>\n

6. <\/strong>As a motive to relieve the distressed (1Co 8:9<\/span>).<\/p>\n

7. <\/strong>To increase our love to God. (H. Foster, M. A.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Conversion a great change<\/strong><\/p>\n

If I ever see a Hindoo converted to Jesus Christ, said Henry Martyn, I shall see something more nearly approaching the resurrection of a dead body than anything I have ever yet seen. The entire number of native Christians in India is now about 600,000.<\/p>\n

Then and now<\/strong><\/p>\n

Can you say, I am not what I once was–I am better, godlier, holier? Happy are you! Happy although, afraid of presumption, and in the timid modesty of spiritual childhood, you can venture no further than one who was urged to say whether she had been converted. How humble, yet how satisfactory, her reply! That, she answered, I cannot, that I dare not, say; but there is a change somewhere. I am changed, or the world is changed.Our little child, watching with curious eyes the apparent motion of the objects, calls out in ecstasy, and bids us see how hedge and house are flying past the carriage. You know it is not these that move; nor the firm and fixed shore, with its trees and fields, and boats at anchor, and harbours and headlands, that is gliding by the cabin windows. That is but an illusion of the eye. The motion is not in them, but in us. And if the world is growing less to your sight, it shows you are retreating from it, rising above it, and, upborne in the arms of grace, are ascending to a higher region; and if to our eye the fashion of this world seems passing away, it is because we ourselves are passing–passing and pressing on the way to heaven. (T. Guthrie, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 11. Wherefore remember<\/B><\/I>] That ye may ever see and feel your obligations to live a pure and holy life, and be unfeignedly thankful<\/I> to God for your salvation, remember that ye were once<\/I> heathens<\/I> in the flesh<\/I>-without the pure doctrine, and under the influence of your corrupt nature; such as by the Jew’s (who gloried, in consequence of their circumcision<\/I>, to be in covenant with God) were called uncircumcision<\/I>; i.e. persons out of the Divine covenant, and having no right or title to any blessing of God.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

In the flesh; <\/B>either: <\/P>

1. Carnal, unregenerate, as Rom 8:8<\/span>,9<\/span>. Or rather: <\/P>

2. Uncircumcised in the flesh, as well as in heart, Eze 44:7<\/span>; such as neither had the grace signified, nor the sign representing it. <\/P>

Who are called Uncircumcision, <\/B>by way of reproach; to be uncircumcised being the badge of them that were not Israelites, and so were not in the number of Gods people. <\/P>

By that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; <\/B>i.e. by those that are circumcised; the abstract here, as in the former clause, being put for the concrete. He means the carnal Jews, who had the circumcision of the flesh which was made with hands, but not that of the heart, Rom 2:29<\/span>, made without hands, <\/I>Col 2:11<\/I><\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11.<\/B> The Greek<\/I> order inthe oldest manuscripts is, “That in time past (literally, once<\/I>)ye,” c. Such remembrance sharpens gratitude and strengthensfaith (Eph 2:19<\/span>) [BENGEL].<\/P>

Gentiles in the flesh<\/B>thatis, Gentiles in respect to circumcision. <\/P>

called Uncircumcision<\/B>TheGentiles were called (in contempt), and were,<\/I> theUncircumcision the Jews were called, but were not truly, theCircumcision [ELLICOTT]. <\/P>

in the flesh made by hands<\/B>asopposed to the true “circumcision of the heart in the Spirit,and not the letter” (Ro 2:29<\/span>),”made without the hands in putting off the body of the sins ofthe flesh by the circumcision of Christ” (Col2:11<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Wherefore remember, that ye be in time past Gentiles in the flesh<\/strong>,…. This, with what follows in the next verse, the apostle puts the converted Ephesians in mind of, in order to magnify the grace of God in their conversion; and to humble them in a view of their former state and condition; and to teach them that they could never be saved by any works of theirs: particularly he would have them call to mind, that they were in “time past Gentiles”; which does not so much regard the nation and country they were of, for in that sense they were Gentiles still; but their state and condition; they had been very blind and ignorant, were Gentiles that knew not God; they had been very wicked and profligate sinners of the Gentiles; and they had been “Gentiles in the flesh”: not according to the flesh, or by birth, for so they were then; but in the time of their unregeneracy they were carnal, and minded the things of the flesh, walked after it, and fulfilled the lusts, and did the works of it; particular respect seems to be had to their uncircumcision in the flesh, to which circumcision in the flesh is opposed in the next clause:<\/p>\n

who are called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands<\/strong>; that is, they were by way of reproach and contempt called uncircumcised persons; than whom none were more abominable to the Jews, and hated by them, who were called circumcised persons from that circumcision which is outward, in the flesh, in a particular part of the body; and which is done by the hands of a man, who was called , “the circumciser”; which any one might be, except a Gentile u; an Israelite adult and skilful was preferred; yet these were not circumcised persons with that circumcision that is inward, and is of the heart, in the Spirit, and is made without the hands of men, and by the Spirit and power of God.<\/p>\n

u Maimon. Hilchot Milah, c. 2. sect. 1.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Miserable Condition of the Ephesians by Nature.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD>

A. D.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 61.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE>

      11 Wherefore remember, that ye being<\/I> in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;   12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:   13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.<\/P>

      In these verses the apostle proceeds in his account of the miserable condition of these Ephesians by nature. Wherefore remember,<\/I> c., &lti>v.<\/span> 11<\/span><\/U><\/span>. As if he had said, “You should remember what you have been, and compare it with what you now are, in order to humble yourselves and to excite your love and thankfulness to God.” Note, Converted sinners ought frequently to reflect upon the sinfulness and misery of the state they were in by nature. Gentiles in the flesh,<\/I> that is, living in the corruption of their natures, and being destitute of circumcision, the outward sign of an interest in the covenant of grace. Who are called uncircumcision by that,<\/I> c., that is, “You were reproached and upbraided for it by the formal Jews, who made an external profession, and who looked no further than the outward ordinance.” Note, Hypocritical professors are wont to value themselves chiefly on their external privileges, and to reproach and despise others who are destitute of them. The apostle describes the misery of their case in several particulars, &lti>v.<\/span> 12<\/span><\/U><\/span>. “At that time,<\/I> while you were Gentiles, and in an unconverted state, you were,” 1. “In a Christless condition, without the knowledge of the Messiah, and without any saving interest in him or relation to him.” It is true of all unconverted sinners, all those who are destitute of faith, that they have no saving interest in Christ; and it must be a sad and deplorable thing for a soul to be without a Christ. Being without Christ, they were, 2. Aliens from the commonwealth of Israel;<\/I> they did not belong to Christ’s church, and had no communion with it, that being confined to the Israelitish nation. It is no small privilege to be placed in the church of Christ, and to share with the members of it in the advantages peculiar to it. 3. They are strangers from the covenants of promise.<\/I> The covenant of grace has ever been the same for substance, though, having undergone various additions and improvements in the several ages of the church, it is called covenants; and the covenants of promise, because it is made up of promises, and particularly contains the great promise of the Messiah, and of eternal life through him. Now the Ephesians, in their gentilism, were strangers to this covenant, having never had any information nor overture of it; and all unregenerate sinners are strangers to it, as they have no interest in it. Those who are without Christ, and so have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant, have none in the promises of the covenant. 4. They had no hope, that is, beyond this life–no well-grounded hope in God, no hope of spiritual and eternal blessings. Those who are with out Christ, and strangers from the covenant, can have no good hope; for Christ and the covenant are the ground and foundation of all the Christian’s hopes. They were in a state of distance and estrangement from God: Without God in the world;<\/I> not without some general knowledge of a deity, for they worshipped idols, but living without any due regard to him, any acknowledged dependence on him, and any special interest in him. The words are, atheists in the world;<\/I> for, though they worshipped many gods, yet they were without the true God.<\/P>

      The apostle proceeds (v.<\/I><\/span> 13<\/span>) further to illustrate the happy change that was made in their state: But now, in Christ Jesus, you who sometimes were far off,<\/I> c. They were far off from Christ, from his church, from the promises, from the Christian hope, and from God himself and therefore from all good, like the prodigal son in the far country: this had been represented in the preceding verses<\/span>. Unconverted sinners remove themselves at a distance from God, and God puts them at a distance: He be holds the proud afar off. “But now in Christ Jesus,<\/I> c., upon your conversion, by virtue of union with Christ, and interest in him by faith, you are made nigh.” They were brought home to God, received into the church, taken into the covenant, and possessed of all other privileges consequent upon these. Note, The saints are a people near to God. Salvation is far from the wicked<\/I> but God is a help at hand to his people; and this is by the blood of Christ,<\/I> by the merit of his sufferings and death. Every believing sinner owes his nearness to God, and his interest in his favour, to the death and sacrifice of Christ.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Wherefore <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). This conjunction applies to the Gentile Christians the arguments in 2:1-10<\/span>.<\/P>

That aforetime ye <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). No verb is expressed, but in verse 12<\/span> Paul repeats <\/SPAN><\/span> (for <\/SPAN><\/span>) “that at that time” and inserts <\/SPAN><\/span> (ye were).<\/P>

Uncircumcision <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>),<\/P>

circumcision <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). The abstract words are used to describe Gentiles and Jews as in Gal 5:6<\/span>; Rom 2:27<\/span>.<\/P>

Made by hands <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Agreeing with <\/SPAN><\/span>. Verbal (Mr 14:58<\/span>) from <\/SPAN><\/span> like <\/SPAN><\/span> in Col 2:11<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Uncircumcision – circumcision. Abstract for concrete terms, the uncircumcised and circumcised. <\/P>

Which is called. Notice the irony, giving back the called of the circumcised.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

NATURAL GENTILE POSITION<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “Wherefore remember”<\/strong> (dio mnemoneute) A reflection on the unregenerate former behavior of the Ephesian Gentile brethren while under the wrath of God was requested by Paul, that they might more deeply appreciate their salvation and call to Christian service.<\/p>\n

2) “That ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh”<\/strong> (hoti pote humeis ta ethne en sarki) “That ye at one time were Gentiles in the flesh.” To be unregenerate was bad, but to be a Gentile in the flesh, an heathen in the race, religion, morals, and ethical conduct was worse. Their reputation as citizens was then very base. Their call to remember the former days of their lives in sin was much like Israel’s call to remember her days of bondage in Egypt, Deu 15:15<\/span>; Deu 8:2<\/span>; Deu 32:7<\/span>; 2Pe 1:12-13<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “Who are called Uncircumcision”<\/strong> (hoi legomenoi akrobustia) The term uncircumcision was one spoken by the Jews in derision and contempt of those not physically circumcised in the flesh. They considered them to be physically, morally, and spiritually unclean, of low-class reputation, in the flesh.<\/p>\n

4) “By that which is called”<\/strong> (hupo tes legomenes) “By the ones being called, alluded to, or identified” as the circumcision, as Jews, Abraham’s seed in the flesh, Joh 8:39-45<\/span>; Gen 17:26<\/span>.<\/p>\n

5) “The Circumcision in the flesh made with hands”<\/strong> (peritomes en sarki cheiropoietou) Those with the male foreskin having been circumcised or cut away, a mark of the Jew in the flesh, claiming to keep Moses’ law, as distinguished from those of the races without or who did not practice the physical circumcision of all the males in the family. These circumcised in the flesh looked with contempt on the Gentiles while considering themselves righteous, despising others, Luk 18:9<\/span>; Gal 5:6<\/span>; Gal 6:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11. Wherefore remember. The apostle never once loses sight of his subject, marks it out clearly, and pursues it with increasing earnestness. He again exhorts the Ephesians to remember what their character had been before they were called. This consideration was fitted to convince them that they had no reason to be proud. He afterwards points out the method of reconciliation, that they might rest with perfect satisfaction on Christ alone, and not imagine that other aids were necessary. The first clause may be thus summed up: “Remember that, when ye were uncircumcised, ye were aliens from Christ, from the hope of salvation, and from the Church and kingdom of God; so that ye had no friendly intercourse with God.” The second may run thus: “But now ingrafted into Christ, ye are at the same time reconciled to God.” What is implied in both parts of the description, and what effect the remembrance of it was fitted to produce on their minds, has been already considered. <\/p>\n

Gentiles in the flesh. He first mentions that they had wanted the marks of God’s people. Circumcision was a token by which the people of God were marked out and distinguished from other men: Uncircumcision was the mark of a profane person. Since, therefore, God usually connects his grace with the sacraments, their want of the sacraments is taken as an evidence that neither were they partakers of his grace. The argument, indeed, does not hold universally, though it does hold as to God’s ordinary dispensations. Hence we find the following language: <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man.” (Gen 3:22<\/span>) <\/p>\n

Though he had devoured the whole tree, he would not, by merely eating it, have recovered the possession of life; but, by taking away the sign, the Lord took from him also life itself. Uncircumcision is thus held out to the Ephesians as a mark of pollution. By taking from the Ephesians the token of sanctification, he deprives them also of the thing signified. <\/p>\n

Some are of opinion, that all these observations are intended to throw contempt on outward circumcision; but this is a mistake. At the same time, I acknowledge, that the qualifying clause, the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, points out a twofold circumcision. The Jews were thus taught that they should no longer indulge in foolish boasting about the literal circumcision. The Ephesians, on the other hand, were instructed to abstain from all scruples on their own account, since the most important privilege—nay, the whole truth expressed by the outward sign—was in their possession. He calls it, Uncircumcision in the flesh, because they bore the mark of their pollution; but, at the same time, he suggests that their uncircumcision was no hinderance to their being spiritually circumcised by Christ. <\/p>\n

The words may likewise be read in one clause, Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, or in two clauses: Circumcision in the flesh, meaning that it was carnal; made by hands, meaning that it was done by the hand of man. This kind of circumcision is contrasted with that of the Spirit, or of the heart, (Rom 2:29<\/span>,) which is also called the circumcision of Christ. (Col 2:11<\/span>) <\/p>\n

By that which is called. Circumcision may be viewed here either as a collective noun for the Jews themselves, or literally for the thing itself; and then the meaning would be, that the Gentiles were called Uncircumcision, because they wanted the sacred symbol, that is, by way of distinction. This latter sense is countenanced by the qualifying phrase; but the substance of the argument is little affected. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES<\/em><\/p>\n

Eph. 2:11<\/span>. Wherefore remember, that ye, etc.<\/strong>All that follows in the verse serves to define the ye, the verb following in Eph. 2:12<\/span> after the repeated yeye were without Christ. Called Uncircumcision called the Circumcision. As much rancour lies in these words as generally is carried by terms of arrogance on the part of those only nominally religious, and the scornful epithets flung in return. They can be matched by our modern use of The world and Other-worldliness.<\/p>\n

Eph. 2:12<\/span>. Without Christ.<\/strong>Not so much not in possession of Christ as outside Christ, or, as R.V., separate from Christ. The true commentary is Joh. 15:4-5<\/span>. The branch severed from the trunk by knife or storm bears no fruit thenceforth; disciples apart from Christ can do nothing. Being aliens from the commonwealth.<\/strong>What memories might start at this word! Did St. Paul think of the separation from the Jewish synagogue in Ephesus or of the fanatical outburst created in Jerusalem when the Jews from Asia saw Trophimus the Ephesian in company with the apostle? To such Jews the Gentiles were nothing but massa perditionis<\/em>. Like Eph. 2:2-3<\/span>, this is a reminder of the dark past, the misery of which did not consist in a Jewish taunt so much as in a life of heathenish vices. Having no hope, and without God in the world.<\/strong>To be godlessnot sure that there is any Godthis is to take the master-light of all our seeing from us; to live regardless of Him, or wishing there were no Godthat way madness lies. To be God-forsaken with a house full of idolsthat is the irony of idolatrous heathenism.<\/p>\n

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.<\/em>Eph. 2:11-12<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The Forlorn State of the Gentile World<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. Outcast.<\/strong>Gentiles, called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision (Eph. 2:11<\/span>). The circumcised Jew regarded himself as a special favourite of Heaven, and superior to all other men. He hardly felt himself a member of the human family. He was accustomed to speak of himself as chosen of God, and as holy and clean; whilst the Gentiles were treated as sinners, dogs, polluted, unclean, outcast, and God-abandoned. Between Jew and Gentile there was constant hatred and antagonism, as there is now between the Church and the world. On the one hand, the old religion, with its time-honoured teachings, its ancient traditions, the Church of the Fathers, the guardian of revelation, the depositary of the faith, the staunchness that tends to degenerate into bigotryhere is the Jew. On the other hand, the intellectual searchings, the political aspirations and mechanical contrivingsscience, art, literature, commerce, sociology, the liberty which threatens to luxuriate into licencehere is the Gentile. Ever and again the old feud breaks out. Ever and again there is a crack and a rent. The gulf widens, and disruption is threatened. The majority is outside the circle of the Church.<\/p>\n

II. Christless.<\/strong>That at that time ye were without Christ. The promises of a coming Deliverer were made to the Jews, and they were slow to see that any other people had any right to the blessings of the Messiah, or that it was their duty to instruct the world concerning Him. They drew a hard line between the sons of Abraham and the dogs of Greeks. They erected a middle wall of partition, thrusting out the Gentiles into the outer court. Christ has broken down the barrier. On the area thus cleared He has erected a larger, loftier, holier temple, a universal brotherhood which acknowledges no preferences and knows no distinctions. In Christ Jesus now there is neither Jew nor Greek, but Christ is all and in alla vivid contrast to the Christlessness of a former age.<\/p>\n

III. Hopeless.<\/strong>Being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope (Eph. 2:12<\/span>). Where there is no promise there is no hope. Cut off from any knowledge of the promises revealed to the Jews, the Gentiles were sinking into despair.<\/p>\n

IV. Godless.<\/strong>Without God in the world. With numberless deities the Gentiles had no God. They had everything else, but this one thing they lackedknowledge of God their Father; and without this all their magnificent gifts could not satisfy, could not save, them. Culture and civilisation, arts and commerce, institutions and laws, no nation can afford to undervalue these; but not only do all these things soon fade, but the people themselves fall into corruption and decay, if the Breath of Life is wanting. As with nations, so is it with individuals. Man cannot with impunity ignore or deny the Father of earth and heaven.<\/p>\n

Lessons.<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Man left to himself inevitably degenerates<\/em>. <\/p>\n

2. When man abandons God his case is desperate<\/em>. <\/p>\n

3. The rescue of man from utter ruin is an act of divine mercy<\/em>.<\/p>\n

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n

Eph. 2:11-12<\/span>. The Condition of the Ephesians before their Conversion descriptive of the State of Sinners under the Gospel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

I. They were in time past Gentiles in the flesh.<\/strong>He admonishes them not to forget the dismal state of heathenism out of which they had been called, and often to reflect upon it, that they might ever maintain a sense of their unworthiness and awaken thankful and admiring apprehensions of that grace which had wrought in them so glorious a change.<\/p>\n

II. Reminds them of the contempt with which they had been treated by the Jews.<\/strong>The Jews, instead of improving the distinction of their circumcision to gratitude and obedience, perverted it to pride, self-confidence, and contempt of mankind. They not only excluded other nations from the benefit of religious communion, but even denied them the common offices of humanity. One of their greatest objections to the gospel was that it offered salvation to the Gentiles.<\/p>\n

III. They were without Christ.<\/strong>To the Jews were chiefly confined the discoveries which God made of a Saviour to come. From them in their captivities and dispersions the Gentiles obtained the knowledge they had of this glorious Person. This knowledge was imperfect, mixed with error and uncertainty, and at best extended only to a few. The Gentiles, contemplating the Messiah as a temporal prince, regarded His appearance as a calamity rather than a blessing.<\/p>\n

IV. They were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.<\/strong>To the forms of worship instituted in the Mosaic law none was admitted but Jews and such as were proselyted to the Jewish religion. All uncircumcised heathens were excluded as aliens.<\/p>\n

V. They were strangers from the covenants of promise.<\/strong>The discovery of the covenants of promise until the Saviour came was almost wholly confined to the Jews. How unhappy was the condition of the Gentile world in the dark, benighted ages which preceded the gospel!<\/p>\n

VI. They had no clear hope of a future existence.<\/strong>Many of them scarcely believed or thought of a life beyond this. They had no apprehension, hardly the idea of a restoration of the body. Those who believed in a future state had but obscure and some of them very absurd conceptions of it. Still more ignorant were they of the qualifications necessary for happiness after death.<\/p>\n

VII. They were atheists in a world in which God was manifest.<\/strong>The heathens generally had some apprehension of a Deity; but they were without a knowledge of the one true God and without a just idea of His character. There are more atheists in the world than profess themselves such. Many who profess to know God in works deny Him.Lathrop<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Eph. 2:12<\/span>. Hopeless and Godless<\/em>.The soul that has no God has no hope. The character of the God we love and worship will determine the character of our hope. <\/p>\n

1. The heathen religion was the seeking<\/em> religion. Their search arose out of a deeply felt want. They felt the need of something they did not possess; and the finest intellects the world has ever known bravely and anxiously devoted all their colossal powers to the task of fathoming the mysteries of life. The hope of discovery buoyed them up and urged them onwards; but their united endeavours brought them only to the borderland of the unseen and the unknown, where they caught but glimmerings of a truth that ever receded into the great beyond. The world by wisdom knew not God, and therefore had no hope. <\/p>\n

2. The Hebrew religion was the hoping<\/em> religion. Favoured with a revelation of the only true God, their hope expanded with every advancing step of the progressive revelation. Their hope was based on faith<\/em>, as all true hope must befaith in the promises of God. They had the promise of a Deliverer<\/em> whose wisdom should excel that of Moses and Solomon, and whose power should surpass that of Joshua and of his heroic successors in the most brilliant period of their military career; and, through the centuries of prosperity and decline, of scattering and captivity, and amid unparalleled sufferings which would have extinguished any other nation, hope fastened and fed upon the promises till the true Messiah came, whom St. Paul justly described as the Hope of Israel, the Hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers. <\/p>\n

3. The Christian<\/em> religion is the complement<\/em> and perfection<\/em> of all previously existing systems; it is the grand realisation of what the heathen sought and the Hebrew hoped for. It is in Jesus we have the clearest, fullest, and most authoritative revelation of God, and it is in Him, and in Him alone, that the loftiest hope of man finds its restful and all-sufficient realisation. The apostle Paul refers to Jesus specifically as our HopeOur Lord Jesus Christ, which is our Hope (1Ti. 1:1<\/span>). <\/p>\n

4. In the light of this great and indubitable truth the words of our text may be clearly and unmistakably interpreted, and they assume a terrible significance. To be without Christ is to be without God and without hope<\/em>. <\/p>\n

(1) Hope is not simply expectation<\/em>. We expect many things we do not hope for. In the natural course of things we expect difficulties, we expect opposition and misrepresentationblack wounding calumny the whitest virtue strikeswe expect affliction and suffering, we expect the infirmities and disabilities of age; but we are none of us so fond of trouble for troubles sake as to hope for any of these things. <\/p>\n

(2) Hope is not simply desire<\/em>. Our desires are as thick and plentiful as apple blossoms, few of which ever ripen into the fruit they promise. We desire uninterrupted health, we desire wealththe most dangerous and disappointing of all human wisheswe desire pleasure, success in life, and the realisation of the most ambitious dreams; but we have no reasonable ground for hoping that all our desires will ever be attained. <\/p>\n

(3) Hope is the expectation of the desirable<\/em>, and it must have a foundation on which the expectation rests and an object to which the desire can rise. The foundation of hope is Christ, and the object of hope is to live with Him in eternal glory. To be without hope and without God does not mean that hope and God do not exist. The world is full of both; they are among you, they surround you, the very air vibrates with the ever-active presence of these grand realities; but they are as though they did not exist for you unless you know and feel they do exist within you. <\/p>\n

(4) Hope presupposes faith<\/em>; they cannot exist apart. Faith discovers the only foundation which is laid, which is Christ Jesus, fastens the soul to and settles it on this foundation, and faith and hope rouse all the activities of the soul to build on this foundation a superstructure which shall grow in solidity, in symmetry, and in beauty, until it becomes a perfect marvel of moral architecture, richly ornamented with the most delicate tracery and shimmering and flashing with the resplendent glory of God. <\/p>\n

(5) Hope is the balloon of the soul<\/em>, soaring majestically into the heavens, scanning scenes of beauty and grandeur never beheld by our earth-bound senses, and faithfully reporting to the soul the state of affairs in the skies; but it is a captive balloon<\/em>, and the connecting cords are firmly held in the hand of faith. The loftiest flights and the swing of what might seem the most eccentric gyrations of hope are held in check by the friendly, the sympathetic, but unswerving grasp of faith. My dear Hope, Faith says, it is very nice for you to be up there, basking in the cloudless sunshine and drinking in the melody of the ascending lark as it ripples up the heights; and I like you to be there. I could never get there myself; and you tell me of things I should never otherwise know, and they do me good. But, remember, I cannot let you go. We are linked together in the sacred bonds of a holy wedlock. We are necessary to each other, and cannot do without each other. If you were to break away from me, you would vanish like vapour into space, and I should be left forlorn and powerless And Hope replies: I know it, my dear Faith. Divorce would be fatal to us both, and our union is too sweet and precious ever to dream of separation. I live in these upper regions purely for your sake. You know I have cheered you up many a time and will do so again. My joy is to brighten your life of toil and conflict down there. When the soul has done with you it will have done with me, and when my work is finished I shall be content to die. Thus faith and hope are essentially united, and both are wedded together by the souls living union with Christ. <\/p>\n

(6) A false hope is really no hope<\/em>. It rests on no solid foundation; it is not justified by sound reason. It is but the blue light of a frantic conjecture generated amid the restless tumults of a soul in the last stages of despair. At the best a false hope is but a beautiful dream spun from the gossamer threads of a busy and excited fancy, a dream of what we wish might be<\/em>, and, like all other dreams having no substantial basis, it dissolves into space under the first touch of reality. A false hope lures its victims on to destruction, as the flickering lights of the marsh gases seduce the belated traveller into the dismal swamps from which there is no release.<\/p>\n

A State of Sin a State of Ungodliness<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1. Men do not recognise the existence of God.
2. They do not acknowledge His moral government.
3. They do not seek His favour as their chief good.
4. They do not delight in His communion.
5. They do not anticipate their final reckoning with Him.
6. They do not accept His own disclosures concerning the attributes of His nature and the principles of His administration.G. Brooks<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Man without God<\/em>.He is like a ship tossed about on a stormy sea without chart or compass. The ship drifts as the waves carry it. The night is dark. The pilot knows not which way to steer. He may be close to rocks and quicksands. Perhaps a flash of lightning falls on a rock, or he hears the waves breaking over it. But how shall he escape, or how prepare to meet the danger? Shall he trust in providence? What providence has he to trust in? Poor man! He is without God. Shall he throw out an anchor? But he has no anchor. He wants the best and only safe anchor, hopethe anchor of the soul. Such is the state of man when he is far off, without a God to trust in, without hope to comfort and support him. But give the man a true and lively faith in Christ, tell him of a merciful and loving Father who careth for us and would have us cast all our care upon Him, show him that hope which is firm to the end, and straightway you make a happy man of him. You give him a course to steer, a chart and compass to guide him, an anchor which will enable him to withstand the buffeting of every storm. You insure him against shipwreck, and you assure him of a blessed haven where at length he will arrive and be at rest.A. W. Hare<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Practical Atheism<\/em>.If it had been without friends, without shelter, without food, that would have made a gloomy sound; but without God! That there should be men who can survey the creation with a scientific enlargement of intelligence and then say there is no God is one of the most hideous phenomena in the world.<\/p>\n

I. The text is applicable to those who have no solemn recognition of Gods all-disposing government and providence<\/strong>who have no thought of the course of things but just as going on, going on some way or other, just as it can be; to whom it appears abandoned to a strife and competition of various mortal powers, or surrendered to something they call general laws, and these blended with chance.<\/p>\n

II. Is a description of all those who are forming or pursuing their scheme of life and happiness independent of Him.<\/strong>They do not consult His counsel or will as to what that scheme should be in its ends or means. His favour, His blessing are not absolutely indispensable. We can be happy leaving Him out of the account.<\/p>\n

III. Is a description of those who have but a slight sense of universal accountableness to God as the supreme authority<\/strong>who have not a conscience constantly looking and listening to Him and testifying for Him. This insensibility of accountableness exists almost entirea stupefaction of consciencein very many minds. In others there is a disturbed yet inefficacious feeling. To be thus with God is in the most emphatical sense to be without Himwithout Him as a friend, approver, and patron. Each thought of Him tells the soul who it is that it is without, and who it is that in a very fearful sense it never can be without.<\/p>\n

IV. The description belongs to that state of mind in which there is no communion with Him<\/strong> maintained or even sought with cordial aspiration. How lamentable to be thus without God! Consider it in one single view only, that of the loneliness<\/em> of a human soul in this destitution.<\/p>\n

V. A description of the state of mind in which there is no habitual anticipation of the great event of going at length into the presence of God;<\/strong> in which there is an absence of the thought of being with Him in another world, of being with Him in judgment, and whether to be with Him for ever.<\/p>\n

VI. A description of those who, professing to retain God in their thoughts, frame the religion in which they are to acknowledge Him according to their own speculation and fancy.<\/strong>Will the Almighty acknowledge your feigned God for Himself, and admit your religion as equivalent to that which He has declared and defined? If He should not, you are without God in the world. Let us implore Him not to permit our spirits to be detached from Him, abandoned, exposed, and lost; not to let them be trying to feed their immortal fires on transitory sustenance, but to attract them, exalt them, and hold them in His communion for ever.John Foster<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Previewing in Outline Form <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:11-22<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

D.<\/p>\n

Once aliens, now fellow-citizens with the saints. Eph. 2:11-22<\/span>. (This section is addressed to Gentile Christians, Eph. 2:11<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

Former condition far off. Eph. 2:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n

a.<\/p>\n

Separate from Christ.<\/p>\n

b.<\/p>\n

Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.<\/p>\n

(An alien is a foreign-born resident of a country, in which he does not possess the privileges of a citizen.)<\/p>\n

c.<\/p>\n

Strangers from the covenants of the promise.<\/p>\n

d.<\/p>\n

Having no hope.<\/p>\n

e.<\/p>\n

Without God in the world.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

Present condition made nigh in Christs blood. Eph. 2:13-18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

a.<\/p>\n

He (Christ) is our peace, Eph. 2:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

b.<\/p>\n

He makes both Jews and Gentiles one. Eph. 2:14-18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

1)<\/p>\n

He broke down the middle wall of partition between them, abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments, Eph. 2:14<\/span> b16<\/span>.<\/p>\n

a)<\/p>\n

He did this that He might create in Himself one new man of the two. Eph. 2:15<\/span> b.<\/p>\n

b)<\/p>\n

He did this to reconcile both unto God in one body. Eph. 2:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2)<\/p>\n

He preached peace to those far off and those that were nigh. Eph. 2:17<\/span>.<\/p>\n

a)<\/p>\n

He provides access to the Father for both Jews and Gentiles. Eph. 2:18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

Grand summary, Eph. 2:19-22<\/span>.<\/p>\n

a.<\/p>\n

We are no more strangers and sojourners, Eph. 2:19<\/span>.<\/p>\n

b.<\/p>\n

We are fellow-citizens with the saints.<\/p>\n

c.<\/p>\n

We are members of the household of God.<\/p>\n

d.<\/p>\n

We are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ being the chief corner-stone. Eph. 2:20-22<\/span>.<\/p>\n

1)<\/p>\n

In Him all the building grows into a holy temple. Eph. 2:21<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2)<\/p>\n

In Him ye are builded together for an habitation of God. Eph. 2:22<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fact Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

104.<\/p>\n

What is the section Eph. 2:11-22<\/span> called?<\/p>\n

105.<\/p>\n

What are the subdivisions of this section?<\/p>\n

106.<\/p>\n

What is an alien?<\/p>\n

Text <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:11-12<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

11 Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; 12 that ye were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thought Questions <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:11-12<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

86.<\/p>\n

What is the benefit of remembering the bad character of our ancestors who lived before Christ came to earth?<\/p>\n

87.<\/p>\n

What was the feeling held by the Jew toward those he called Uncircumcision?<\/p>\n

88.<\/p>\n

How would the Gentiles be any more separate from Christ (the Messiah) than the Jews were before Christ came?<\/p>\n

89.<\/p>\n

What misfortune was it to the Gentiles to be alienated from the commonwealth of Israel?<\/p>\n

90.<\/p>\n

What is a covenant? How many promises were attached to the covenants referred to? What was the promise? Name any individuals with whom God made a covenant containing the promise.<\/p>\n

91.<\/p>\n

Are there still people who have no hope and are without God in the world? Is such a condition any longer necessary?<\/p>\n

Paraphrase<\/strong><\/p>\n

11.<\/p>\n

Wherefore, to strengthen your sense of Gods goodness in saving you (Eph. 2:8<\/span>), and of the obligation that He has thereby laid on you to do good works (Eph. 2:10<\/span>), you Ephesians should remember that you were formerly Gentiles by natural descent, people who are called Uncircumcised and Unholy by the nation (the Jews) which is called Circumcised with a circumcision made with mens hands on the flesh, and which considers itself holy on that account and entitled to the promises.<\/p>\n

12.<\/p>\n

Remember always that you were at that time before Christ came, without any knowledge or hope of the Messiah, which the Jews knew and rejoiced in; you were alienated from the state of Israel, which God had chosen as His own people (Deu. 14:2<\/span>); you were unacquainted with the covenants (agreements and arrangements) such as God made with Abraham and David that contained the promise of the Messiah; having no hope of immortality or forgiveness of sins; and without God and the life that He imparts (Eph. 4:18<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Notes <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:11-12<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

Remembering the darkness in which our ancestors lived before Christ came (and in which we would still be living if He had not come) should make us humble and devoted to good works in the name of Christ.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

We often boast of our superior American civilization, and sometimes even of our superior white race. We need to remember that before Christ came our ancestors practiced human sacrifice in Britian (among the Druids), The savagery of the Irish, the Gauls (French), and the Germans was no better, All the good within us and within our society has come to us through the Christ. But many snub (and indeed crucify) the Christ who has so abundantly favored us.<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

There are those delightful English (and American) people so broadminded that they would let the heathen alone (and not send missionaries to them). Where did these delightful large-minded Christians come from? From heathendom. There was a time when their ancestors painted themselves blue, and did not wear any clothing worth mentioning, and were not indisposed to eat one another when circumstances seemed to point in the direction of that kind of gruesome festival. Yet these people who have come from heathenism gather their fur cloaks around them and say that perhaps it would be just as well to let the heathen alone. Persons who talk so never saw Christ, never felt the power of His love, have absolutely nothing whatever to do with Christ; and when they touch the cup of His blood, they bring their blasphemy to a culmination. (Joseph Parker)<\/p>\n

4.<\/p>\n

The hopelessness of the Gentiles before Christ came is well illustrated by an ancient letter from one woman to another. The writer of the letter had previously lost a son, and was writing to console another woman who had lost her son some time later:<\/p>\n

Irene to Taonnophris and Philo, good comfort. I am so sorry and weep over the departed one as I wept for Didymas. And all things, whatsoever were fitting, I have done, and all mine, Epaphroditus, and Thurmuthian, and Philion, and Appollonius and Plantas. But nevertheless, against such things one can do nothing. Therefore comfort ye one another. Farewell. (From Rimmer, Crying Stones. Used by permission.)<\/p>\n

5.<\/p>\n

God made numerous covenants with individuals (and groups) in Old Testament times that contained the promise of the Messiah (Christ). Examples are 1) the covenant with Abraham (Gen. 22:15-18<\/span>; Gal. 3:15-16<\/span>); 2) with David (2Sa. 7:12-16<\/span>); 3) with Joshua, the high priest (Zec. 3:6-8<\/span>); 4) with all who hunger and thirst (Isa. 55:3-5<\/span>).<\/p>\n

But the Gentiles knew nothing of these gracious, glowing covenants of the promise. They were strangers to them.<\/p>\n

Fact Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

107.<\/p>\n

Name four of the five things stated that the Gentiles did not have before Christ.<\/p>\n

108.<\/p>\n

What promise did the covenants of the promise contain?<\/p>\n

Text <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:13<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thought Questions <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:13<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

92.<\/p>\n

Who are those who were far off? Far off from what (Eph. 2:12<\/span>)?<\/p>\n

93.<\/p>\n

In whom are those who were once far off now made nigh?<\/p>\n

94.<\/p>\n

Why is the blood of Christ needed to make us nigh?<\/p>\n

Paraphrase<\/strong><\/p>\n

13.<\/p>\n

But now, in contrast to your former far-off and hopeless state, you Gentiles who are in Christ Jesus, that is, in His body, the church, are made to be near to God through the blood that Jesus shed to bring us unto God. (1Pe. 3:18<\/span>)<\/p>\n

Notes <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:13<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

What a contrast is indicated by that little word but. It implies all the difference between the savagery of heathenism, and godly civilized people who call on the name of the Lord.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

No man can hope to be brought near to God except by the precious blood of Christ.<\/p>\n

Fact Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

109.<\/p>\n

In what are the Gentiles made nigh?<\/p>\n

Text <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:14-16<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, 15 having abolished in his flesh the enmity, <\/strong>even <\/strong>the law of commandments <\/strong>contained <\/strong>in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, <\/strong>so <\/strong>making peace; 16 and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thought Questions <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:14-16<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

95.<\/p>\n

Who is our peace? What does it mean when it says, He is our peace?<\/p>\n

96.<\/p>\n

Who are the both that were made one?<\/p>\n

97.<\/p>\n

What was the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles? Eph. 2:15<\/span> can give you the answer to this.<\/p>\n

98.<\/p>\n

How did the Law of commandments cause enmity between Jew and Gentile?<\/p>\n

99.<\/p>\n

When did Christ abolish the Law of Commandments? (See Col. 2:14<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

100.<\/p>\n

Can you see the appropriateness in the description of the united Jews and Gentiles as one new MAN? (See Eph. 1:23<\/span>)<\/p>\n

101.<\/p>\n

In whom did Christ create the Jews and Gentiles into one new man?<\/p>\n

102.<\/p>\n

Note that both Jews and Gentiles need to be reconciled unto someone. Unto whom? (Eph. 2:16<\/span>)<\/p>\n

103.<\/p>\n

In what one body were both Jews and Gentiles reconciled?<\/p>\n

104.<\/p>\n

If the enmity of Eph. 2:15<\/span> is the enmity between Jew and Gentile, between whom is the enmity of Eph. 2:16<\/span>?<\/p>\n

Paraphrase<\/strong><\/p>\n

14.<\/p>\n

For Christ is the author of the peace that we have with one another and with God. He has made both Jew and Gentile to be one people of God, and He has abolished the law of Moses which served as a partition between Jews and Gentiles for centuries.<\/p>\n

15.<\/p>\n

He broke down this middle wall of partition when He died upon the cross, and thereby abolished the law of Moses with its commandments in the form of ordinances, such as circumcision, meats, washings, and holy days, that He might create the two (Jew and Gentile) into one new man in His own body (the church), thus making peace between them.<\/p>\n

16.<\/p>\n

Christ abolished the law of commandments that He might reconcile completely both Jew and Gentile into one body (church), reconciling them unto God through the cross, having by it (the cross) slain the sinful passions of both Jews and Gentiles, which were the cause of their enmity toward God.<\/p>\n

Notes <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:14-16<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

An illustration of the barrier, the middle wall of partition, between Jews and Gentiles before the Christian age can be seen in the signs placed at the gates leading into the inner courts of the temple in Jerusalem, warning the Gentiles not to go farther. One sign read, No foreigner is allowed within that balustrade and embankment about the sanctuary. Whoever is caught (violating this rule) will be personally responsible for his ensuing death.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

The enmity between Jews and Gentiles is well demonstrated by Peters statement to Cornelius: Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation (Act. 10:28<\/span>). Note also that the Jews would not come into the house of Pilate (Joh. 18:28-29<\/span>).<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

The ceremonies of the Law made (and still make) the Jews peculiar in the eyes of the Gentiles. Consider their peculiar diet and Sabbath laws for example. Their laws are diverse from all the people; neither keep they the kings laws (Est. 3:8<\/span>).<\/p>\n

But the Law also caused the Jews to look down on the Gentiles. To them anyone who did not keep the law was almost beneath contempt.
At one time the Law served the very needful purpose of keeping the Jews separated from the idolatry of the Gentiles. But after the Savior of the whole world came, there was no need to keep them separated longer.<\/p>\n

4.<\/p>\n

Few of us would be Christians today if we had to keep all the customs of Moses, to say nothing of all the traditions of the Jewish rabbis. We thank God, then, that when Christ came and died, He abolished in His flesh the commandments contained in the form of ordinances (Col. 1:20-22<\/span>). When this barrier between the Jews and Gentiles was removed, the Gentiles could join the Jews in one body.<\/p>\n

5.<\/p>\n

Christ abolished the Law for two reasons:<\/p>\n

1)<\/p>\n

To create the Jews and Gentiles into one body (church).<\/p>\n

2)<\/p>\n

To reconcile both unto God Eph. 2:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/p>\n

The enmity of Eph. 2:15<\/span> refers to the enmity between Jew and Gentile, The enmity in Eph. 2:16<\/span> probably refers to the enmity between all men and God, It is a universal rule that whenever anyone does a harm or injustice to another, that the person who has done wrong will hold enmity against the one he has wronged, even if the one who is wronged forgives him. When any man is a sinner, he has enmity against God because of his evil works (Col. 1:21<\/span>).<\/p>\n

However, there is no stronger persuasion to move the sinner to be reconciled to God than that furnished by the death of Christ.<\/p>\n

Fact Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

110.<\/p>\n

What did Christ break down?<\/p>\n

111.<\/p>\n

What was the cause of the enmity between Jews and Gentiles?<\/p>\n

112.<\/p>\n

Into what did Christ create the two (Jews and Gentiles)?<\/p>\n

113.<\/p>\n

What two purposes did Christ have in mind when He abolished the Law?<\/p>\n

114.<\/p>\n

What did Christ slay through the cross? (Eph. 2:16<\/span>)<\/p>\n

Text <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:17-18<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

17 and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh: 18 for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thought Questions <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:17-18<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

105.<\/p>\n

Who was it that came and preached?<\/p>\n

106.<\/p>\n

Had Christ preached to the Ephesians personally (Mat. 15:24<\/span>)? If not, how can it be said that He preached peace to you?<\/p>\n

107.<\/p>\n

Who are those far off, and those who are nigh?<\/p>\n

108.<\/p>\n

What is an access?<\/p>\n

109.<\/p>\n

What is the one Spirit? How does the Spirit give us access to the Father?<\/p>\n

Paraphrase<\/strong><\/p>\n

17.<\/p>\n

And Christ, having come in the person of His apostles and preachers, preached good tidings of peace to you Gentiles who were far off from God and to the Jews who were near to God because of their privileged position in ages past.<\/p>\n

18.<\/p>\n

Thus Christ accomplished His work of making the Jews and Gentiles one, because that through Him, we both (Jews and Gentiles) have the way of approach and the introduction unto the Father by the one Spirit that was given to both of us.<\/p>\n

Notes <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:17-18<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

After Christ had removed the Law as a barrier between Jew and Gentile by dying on the cross, He came (not personally, but through His Apostles and preachers, Joh. 13:20<\/span>), and preached good tidings of peace to the Gentiles who were far off (Eph. 2:13<\/span>), and to the Jews who were near. As a rule, the Jews were closer to God than the Gentiles, for they had known the true God for centuries, while God had allowed the Gentiles to walk in their own ways.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

Through Christ both the Jews and Gentiles have the access (way of approach and introduction) to the Father (God) by the one Holy Spirit. No one can talk to a king unless he is introduced by the proper people. Through Christ we can come into the Fathers presence, whether we be Jew or Gentile, for Christ has given to us both the same Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit makes intercession for us. (See Rom. 8:26<\/span>)<\/p>\n

Fact Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

115.<\/p>\n

What did Christ preach?<\/p>\n

116.<\/p>\n

To what two classes of people did Christ come and preach?<\/p>\n

117.<\/p>\n

How can Christ be said to have preached to the Ephesians?<\/p>\n

118.<\/p>\n

What do we have unto the Father through Christ?<\/p>\n

119.<\/p>\n

In what do we have our access unto the Father?<\/p>\n

Text <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:19-20<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

19 So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, 20 being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone;<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thought Questions <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:19-20<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

110.<\/p>\n

What is the cause that we are no longer strangers and sojourners (Eph. 2:17-18<\/span>)? What do the words strangers and sojourners mean?<\/p>\n

111.<\/p>\n

Who are the saints with whom we are now fellow-citizens?<\/p>\n

112.<\/p>\n

What is the household of God?<\/p>\n

113.<\/p>\n

According to 1Co. 3:11<\/span>, Christ is the only foundation. How, then, can we be built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets?<\/p>\n

114.<\/p>\n

Are the prophets referred to here the Old Testament prophets or the New Testament prophets? What reasons do you give for your answer?<\/p>\n

115.<\/p>\n

What would be the purposes of a chief corner-stone?<\/p>\n

Paraphrase<\/strong><\/p>\n

19.<\/p>\n

Therefore then, seeing that you Gentiles have equal access to the Father in the one church with the Jews, you are no longer strangers to the covenants of the promise, nor outsiders dwelling by the people of God (Eph. 2:12<\/span>), but you are joint-citizens with the saints (the Israelites), and are members of the household of God, the church, which constitutes His temple (1Co. 3:16<\/span>; Heb. 3:6<\/span>).<\/p>\n

20.<\/p>\n

Being built into the church with the Jews upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, namely upon Christ Jesus Himself, who is the stone at the extreme corner, uniting the walls into one building.<\/p>\n

Notes <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:19-20<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

As a result of what Christ has done in abolishing the law of Moses and making peace between Jew and Gentile and between all men and God, we (Gentile Christians) are no longer strangers (foreigners, aliens) and outsiders, but we are fellow-citizens with the saints, the Jewish Christians, and we all belong to the household (or family) of God, which is the church.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

We have heard immigrants to the United States tell of their happy experiences in our free country. If it is wonderful to be a citizen in the U.S.A., it is MARVELOUS to be a citizen of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

The foundation of the apostles and prophets is the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets in preaching Christ. For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (1Co. 3:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4.<\/p>\n

The prophets mentioned here are probably those prophets who lived in the times of the apostles, the New Testament prophets such as Agabus, Silas, etc. (Act. 11:27-28<\/span>; Act. 13:1<\/span>; Act. 15:32<\/span>; Eph. 3:5<\/span>). Our reasons for believing this are as follows:<\/p>\n

1)<\/p>\n

The prophets are listed after the apostles. Certainly the Old Testament prophets came before the apostles in time, but the New Testament prophets followed the apostles.<\/p>\n

2)<\/p>\n

The Old Testament prophets taught the people to observe the law of Moses (Mal. 4:4<\/span>). How could they be the foundation of the church, when the Law was the wall of partition between the Jew and Gentile (Eph. 2:14-15<\/span>)?<\/p>\n

3)<\/p>\n

The Old Testament prophets desired to know the gospel of Christ, but were never permitted to know it (1Pe. 1:10-12<\/span>). They could hardly, then, be the foundation of Christs church.<\/p>\n

4)<\/p>\n

The New Testament prophets would be more familiar to the predominantly Gentile church in Ephesus than the Old Testament prophets.<\/p>\n

5)<\/p>\n

The reference to the apostles and prophets in Eph. 3:5<\/span> certainly has reference to the New Testament prophets.<\/p>\n

5.<\/p>\n

In the temple of God, Christ Jesus is the chief corner stone. This stone was larger than the other stones, and was placed at the extreme corner where the two walls met. It thus united the two walls into one building, and gave strength to the whole building. The two walls are the Gentiles and Jews, united by Christ into one church.<\/p>\n

6.<\/p>\n

What a precious privilege this is to know that we are builded upon Christ Jesus into the temple of God. We are built upon a better foundation than the temple of Diana, which sat only upon wooden piles driven deeply into the earth.<\/p>\n

7.<\/p>\n

To the Christians at Ephesus, dwelling in the shadow of the great temple of Diana and daily seeing its outward grandeur, the references in this epistle to that spiritual building of which Christ was the cornerstone and they a part of its noble superstructure, must have spoken with a force, an appropriateness, and a reassuring depth of meaning that cannot be overestimated.<\/p>\n

Fact Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

120.<\/p>\n

If we are no longer strangers and foreigners from God, what are we (Eph. 2:19<\/span>)?<\/p>\n

121.<\/p>\n

What is the foundation of the apostles and prophets?<\/p>\n

122.<\/p>\n

Who is the chief cornerstone? What is a chief cornerstone like, and what does it do?<\/p>\n

123.<\/p>\n

What are the walls which are united by the chief cornerstone?<\/p>\n

124.<\/p>\n

Why would the reference to the temple of God be especially appropriate to the Ephesians?<\/p>\n

Text <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:21-22<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

21 in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thought Questions <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:21-22<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

116.<\/p>\n

Who is referred to by the Whom of Eph. 2:21<\/span>?<\/p>\n

117.<\/p>\n

What is each several building? Does this refer to individuals, the church as a whole, denominations, or congregations?<\/p>\n

118.<\/p>\n

How is each several building prepared so as to grow (Eph. 2:21<\/span>)?<\/p>\n

119.<\/p>\n

Into what does each several building grow?<\/p>\n

120.<\/p>\n

Can we build the temple of God with hands? Why or why not?<\/p>\n

121.<\/p>\n

How does God inhabit His temple?<\/p>\n

122.<\/p>\n

Does Gods Spirit dwell in His temple as a whole, or in the individual souls in it?<\/p>\n

Paraphrase<\/strong><\/p>\n

21.<\/p>\n

In Christ, the chief cornerstone, the building, the universal church, being joined together in a harmonious way, is growing by the addition of converts into a holy temple (or sanctuary) in the Lord.<\/p>\n

22.<\/p>\n

In which temple (or, in whom) you (both Jews and Gentiles) are being builded together for a habitation of God, who inhabits it not in any visible symbol, such as the statue of Diana, or even the glory in the tabernacle, but by the Holy Spirit, who dwells in you both as individuals and as a body (1Co. 3:16<\/span>; 1Co. 6:16<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Notes <\/strong>(<\/strong>Eph. 2:21-22<\/span><\/strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

We interpret the phrase each several building as referring to the universal church, as the King James Version says, all the building, or the whole building. This harmonizes with the context which refers to Christ as the chief cornerstone of all the church.<\/p>\n

The word building refers to an individual congregation in 1Co. 3:9<\/span>. And here in Eph. 2:22<\/span> individuals are spoken of as being builded together. But we still prefer the interpretation we have given.<\/p>\n

Certainly each several building does not refer to various denominations which all together make up the universal church. You cannot make a scriptural unit by combining many unscriptural units.<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

In Christ all the building (or each several building) is fitly framed together. (This same expression is used in Eph. 4:16<\/span> to describe the church as the body of Christ.) Truly the enmity between Jews and Gentiles, and the enmity between all men and God is broken down in the church, and thus every part is fitly framed together into one structure. It is necessary for it to be fitly framed together before it will grow.<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

In the tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple of Solomon, God dwelt in the cloud of glory. But now God dwells in the spiritual temple (the church) through the Holy Spirit in the individual believers. Also the Spirit dwells in them as congregations 1Co. 3:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/p>\n

Not only does the whole church grow into a holy temple in the Lord, but each individual believer is personally builded into the habitation for God in the Spirit. Being a part of church fellowship at its greatest extent is necessary. But unless each individual is a perfectly formed building stone, there will never be any great temple formed of many stones. We have to have both an individual relationship to Christ, and then also full participation with other saints in the church. Are you a living stone in the temple of God (1Pe. 2:14<\/span>)?<\/p>\n

Fact Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n

125.<\/p>\n

What phrase of three words describes the condition of the building that grows?<\/p>\n

126.<\/p>\n

Into what does all the building grow?<\/p>\n

127.<\/p>\n

For what are we builded together?<\/p>\n

128.<\/p>\n

How does God inhabit His spiritual temple?<\/p>\n

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(11) Gentiles in the flesh<\/strong>i.e., <\/em>not having the bodily impress of circumcision, sealing the Jewish covenant.<\/p>\n

Who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision.<\/strong>The use of the phrase calledwith a touch of the contempt implied in our phrase the so-calledsimply implies that now Circumcision and Uncircumcision were mere names, virtually nothing. The declaration of the nullity of circumcision as a religious distinction is often repeated, yet takes various forms. Thus, in 1Co. 7:19<\/span>, it is contrasted with the practical reality of obedience to Gods commandments; in Gal. 5:6<\/span>, with the inner reality of faith working by love ; in Gal. 6:15<\/span>, with the divine gift of the new creation; in Col. 3:11<\/span>, with the spiritual unity of all in Christ. (Comp. also the whole argument of Rom. 2:25<\/span> to Rom. 4:12<\/span>.)<\/p>\n

In the flesh made by hands.<\/strong>St. Paul, however, not content with this, suggests by the addition of these last words a contrast between the false or carnal, and the true or spiritual circumcision, attributing the former to the unbelieving Jews, the latter to all Christians. This contrast is expressly announced in the other Epistles of this period. In Php. 3:2-3<\/span>, we read, Beware of the concision; for we are the circumcision. In Col. 2:11<\/span>, still more distinctly, in significant connection with the appointed means of entrance into the Christian covenant, and significant contrast with the effete Jewish ordinance, In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision not made with hands . . . in the circumcision of Christ; buried with Him in baptism, in which also ye are risen with Him. In that true circumcision lies the distinction between the Church, which is the spiritual Israel, and the heathen world without.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2<\/strong>. The unification of Jew and Gentile into this one elect Church, <\/strong> 11-22.<\/p>\n

Thus far St. Paul has vividly imaged the elect Church as a unit. One God, one Christ, one faith, one glory. His picture is completed; and he has now time to remember <\/strong> (Eph 2:11<\/span>) that his real, present, flesh-and-blood Ephesian Church is ethnically that is, by race a dual Church. Both sections, indeed, belong to the great Caucasian family. But one has come down through Shem, and Heber, and Abraham to the present hour. They have been religiously proud of so divine a descent. For it has come along down a line of heroes, kings, saints, and prophets. The other, starting from the same Noah, has come down through Japhet and Elishah, (Gen 10:4<\/span>,) and has thence been called Hellenic, or Greek. And these are proud of their genius, civilization, arts, and philosophy. The apostle now comes in with his Christ to wipe out and abolish this distinction, and to fuse them into one blessed Christian Church. There is but one Christ, one Spirit, one holy building, which is one temple inhabited by the Spirit.<\/p>\n

This paragraph, like the preceding one, presents two contrasted pictures, a dark and a bright the Ephesians of the past and the Ephesians of the present. Eph 2:11-12<\/span> correspond to 1-3; and Eph 2:13-22<\/span> correspond to 4-10. As we have elsewhere remarked, (note on Rom 8:39<\/span>,) it is the apostle’s style to begin in gloom and end in glory.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11<\/strong>. <\/strong> Wherefore<\/strong> In view of the gracious history of Eph 2:4-10<\/span>. <\/p>\n

Remember<\/strong> Review your past heathen condition, in order to appreciate your present Christian blessedness. <\/p>\n

Gentiles in the flesh<\/strong> As being not circumcised Hebrews. <\/p>\n

Uncircumcision<\/strong> The reproachful epithet of the Jews upon all who possessed not the mark of the Abrahamic descent and covenant. <\/p>\n

Made by hands<\/strong> In distinction from the circumcision of the heart, made by the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘Wherefore remember, that previously you were the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that at that time you were separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.’<\/p>\n

Paul first reminds his Gentile readers of the position they had been in. They had been Gentiles, the Uncircumcision (not circumcised as members of the covenant), separate from Christ, outside the promises of God, having no hope and without God in the world. Many of Paul’s converts had been admirers of the Jewish religion while not being willing to be circumcised and enter it fully. They were thus very much aware of this lack. Others had simply been aware, often vaguely, that they were outside the promises of God because they were not His people.<\/p>\n

‘Gentiles in the flesh who are called Uncircumcision.’ They were non-Jews by birth and not physically circumcised into the covenant. Therefore the Jews despised them and saw them as having no part in the people of God, as outside the promises of God and as having no claim on the Messiah. They were thus seen as ‘without God’.<\/p>\n

Which is called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands.’ This refers to physical circumcision. Previously, without physical circumcision the Gentiles could not become Jewish proselytes, which was at the time their only hope of sharing in the blessings of the God of the Jews. Those who were thus circumcised despised ‘the Uncircumcised’. They saw circumcision as absolutely necessary for all who would be His people.<\/p>\n

‘You were separate from Messiah.’ They had had no part in the coming Messiah, who thus would offer them no hope. Not for them the promise of God’s future deliverance, except as a by-product.<\/p>\n

‘Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel.’ ‘Alienated’ here means excluded from, seen as having no part in. The Jews were seen as among the most moral members of society because of the Mosaic Law. They were, on this account, and on the basis of their ancient writings, admired by many Gentiles. ‘Commonwealth’ (politeia) can also mean ‘way of life’. Thus the idea may be that they were generally excluded from the Jews as a nation, with their superior laws, or alternatively that they were excluded from their way of life which encouraged morality. They did not enjoy the spiritual and moral blessings brought by the Law (the word of God).<\/p>\n

‘Strangers from the covenants of promise.’ ‘Strangers’ were those who were passing through but had limited rights. Thus the Gentiles had had limited rights as regards the covenants or their promises.<\/p>\n

‘Having no hope.’ They had had nothing to look forward to, no Messiah, no future kingdom, no promises. Greek philosophies of the time tended to offer little real hope, being either cynical or profligate, and while there were religions which appeared to offer hope, they failed in what they offered.<\/p>\n

‘Without God in the world.’ This probably refers to their condition as ‘in the world’ without God. Biblically being ‘in the world’ meant being heedless of God and following the world’s ways. Thus they were in the world and far from God. It may however signify that any religious belief they had did not deal with ‘a god who was at work in the world’, as the God of the Jews was at work in the world, as witnessed by their history.<\/p>\n

But a major reason for this detailed description of what they were without, was because he will now demonstrate that in Christ all these benefits are theirs, and theirs without physical circumcision. They will become united with Christ the Messiah, they will become members of the true Israel, they will inherit the covenant promises, they will gain hope, and they will find the God Who acts in history. (In Colossians he will point out that they have in fact been circumcised in the circumcision of Christ – Col 2:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

They Are to Remember that They Were Once Excluded From Israel and the Promises But Are Now Made One With the True Israel; They Are Now the People of God (2:11-3:12)<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Paul here goes on to point out that the ordinances of the Law of Sinai (the whole sacrificial system and all that pertained to it), which were a cause of separation as they were what made Israel distinctive, have now been done away through His cross, which has superseded all offerings and sacrifices, and the result is that all can now be received within that covenant, and within the Abrahamic covenant of promise which offered blessing to the nations (see Galatians 3<\/span>; Gen 12:3<\/span>), and enjoy the same relationship with God and with each other as was dispensed though that covenant. He points out the disadvantages that they had endured while separated, not so much because they had necessarily been concerned about those disadvantages but in order to demonstrate that it was those advantages that they had now gained by having the separation removed. He very strongly emphasises that the two (Jews and Gentiles) have been made one within His covenant. There is now one new Israel, one church, and all who believe are a part of it.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that the idea is not that the Law has been abolished, but that it has rather been fulfilled in Christ (Mat 5:17-18<\/span>). That is why those who are in Christ will fulfil the Law by being filled with His love, not disregard it (Gal 5:13-14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Christ’s Work of Reconciliation Eph 2:11-22<\/span><\/strong> parallels Romans 9-11 as they both explain how the Gentiles were united with Israel and became partakers of Israel’s inheritance. Paul tells us in Eph 2:11-22<\/span> that the Father’s divine plan in redemption is to break down the dividing walls among nations in order to build a habitation for God to dwell among His people. Thus, He is trying to bring unity back to the people on the earth. The first time God poured out His Spirit at the Tower of Babel was to divide the peoples into nations. The second time was the day of Pentecost and it was intended to bring all nations back into one group making peace.<\/p>\n

In Gen 11:1-9<\/span> the gift of tongues was intended to divide the people into nations. In contrast, the gift of tongues that was poured out on the day of Pentecost was intended to unite all people into one new man in Christ Jesus. This is why the Jews of the Diaspora clearly understood them speaking in their own language in order for them to hear the Gospel and become one in Christ Jesus.<\/p>\n

Paul’s Reference to the Nation of Israel <\/em><\/strong> <\/strong> In Eph 2:11-22<\/span> Paul makes numerous references to Israel’s role in God’s plan of redemption. This is because God has not abandoned Israel, but rather grafted in the Gentiles so that all of mankind can partake of these blessed promises. Note how gently Paul refers to the Jews and their traditions in this passage of Scripture. This is because the church at Ephesus was made up of both Gentiles and Jews. Paul worked so hard to bring unity that he was careful not to provoke disunity.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> “ who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands<\/strong> ” Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The Gentiles were called “uncircumcision” by the Jews.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:17<\/strong><\/span> <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Within the context of this passage of Scripture, those “afar off” refers to the Gentiles (Eph 2:13<\/span>), and those “nigh” refers to the Jews. In other words, the Jews were closer to salvation than the Gentiles simply because they had the Law of Moses to direct them to God.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:13<\/span>, “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”<\/p>\n

Illustration – <\/em><\/strong> In the early 1980’s, Jack Emerson, a friend in the ministry, told me that after been accused of being too aggressive in soul-winning and rebuking sin in the lives of believers, the Lord spoke to him to draw a line in the sand. The Lord told him to put a Christian on one side of the line, and a backslider on the other side, but relatively close to the line. The Lord told him to put a Muslim much further away from the line, far behind the backslider. After marking spots for various other unsaved people groups on the side of the line representing lost souls, the Lord asked Jack which ones were going to hell. Jack replied that everyone on the other side of the line was going to hell. The Lord replied by telling him to not worry about what others saying about his witnessing efforts, but to be bold and tell everyone about the Lord and a life of holiness.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:18<\/strong><\/span>  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. <\/p>\n

Eph 2:19<\/strong><\/span><\/strong>  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;<\/p>\n

Eph 2:19<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> <\/strong> Comments – Eph 2:19<\/span><\/em><\/strong> stands in contrast to a believer’s condition before salvation, as described in Eph 2:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:12<\/span>, “That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:”<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20<\/strong><\/span>  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20<\/strong><\/span><\/strong> “And are built upon the foundation” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The books of the Old Testament Scriptures were written by those who walked in the office of a prophet, and the New Testament by those who walked in the office of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. This is why Eph 2:20<\/span> tells us that the Church is built upon the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets. Jesus made reference to this foundation by calling it a “rock” in Mat 6:18<\/span>, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”<\/p>\n

“of the apostles and prophets” – <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> Vine<\/em> says that the phrase “of the apostles and prophets” is the “objective Genitive” in the Greek text, i.e., the teaching laid down by<\/em> the apostles and prophets (1Co 3:11<\/span>, Heb 6:1<\/span>).<\/p>\n

1Co 3:11<\/span>, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”<\/p>\n

Heb 6:1<\/span>, “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection.”<\/p>\n

“of the apostles” (The New Testament Canon) – <\/em> When we examine the authors of the New Testament, we see books written by Matthew and John, two of the Twelve. We can argue that Paul the apostle was incorporated into the office of an apostle at the same level of authority and anointing as the Twelve, for Paul himself says, “For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” (2Co 11:5<\/span>) We then note that Mark wrote his Gospel under Peter’s author as this apostle’s memories of the life of Jesus. Luke wrote his two books under the author of Paul. James was bishop of the church in Jerusalem, carrying an authority that equaled that of the Twelve. Jude was a brother to James and Jesus Christ. Thus, the New Testament canon was closed when these twelve apostles and Paul died, because this level of apostolic authority ended.<\/p>\n

“and prophets” (The Old Testament Canon) <\/em> Is “prophets” referring to the Old Testament prophets or the New Testament ministry of a prophet? Eph 3:5<\/span> suggests that this phrase refers to the New Testament office of a prophet.<\/p>\n

Eph 3:5<\/span>, “Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;”<\/p>\n

However, it is important to note that the books of the Old Testament Scriptures were written by those who walked in the office of a prophet. When the prophets ceased to prophesy, the Old Testament canon was closed. This is confirmed by Josephus, who says, “It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time.” (Josephus, Against Apion<\/em> 1.8) In addition, the opening verse of the book of Hebrews states that the Old Testament was delivered to us by His prophets (Heb 1:1-2<\/span>), thus revealing the fact that the Old Testament prophets were the ones who kept the canon open. Just as the New Testament canon closed when the twelve apostles dies, so did the Old Testament canon close when the prophets ceased.<\/p>\n

Heb 1:1-2<\/span>, “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”<\/p>\n

“Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” <\/strong> Comments – <\/em><\/strong> The phrase “Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” simply means that Jesus Christ is the key to interpreting the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Jesus said, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (Joh 5:39<\/span>) Jesus said to the two on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection, “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luk 24:27<\/span>) Graeme Goldsworthy says, “If Christ truly is our Lord and Saviour, then he is the Lord and Saviour of our hermeneutics.” [104] <\/p>\n

[104] Graeme Goldsworthy, Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation <\/em> (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2006), 19.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:21<\/strong><\/span>  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: <\/p>\n

Eph 2:21<\/span><\/strong> Scripture References – <\/em><\/strong> Note a similar verse:<\/p>\n

Psa 122:3<\/span>, “Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together:” <\/p>\n

YLT<\/em> reads, “Jerusalem–the builded one– <\/em> Is as a city that is joined to itself together.”<\/p>\n

Eph 2:22<\/strong><\/span>  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Son’s Blessings – The Riches of Our Glorious Inheritance Through Justification <\/strong> In Eph 2:1-10<\/span> Paul tells us that in His mercy God the Father saved us out of the bondage of darkness and sin and has prepared for us a work, or plan, to do for Him. He then tells us in Eph 2:11-22<\/span> how God would do this by Jesus’ redemptive work of reconciling all people back to Himself. This passage of Scripture expounds upon Eph 1:7-12<\/span>. God called the Gentiles to become one with Israel, and thus, partakers of Israel’s inheritance. Before this calling the Gentiles were without hope (Eph 2:12<\/span>). This plan is for all of the saints to work together in peace in order to build a habitation for God to dwell among us. In Eph 3:1-13<\/span> Paul elaborates on his personal calling as an apostle to the Gentile to reveal the “mystery” that he has just discussed in Eph 2:1-22<\/span>. He explains that this mystery is found in Christ Jesus, in whom are hid “the unsearchable riches of Christ” (Eph 3:8<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Outline <\/em> Here is a proposed outline:<\/p>\n

1. Christ’s Work of Reconciliation Eph 2:11-22<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Paul’s Commission to Declare These Riches Eph 3:1-13<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

A special reminder to the Gentile Christians:<\/p>\n

v. 11<\/strong>. Wherefore, remember that ye, being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands,<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 12<\/strong>. that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world;<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 13<\/strong>. but now in Christ Jesus ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> The apostle here addresses himself specifically to the Gentile Christians, who constituted the majority in the Ephesian congregation: Wherefore, remember that formerly you, Gentiles in the flesh, called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh, made by hand. He refers to the entire preceding section: All these things being so, namely, that you were quickened by God into a new, spiritual life, therefore remember. They should keep in mind and in view not merely the riches obtained, but also the poverty and misery from which they were released. They had in their former state been Gentiles in the flesh, by birth, Gentiles in the full sense of the term, representatives of the heathen world. The name uncircumcision, a name of contempt, was flung at them; they were regarded as unclean by the Jews. The apostle intimates, at the same time, that the latter had little reason for proud boasting, for he himself refers with some show of contempt to the “so-called circumcision which is made in the flesh by hand,” for a mere incision in the flesh cannot be made the foundation of a real advantage, has no moral or religious value. All the Jews, therefore, that make this mere external rite a matter of boasting, the apostle means to say, are foolish.<\/p>\n

Aside from this fact, however, it remains true: That you were at that time, apart from Christ, alienated from the citizenship of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and being without God in the world. At the time when the Gentiles were without Christ, outside of Christ, when they as yet did not know, did not have, Christ, they were excluded from citizenship in the kingdom of Christ, they were strangers to the fellowship with Him. They likewise had no share in the covenants of the great Messianic promise which God gave to Abraham and the patriarchs, Gen 13:15<\/span>; Gen 15:18<\/span>; Gen 17:8<\/span>. To this covenant of grace the Gentiles were strangers, because they were strangers to God’s own people, to the children of Israel. As a result, they were without hope; being ignorant of the salvation promised in the Messiah and realized in Christ, they had nothing to hope for beyond this world. Moreover, the last element, the climax of the darkness and misery of their former life, was the fact that the Gentiles were without God in the world. In this world, in this miserable, vain, and transitory world, they were God-less, without knowledge, without worship of the true God, and therefore without a support, like a mastless and rudderless wreck in the midst of a typhoon. That is painting their old heathen condition in the darkest colors.<\/p>\n

Their present condition stands out all the more cheerful by contrast: Now, however, in Christ Jesus, you, who were formerly at a great distance, have come near in the blood of Christ. At the present time, at the time that Paul is writing, those very people that formerly stood afar off, as strangers to the citizenship of Christ, have now come near to the people of God, have been brought into the Church of Christ. See Mat 3:2<\/span>; Mat 4:17<\/span>; Mat 10:7<\/span>; Mar 1:15<\/span>; Luk 10:9-11<\/span>. This wonderful change has been brought about in Christ Jesus. Now they are in Him, united with Him, in living, present, personal fellowship with the Savior. By the blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for their deliverance from sin, death, and damnation, they have been added to the number of the believers joined in the communion of saints. The blood of Christ was the means which brought about the wonderful effect, just as it does today.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11<\/span><\/em><\/strong>.<\/strong> From the foregoing doctrine, that God, of his free grace, according to his purpose from the beginning, had quickened and raised the convert Gentiles together with Christ, and seated them with him in his heavenly kingdom, that is, his gospel kingdom, St. Paul draws this inference to keep them from Judaizing, That though they, as was the state of the heathen world, were heretofore, by being uncircumcised, shut out from the kingdom of God, strangers to the covenants of promise, without hope, and without God in the world, yet they were by Christ,who had taken away the ceremonial law, that wall of partition, which kept them in that state of distance and opposition,now admitted to be the people of God, without being subjected to the law of Moses; and were with the Jews now created into one new man, <\/em>or body of men; so that they were no longer to look on themselves as aliens, or as more remote from the kingdom of God than the Jews themselves: Eph 2:11-22<\/span>. The terms circumcision <\/em>and uncircumcision <\/em>in the abstract, are put for persons circumcised or uncircumcised, as in Rom 2:26<\/span>; Rom 3:30<\/span> and Rom 4:9<\/span>. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11<\/span> . ] Therefore<\/em> , because such exalted and unmerited benefits have been imparted to us (Eph 2:4-10<\/span> ). These benefits should move the reader to remember his former miserable heathen state ( , Eph 5:8<\/span> ; Col 1:21<\/span> ), in order the more gratefully to appreciate, by contrast with the past, the value of his present state.<\/p>\n

] Neither nor is to be supplied, but (observe the order critically vouched for: ) is taken up again by the of Eph 2:12<\/span> , and by , Eph 2:12<\/span> ; while is a descriptive definition to , to which it is related by way of apposition, and . . . is attributive definition to : that at one time ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, ye who<\/em> (quippe qui) were named Foreskin that ye at that time<\/em> , etc.<\/p>\n

] is closely connected as one<\/em> conception, and hence without the article before . This is, as to its meaning, necessarily defined by the undoubted meaning of the following ; on which account it is neither to be taken, as a contrast to regeneration, of the former unholy life<\/em> of the readers (Ambrosiaster, Calovius, Wolf, Holzhausen), nor as origine carnali, natalibus<\/em> (Bucer, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, Rosenmller, Flatt), nor is it to be generalized into respectu status externi<\/em> (Morus). It has reference to the foreskin<\/em> . In the flesh<\/em> , on account of the non-circumcised foreskin, the character ethnicus<\/em> was inherent.<\/p>\n

The ., with the article<\/em> , designates the readers as to their category<\/em> . The contempt<\/em> , however, incurred in their pre-Christian state lies not in . (for this they still remained), but in the following . . .; although we may not, by mentally supplying (with Chrysostom and his successors) the contrast , make into an element of recommendation<\/em> .<\/p>\n

.] is not to be placed in a parenthesis (Griesbach, Scholz), seeing that it is a continued description of the Gentile state of the readers. As the , they were those designated by the name Foreskin!<\/em> And, then, the delineation of this despised relation is brought to a yet higher climax when it is specified by whom<\/em> they were thus reproachfully designated, namely, by the so-called Circumcision, which is made in the flesh with the hand<\/em> . So low was the position you occupied! By those who bear the name of this surgical operation performed on the flesh (counterpart of the ideal circumcision, Rom 2:28<\/span> f.; Phi 3:3<\/span> ; Col 2:11<\/span> ; Act 7:51<\/span> ), and hence have by it in and of itself no pre-eminence at all, you must allow yourselves to be designated, for want of this external rite, with the reproachful name of Foreskin!<\/em> . does not pertain to ., but is an addition of the apostle himself<\/em> to ., describing how the matter<\/em> stands. The abstracta<\/em> . and . do not here stand pro concretis<\/em> , but are stated names<\/em> , by which the concretes were in accordance with their peculiar character designated<\/em> . Comp. 2Th 2:4<\/span> : . The circumstance that Paul, instead of , has not again employed the plural expression , is to be explained by the fact that he wishes to indicate the as a name, which is not adequate to the idea of it in the case of the subjects so termed: by the so-called<\/em> circumcision. The expression is depreciatory<\/em> (comp. 1Co 8:5<\/span> ) as concerns the people who bore the name ; whereas would indicate not the conception of “so-called,” but, in a purely objective manner, the mentioned fact: “those called Foreskin” (Heb 9:3<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2. Extolling comparison of their previous and their present condition<\/em><\/p>\n

Eph 2:11-22<\/span><\/p>\n

11Wherefore remember, that ye being<\/em> in time past Gentiles, [that once29<\/span> 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<\/span> 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<\/span> nigh by [in] the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath [omit<\/em> hath] made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us<\/em> [and broke down the 15middle wall of the partition,]; Having abolished [or done away]32<\/span> in his flesh the enmity, even<\/em> the law of [the] commandments contained<\/em> [expressed<\/em>] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain [that he might create the two in himself33<\/span> into] one new man, so<\/em> making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both [And might reconcile them both]34<\/span> 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<\/span> to them that [those who] were nigh. 18For through him we both have [our]36<\/span> 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<\/span> 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<\/span> himself being the chief corner stone<\/em>; 21In whom all the building39<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

Detailed description of their previous condition<\/em>. Eph 2:11-12.40<\/span><\/p>\n

Eph 2:11<\/span>. Wherefore remember.<\/strong>,wherefore, refers, like Eph 1:15<\/span> : , 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<\/em> (Bengel), taking into view not merely the obtained riches, but also the poverty and misery from which they were released. The reference to Eph 2:5-10<\/span> (Meyer) is not correct, since Eph 2:5<\/span> resumes the object of Eph 2:1-3<\/span>, and Eph 2:4<\/span> 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, Eph 2:1-7<\/span>; Eph 2:8-10<\/span> being an argumentative and explanatory addition.R.]<\/p>\n

That once ye, Gentiles in the flesh<\/strong>, [ ] .(See Textual Note<\/em> 1.] The (Eph 2:12<\/span>), introduced by the resumptive after the apposition, belongs here, so that it need not be supplied. Ye means those who are now Christians (), and that they have been Gentiles in the flesh is marked by . Accordingly 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 , and thus with the additional notion of a fault. Accordingly, Paul adds, in the flesh. This is not (Eph 6:5<\/span>; Rom 9:3<\/span>; Rom 9:5<\/span>; 1Co 10:18<\/span>), which denotes a relation, while here a status is spoken of, one which has been, but is no longer existing (). Joined without the article it forms with Gentiles one conception: Goim<\/em> 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. [ 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 just below. Braunes view of the construction is also the usual one.R.] Otherwise we must take without any reference to heathenism and the therewith connected deficiencies, as the nations excepting Israel<\/em>, and find its quality denoted in the added phrase, as designating what was defective in them. Bengel: hoc considerate Paulus conjungit cum<\/em> Gentes; nam Judi gentes simpliciter dicebunt prputium, non prputium in carne<\/em>Gentiles, not Gentiles in the flesh. Hence it is incorrect to take =natalibus, origine carnati<\/em> (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 Heb 7:16<\/span>; Heb 9:10<\/span>, give no occasion.<\/p>\n

Who are called the Uncircumcision by that which is called [the so called] Circumcision in the flesh wrought by hands<\/strong> [ .]. , uncircumcision, is evidently in apposition to Gentiles in the flesh, and , already prepared for by before , 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. Col 3:11<\/span>; Gal 2:7; 1Co 7:19<\/span>, and =the circumcised. In the phrase who are called the Uncircumcision, the fact that they were<\/em> (Luther) and are so termed, is stated here objectively, while in , instead of , which is<\/em> called, instead of are<\/em> called, it is indicated that the thing and the name do not coincide in the same way, i.e.<\/em>, by the so-called circumcision, the so-called circumcised.41<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

, wrought by hands, is added with special emphasis, forming the antithesis to , Col 2:11<\/span>, and to what is perfect, wrought by God (Heb 9:11<\/span>; Heb 9:24<\/span>; Act 7:48<\/span>; Act 17:24<\/span>). It has a typical reference, as the passages in Hebrews plainly affirm, so that this reference is not contained in , which is not opposed to , 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 (Deu 10:16<\/span>; Deu 30:6<\/span>), and the prophets (Jer 4:4<\/span>; Jer 9:24-25<\/span>; Eze 44:7<\/span>; Eze 44:9<\/span>). 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 (Php 3:3<\/span> : Rom 2:29<\/span>; Col 2:11<\/span>), to which that wrought in the flesh points.42<\/span> 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 qualitate, quam antea commemorat apostolus, nunc latentem inqualitatem profert, ut Gentes, quo longius a Deo abfuerant, eo plura se grati Dei debere fateantur<\/em> (Beza).<\/p>\n

Eph 2:12<\/span>. That ye were at that time<\/strong> [ ]., that, is a resumption of the first (Eph 2:11<\/span>), and connects with remember, adding to the status miserabilior<\/em> of the heathen, already defined, the inner side. The verb placed first for emphasis marks the past, and , the dative of time (Luk 12:20<\/span> : ; Winer, p. 205) renders it even more prominent than work (Eph 2:11<\/span>).<\/p>\n

Without Christ<\/strong>, . ad subjectum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur, avev, ad objectum, quod a subjecto abesse cogitandum est<\/em> (Tittmann, Syn<\/em>. I., 93 ff.). Thus affirms: the heathen are in a condition, where they are deprived of Him: vos eratis procul a Christo<\/em>; esset; Christus non adorat vobis.<\/em>43<\/span> 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 (Olshausen), as the Angel of the Covenant (Rueckert), dwelt already in the people of Israel (see 1Co 10:4<\/span>), and the people of God stood in an attitude of longing, hope, trust and faith, towards the coming One. The antithesis is in Eph 2:13<\/span> : 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 . [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<\/em> (Anselm, Calovius).<\/p>\n

Being alienated from the commonwealth of Israel<\/strong>, .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 of the people of Israel, which has become and will become ever greater, and at the same time an internal estrangement (comp. Eph 4:18<\/span>; Col 1:21<\/span>). The word indicates, if not an original fellowship, still an earlier nearness and equality. Bengel: Abalienati, non: alieni; participia prsupponunt, gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum, imo potius ante lapsum Adami fuisse participes lucis et vit<\/em>. 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 redemptionthis was constituted, on the apostasy of the nations, into a definite 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 (Mat 15:6<\/span>, comp. Chrysostom); and they parted, only to unite again ( , Act 4:27<\/span>) in one act of uttermost rebellion, and yet, through the mystery of redeeming love, to remain thereby (Eph 2:15-16<\/span>) united in Christ forever.R.]<\/p>\n

By (Aristotle: ) 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 (Gen 32:28<\/span>), not of the Jews. Tota respublica, Israelis spectabat Christsm<\/em> (Bengel). Comp. Joh 1:48<\/span>; Rom 9:4<\/span>; Rom 9:6<\/span>; 2Co 11:22<\/span>; Gal 6:16<\/span>. The genitive denotes the possessor, the usufructuary, of the . [So Ellicott, who rightly insists that the word marks their religious<\/em> and spiritual<\/em>, 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).<\/p>\n

And strangers from the covenants of the promise<\/strong>, 44<\/span> .This clause is closely connected with the preceding (), 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<\/em>); covenants designates the repeated renewal of the covenant from Abraham to Moses (Gen 12:2<\/span> f. 7<\/span>; Gen 13:15<\/span>; Gen 15:18<\/span>;. Gen 17:20<\/span>; Gen 22:16<\/span> ff.; Gen 26:2<\/span> ff.; Gen 28:13<\/span> ff.), to the prophets; the context speaks merely of the time before Christ. All these repeated agreements, however, serve the one<\/em> promise given to Abraham referring to all nations as well as characterizing the covenants, and reechoing again and again. So in Rom 9:4<\/span> : 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).<\/p>\n

Having no hope<\/strong>, etc<\/em>.Here again we have two clauses connected and belonging together. , 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 , in accordance with Act 24:15<\/span> : toward God, () . In 1Th 4:13<\/span> we find the expression used as absolutely as here. The negative is used with the participle in this clause, which is dependent on , remember, as a subjective negative. Winer, p. 444. Accordingly this clause is not to be put in dependence upon the preceding strangers, etc<\/em>. (Bengel: si promissionem habuissent, spem habuissent illi respondentem<\/em>; Harless); the clause would thus also be loosened from its close connection with the following one: .<\/p>\n

Without God.<\/strong> is stronger than , corresponding to (2Jn 1:9<\/span>; 1Jn 2:23<\/span>),=not having God. The essence of heathenism is Atheism (Rom 1:21<\/span> ff.); the worship of devils and (1Co 10:20<\/span>; 1Co 7:2<\/span>) 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<\/em> (Act 19:35<\/span>): sed verum Deum ignorabant; tantum aberat, ut haberent<\/em> (1Th 4:5<\/span>). He who is 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 : active<\/em> (opposed to God), neuter<\/em> (ignorant of God, without the subordinate notion of impiety, which Braune prefers), and passive<\/em> (forsaken of God, without Gods 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 (Rom 15:13<\/span>; 2Th 2:16<\/span>). Comp. Doctr. Note<\/em>, 2.<\/p>\n

In the world<\/strong>, , sets forth the antithesis to the commonwealth of Israel, denoting the ungodly where (Meyer), and marking in any case the fearful element of , 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<\/em> (Koppe), in profane humanity, the heathen world (Meyer), or in the world created and ruled by God (Grotius, Rueckert).<\/p>\n

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<\/em>, they are described in regular gradation as being churchless, hopeless, godless<\/em> and homeless<\/em>.R.]<\/p>\n

Eph 2:13<\/span>. Fundamental trait of their present condition<\/em>.But now, in Christ Jesus<\/strong> [ ].The thought of this verse is still in dependence on remember (Eph 2:11<\/span>); the Apostle however breaks off into the independent, antithetical form. But now is in contrast with once (Eph 2:11<\/span>), at that time (Eph 2:12<\/span>). 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<\/span> 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 (Baumgarten-Crusius) or (Calvin), nor connect the phrase exclusively with now (Harless); both belong to below, in fact to the whole sentence.<\/p>\n

Ye who once were far off were brought nigh in the blood of Christ<\/strong>, .The position of the words obliges us to regard as rendered specially prominent, as a general definition of modality, and , 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<\/em> another qualification than before: who were once far off, as corresponding to Eph 2:12<\/span> (alienatedstrangers). Comp. Eph 2:17<\/span>; Acts 3:39; Act 17:27<\/span> (though He be not far from every one of us); Mar 12:34<\/span> (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 (Isa 49:1<\/span>; Isa 60:3-4<\/span>; Isa 66:19<\/span>; Isa 55:5<\/span>; Isa 57:19<\/span>) in their relation to both God Himself and His people. Bucer: qui hactenus non fuisti populus domini, jam estis populus domini<\/em>. 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<\/em>. It is not sufficient to say: longe eratis a cognitione Dei veri et a spe vit clestis<\/em> (Grotius), still less: homines miserrimi<\/em>, , felicissimi<\/em> (Koppe). The approach is something which develops (), has a history;46<\/span> the means rest in and proceed from what is expressed by: in the blood of Christ. This is almost=through his blood, (Eph 1:7<\/span>); the prepositions and are, however, both used in Col 1:16<\/span> : . 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<\/span> (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.<\/p>\n

Closer explanation respecting the nature and genesis of their present condition<\/em>. Eph 2:14-18<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:14<\/span>. For he is our peace<\/strong> [ 48<\/span> ],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<\/em> pacificator; nam<\/em> sui impensa pacem peperit et ipsi vinculum est<\/em> utrorumque. The allusion to passages in prophecy (Mic 5:4<\/span>; Isa 9:5-6<\/span>; Isa 52:7<\/span>; Isa 53:5<\/span>; Zec 9:10<\/span>, etc<\/em>.; also Psalms 72<\/span>) is unmistakable. This is denied by Baumgarten-Crusius. The Messiah is indeed called , not merely Prince of Peace, . The genitive , 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Who made both one<\/strong>, .He is therefore the peace through an act ( with , quippe qui fecit<\/em>), which is set forth here only generally: made one, . Here we find a closer definition of the idea peace, not of our, as the neuter requires. , like , , . . ., 1Co 1:27<\/span> 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= (Eph 2:16<\/span>; Eph 2:18<\/span>), (Eph 2:15<\/span>), as Koppe, Meyer and others think, nor does the neuter define the neuter (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.]<\/p>\n

And broke down the middle wall of the partition<\/strong> [ ].The indefinite notion of making one is now more closely defined; adds in a figure the main point; hence it is not epexegetical (Meyer). [The explanatory or epexegetical force of 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.<\/em>, in that He broke down, etc<\/em>. There seems to be nothing gained by adopting Braunes view, while the other most obviously suggests itself.R.]<\/p>\n

, (like )=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 is not the genitive of apposition (Meyer) or to be resolved into (Grimm, Clavis, sub voce<\/em>); in that case we would have found here . Luther too is incorrect: and has broken down the hedge, which was between. Nor is it= (Grotius and others). Unserviceable here also is the distinction of Bengel: paries disjungit domos, sepes regiones<\/em>. From Mat 21:33<\/span>; Isa 5:2<\/span>, we are shown that (in agreement with Eph 2:15<\/span>) 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 (Act 21:28<\/span>), 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 is aptly chosen (Joh 2:19<\/span>; Mat 5:17<\/span>; Gal 2:18<\/span>; 1Jn 3:8<\/span>; 2Pe 3:10<\/span>).49<\/span>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.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:15<\/span>. Having abolished (done away) in his flesh the enmity, even the law of the commandments expressed in ordinances<\/strong> [ , , . See Textual Note<\/em> 4]. The Apostle now adds, without a connecting particle, the meaning of the figure; he construes it thus: , but during the dictation inserts after the phrase , the banner of this enmity; these two objects in the accusative representing two sides of one object, hence very well allowing the dependence on . To corresponds , 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 (Eph 2:16<\/span>). [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 Judos et ethnicos inimicitia, i.e., diversitas erat, quod illi verum Deum colerent, hi minime<\/em>. 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, , the cause of the same, .<\/p>\n

The law has its contents in commandments: , the injunctions to be regarded and executed, are both the purely moral and the ceremonial commandments of God (Mat 15:3<\/span>; Mat 22:36<\/span>; Mat 22:38<\/span>; Rom 7:8-13<\/span>), called also of men (Tit 1:14<\/span>); the plural marks plurality, and points also to divisions. This is rendered prominent by the phrase , joined closely without the article to , and defining its quality. Similarly: (Eph 1:15<\/span>), (Col 1:8<\/span>), (1Co 2:7<\/span>). Comp. Winer, pp. 129, 206. , used of regal orders (Luk 2:1<\/span>; Act 17:7<\/span>), of apostolic determinations (Act 16:4<\/span>), means here as in Col 2:14<\/span> the statutes of the law; , in Col 2:20<\/span>, is to be ordered or to order ones self. The idea of a mandate is always contained in it. Erasmus: Ostendens legem imperiosam appellat illam<\/em> ()quomodo? non persuasione et lenitate aut promissis, sed prceptis qu vocat<\/em> Dogmata. Every 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<\/em>.R.]<\/p>\n

Of this there is predicated (= , Rom 3:31<\/span>; 1Co 13:11<\/span>): 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<\/em>. 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.]<\/p>\n

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 prceptorum sustulit<\/em>; this is simply untrue historically, impossible logically, unnecessary grammatically, and too artificial. [It seems scarcely correct to render by<\/em> His flesh (Hodge: i.e.<\/em>, by His death), since this leaves out of view the life of Christ as a satisfaction of the law. Besides rarely means simply by<\/em>. Alford and Ellicott however thus limit it: in His crucified flesh<\/em>.The question of connection is more disputed. The article would precede, if it should be joined to . Harless, De Wette, Meyer, Eadie, Hodge agree with Braune in joining it with , in emphatic position. To this Alford, who, with Ellicott and many of the earlier commentators, joins it with , objects, because it makes the instrumental predication precede the verb. If is governed by , 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 Alfords view be accepted.R.]<\/p>\n

Meyer and others take by itself as in apposition to , detaching it from what follows; in that case would stand before . [This is also the view of Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott. While it does not introduce any material<\/em> 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 is more usual after the verb than after . 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 Note<\/em>4.R.]<\/p>\n

Stier incorrectly joins to ; but then the article would necessarily have been prefixed (1Th 1:8<\/span>) or have preceded (Col 1:8<\/span>). 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 as referring only to adiaphora<\/em> (Grotius), to the ceremonial law (Bengel) [Eadie], or to the moral law alone (Calovius), or as referring to philosophorum doctrinas<\/em> (Grotius), since the readers are not homines triti in philosophorum Scriptis<\/em>; quite as little can the doctrine of Christ be denoted thereby (Bengel and others), or nova prcepta<\/em> (Fritzsche). Finally does not point to the removal of the theocratic obligation (Schenkel).<\/p>\n

That he might create the two in himself into one new man<\/strong> [ ]. introduces a final clause, giving here the purpose of , which defines more closely, and with this explains . He has done away the law in its commandments; destroyed the separating elements clinging to it, that He might . Thus the is further defined as creating. The objects of this creation, , 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 (, Eph 2:14<\/span>); the choice of words corresponds. That 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<\/em>. places the Person of Christ again in the foreground: Ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem qurant<\/em> (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 () 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= (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<\/em>(Grotius).<\/p>\n

In this creation (, Eph 2:1<\/span>; Eph 2:10<\/span>) there is a purpose . conditions in the singular. Comp. Gal 3:28<\/span> : ; Joh 10:16<\/span>. By is indicated: , , , . 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<\/em> renewal of persons<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n

[Alford: Observe, not that He might reconcile the two to each other<\/em> 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<\/em> man,the old man to which both belonged, the enemy of God, having been slain in His flesh on the cross. Observe, too, one<\/em> new man: we are all in Gods sight, but one in Christ, as we are but one in Adam.R]<\/p>\n

Hence: So making peace<\/strong>, .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<\/em>. Since 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 ( ) correct only in the first half.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:16<\/span>. And might reconcile them both<\/strong> []. connects this clause with , on which the verb depends; so that this too belongs to the purpose of . The emphasis is on the verb which comes first. This compound occurs only here and in Col 1:20-21<\/span>, and is a strengthened , as and , not merely to expect, but to await, to expect with perseverance. The preposition has the meaning again in composition (see Passow sub voce<\/em>), but only when the notion of the verb itself includes this in some measure, as of what is healed, restored (Mat 12:13<\/span>; Mar 3:5<\/span>; Mar 8:25<\/span>; Luk 6:10<\/span>; Act 1:6<\/span>); 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<\/em> , cujus est unum caput Christus<\/em> (Tittmann, Syn<\/em>. I., p. 105).50<\/span>The object<\/em> of the reconciliation: . [The article renders the object definite: them both<\/em> or both of us<\/em>.R.] Since Paul does not say , which is a mere numeral, but , which denotes diversity, he renders prominent the difficulty and importance of the reconciliation.<\/p>\n

In one body to God through the cross<\/strong> [ ].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, , in thought is the simplest interpretation. The phrase refers, like , , (Eph 2:14<\/span>), to His Person, as the only one in which both are redeemed, to an organism (, not ) in its outward appearance, thus to the body of Christ, the Church. [So Hodge, Alford, Ellicott.] It is not, sicut Latinis collegia vocantur corpora<\/em>, corporation=Society (Grotius).<\/p>\n

The end of the reconciliation is . It is not God that is reconciled with men,51<\/span> but men with God. What has all along been implied, conceived of in general, left indefinite in the words peace (Eph 2:14-15<\/span>), the enmity (Eph 2:15<\/span>), new man (Eph 2:15<\/span>), 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 the atonement<\/em>, is marked as the act, which is the condition of the at-onement. Comp. Doctr. Note<\/em> 3.<\/p>\n

Hence it is not justifiable to take as= (Delitzsch), or to refer it to the body of Christ on the cross (Chrysostom, Bengel: cruci affixo<\/em>, Harless, Hofmann and others), since then would be altogether unnecessary or should be joined with the following (Hofmann, Schriftbeweis<\/em>, 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<\/em> sacrifices before and outside of Christ. Grotius interprets incorrectly: Simul intelligit doctrinam cruce sanctam; sed crucem dicere malint, ut intelligamus, quanto res ista Christo steterit<\/em>; 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<\/em> (Grotius).<\/p>\n

Having slain the enmity on it<\/strong> [ ].The aorist participle defines the mode of consummating the reconciliation, explaining , on which account 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 Eph 2:15<\/span> both the enmity between both and against God, the latter being more prominent here, the former in Eph 2:15<\/span>. 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 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 of God, who certainly has . Comp. Romans<\/em>, 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 is Gods 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 Gods 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. Meyers 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 as the law (Koppe and others). Comp. on Eph 2:14<\/span>. cannot be referred to (Bengel, Hofmann).<\/p>\n

Eph 2:17<\/span>. And he came and preached peace<\/strong> [ ].Since the verb is not dependent upon , but independent, it cannot be joined with Eph 2:16<\/span>. connects rather with Eph 2:14<\/span> : 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 . Accordingly His coming is after His resurrection. Bengel is excellent: Veniens a morte, profectione ad inferos, resurrectione, victor ltus ipse ultro nuntiavit<\/em>. To this the verb , preached, refers, which is not a predicting of the future, but a message from one who is present, who has come. is added descriptively, and is in accordance with the promise (Joh 14:18<\/span>): I come to you, denoting there His continued presence, insigne verbum<\/em> (Bengel). Chrysostom well says: , , . 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 2Ti 1:10<\/span>, where the of the Risen One and His gospel are spoken of.<\/p>\n

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 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 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 Joh 10:16<\/span>; Joh 12:20-23<\/span>; Mat 8:11<\/span>; Mat 14:14<\/span>, 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 Rom 8:9-10<\/span>; Rom 8:14-17<\/span>; Rom 15:18; 2Co 13:3<\/span>; 2Co 13:5<\/span>; Gal 2:20<\/span>; Eph 1:13<\/span>. [So Eadie, Alford, Ellicott (and Hodge, except as regards the comprehensive sense of peace).R.] The tense of the verb defines the point of time of the conversion of individuals; then Christ brought it to them.<\/p>\n

To you who were afar off and peace to those who were nigh<\/strong>, .This is to be taken in accordance with Eph 2:13<\/span>. 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 before this last term marks their need of this, notwithstanding their nearness; however comprises both, since both (Jews and Gentiles) were in the Church, though the latter constituted the main element.52<\/span> Comp. Act 16:23<\/span>. The double is derived from Isa 57:19<\/span>. There refers not inaptly but emphatically, like the double , (Mat 5:37<\/span>; Jam 5:12<\/span>), to Gentiles and Jews, and hence the repetition. The dative depends on the verb, not on as dative commodi<\/em>; 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.]<\/p>\n

Eph 2:18<\/span>. For through him<\/strong> [ ]. is here evidently=quia<\/em>; it is probatio ab effectu<\/em> (Calvin).53<\/span> The purport of the cannot be thus introduced (Koppe); this is set forth in peace, and it cannot be preached, that () 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 (), the reality of the result of this preaching ( ); because the preaching of Christ<\/em> is spoken of, stands first. Were the proclamation the main matter, then 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.]<\/p>\n

We both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father<\/strong> [ ]. here, Eph 3:12<\/span> and Rom 5:2<\/span> ( ) is the presupposition to the entrance into the holiest (Heb 10:19<\/span>) and into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord (2Pe 1:11<\/span>) and the occasion of the drawing near (Heb 10:22<\/span>); it is not merely the right and permission to do so, but a fact in which we rejoice as a reality (1Pe 3:18<\/span>) that has become ours (); the drawing near should not be wanting; (Rom 5:2<\/span>) gives prominence to the appropriation as a continuing fact, denotes only the present possession, the acceptance which has taken place. The underlying figure is according to Heb 10:19-22<\/span> the entrance into the most holy place. In Stier finds indicated a free approach and an ever closer approach. [The active, transitive sense: admission, introduction<\/em>, is preferred by Ellicott, Eadie, and Hodge apparently, following Tholuck (Rom 5:2<\/span>), while Alford prefers the intransitive sense, access<\/em>, 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, Joh 10:9<\/span>. Comp. Romans<\/em>, pp. 160, 161.R.] We need not with Chrysostom ( , ) and Meyer think of a 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, Eph 3:12<\/span>; Rom 5:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The words: 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<\/em>, (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 to the Father (Ellicott).R.] Unto the Father, ad Patrem ut ad Patrem. Hoc versu fit mentio Christi, Spiritus, Patris, eodem ordine, quo<\/em> Eph 2:12, 1Co 1:3<\/span>; 1Co 1:5<\/span>; aliter<\/em> Act 1:4-5<\/span> (Bengel). The choice of prepositions is remarkably apt: , Unto<\/em> the Father through<\/em> Christ in<\/em> the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Sketch of their present condition<\/em>. Eph 2:19-22<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:19<\/span>. So then ye are no longer<\/strong> [ ]. is very often used by Paul (Rom 5:18<\/span>; Rom 7:3<\/span>; Rom 8:12<\/span>, etc<\/em>. Winer, pp. 414, 519); it is=hinc ergo<\/em> [accordingly then, comp. on Gal 6:10<\/span>.R.]; draws a conclusion from Eph 2:14-18<\/span>; continues the discourse. , no longer, is placed immediately after , for the sake of emphasis.<\/p>\n

Strangers and sojourners<\/strong>, .Luthers rendering: Gste und Freundlinge<\/em>, unnecessarily transposes the words. The expression proceeds from the more remote, , to the less remote, . The former is the antithesis of , and thus of the following . So brethren are termed (3 John 554<\/span>) strangers; it is=. The latter word, =, which is often joined with the former (Lev 25:35<\/span>; Lev 25:40<\/span>). Lev 22:10-11<\/span>, where the LXX oppose and , forbidding the former and permitting the latter to eat of the holy things, seems to have been in the Apostles mind. is then here the opposite of , and means inquilini<\/em> (from incolo, incolinus<\/em>), qui domicilium in aliquo loco habent sine jure civitatis, hospites in urbe aliqua<\/em> (Grotius). The frequent figurative descriptions of the kingdom of God as the city or house of God (1Ti 3:15<\/span>; Gal 4:26<\/span> and Heb 3:6<\/span>; Heb 12:22<\/span>) here evidently pass over into each other (); there is not however a union or a mixing of these figures, but the 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 (Eph 2:20-22<\/span>). We should not think of proselytes (Stier), nor take as the antithesis to , which is enhanced in meaning by (Meyer). [The plausible parallelism of Harless and Bengel, adopted by Braune, is doubted by Alford and Ellicott, but accepted by Eadie.R.]<\/p>\n

But ye are.<\/strong>The repetition of , in accordance with the best authorities (see Textual Note<\/em> 9), is emphatic, like Rom 8:15<\/span>; 1Co 2:6-7<\/span>; Heb 12:18<\/span>; Heb 12:22<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fellow-citizens with the saints<\/strong> [ 55<\/span> ].Among the saints we can include only those who have been thus termed from the beginning of the Epistle, Christians. Bengel (Israelis cfr<\/em>. iii. 18), Stier, Bleek, and others, have taken occasion from Eph 2:12<\/span> 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<\/em>. [So Eadie. Alford: Not angels<\/em>, nor Jews<\/em>, nor Christians then alive<\/em> 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 Eph 2:13<\/span> could not fail to remain in the Apostles mind.R.]<\/p>\n

And of the household of God<\/strong>, .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. by itself would mean only domesticus<\/em>, one who dwelt in the same house, as 1Ti 5:8<\/span>, and as , Mat 10:36<\/span>, so that it would remain undecided in what precise relation he stood. The genitive , of God, in accordance with , obliges us to apply it to the most intimate relation, that of a child. It is incorrect to understand, according to Gal 6:10<\/span> : , religionis socii<\/em> (Winer, who compares , philosophi addicti<\/em>), here familiares<\/em>, intimate friends (Theodoret: , 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.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20<\/span>. Built up upon the foundation<\/strong>, .The participle characterizes the as members, who are themselves first wrought, and inserted in the whole as living stones (1Pe 2:5<\/span>), and that too upon the foundation which is laid. Vulgate<\/em> and Bengel: superdificate<\/em>. [We have the noun super-structure<\/em>, 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<\/em> built upon, and the context refers only to what has already been attained, not to the further building, which is emphasized in 1Co 3:10<\/span>, but first mentioned here in Eph 2:22<\/span>. Hence we have here not: (Rom 15:20<\/span>), nor yet: (=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 (Eph 1:10<\/span> : ) is a reading of doubtful authority.R.)<\/p>\n

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. Num 12:7<\/span>; Heb 3:2-6<\/span>; 1Ti 3:15; 2Ti 2:19-21<\/span> :1Co 3:9-10<\/span>; Col 2:7<\/span>; Judges 20<\/span>; Act 20:32<\/span>. [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 is masculine, as in 1Co 3:10-12<\/span>; 2Ti 2:19<\/span>; Heb 11:10<\/span>; Act 21:14<\/span>; Act 21:19<\/span>, or neuter, as in Act 16:26<\/span>, can be determined as little from the text as Rom 15:20<\/span>; 1Ti 6:19<\/span>; 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.<\/p>\n

Of the apostles and prophets<\/strong>, .These genitives set forth who has laid the foundation; 1Co 3:10<\/span> : ; Rom 15:20<\/span> : . For: testimonium apostolorum et prophetarum substrictum est fidei credentium omnium; per illos jactum est fundamentum<\/em> (Bengel). Comp. Eph 3:5-7<\/span>. 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<\/em> (1Co 1:12-13<\/span>; 1Co 3:11<\/span>) and Rev 21:14<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

[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<\/em> 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<\/em>. Christ preached<\/em>, is the ; Christ personal<\/em> the ; Christ mystical the (Ellicott). This view elevates evangelical preaching, while it sends us back of councils and creeds to Christ for our doctrine.R.]<\/p>\n

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 , 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 (Eph 3:11<\/span>): 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<\/em>, 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<\/em>.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<\/em> 6.<\/p>\n

Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone<\/strong> [. See Textual Note<\/em>10].Participium<\/em> initio commatis hujus, valde demonstrat in prsenti tempore<\/em> (Bengel), and marks the being so<\/em>. to which some codices add , occurs only here and 1Pe 2:6<\/span> : , from Isa 28:16<\/span>; comp. Mat 21:42<\/span> : . Lapis angularis, ut duos parietes ipse medius contineret<\/em> (Jerome) (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 1Co 3:11<\/span> 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 Note<\/em>10) do not alter the sense, only marks somewhat more strongly the Person of Christ, and in ., or in the others the historical Christ. is not to be referred to (Bengel and others). The article is naturally wanting after , 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, Eph 2:19<\/span> : ye no longer are.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:21<\/span>. In whom<\/strong>, .This is to be referred then to the Person of Christ, not to corner-stone (Estius, Koppe and others), or foundation (Holzhausen), or the building might be raised. It is not then: above which (Beza: Super<\/em>), nor: on which (Luther), nor yet: through whom (Flatt: per<\/em>), but like Eph 1:10<\/span> : , 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.]<\/p>\n

All the building<\/strong>, .Although is the least sustained reading, and the article should be rejected, and the use of with and without the article according to Rom 3:9<\/span> ( ) is such that the former would mean; the whole<\/em> building and the latter: every<\/em> building, yet here we must in accordance with the context interpret: the whole<\/em> building, as (Act 2:36<\/span>), which however can be regarded as a proper name not requiring the article, see Winer, p. 106. kumenius reads and explains: . Ignatius uses , in the sense of the whole letter, the whole church. The later Greek usage justifies this explanation and the omission of the article.<\/p>\n

[Those commentators who are unwilling to accept the poorly supported reading of the Rec.<\/em>, 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 notthe 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 , so that as they said first (Mat 2:23<\/span>), and then (Act 2:36<\/span>), so they came at length to say (as we ourselves, all creation for all the<\/em> creation) and , 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 Luk 4:13<\/span>; Act 7:22<\/span>; Col 1:15<\/span>, at least show a transition to a larger usage. Meyers grammatical haste leads him into an unwarranted exegesis, for what warrant is there for calling separate congregations .R.]<\/p>\n

is like 1Co 3:9<\/span>, building<\/em>, the edifice in the process of erection, which grows into a temple, especially as Eph 2:22<\/span> : , 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 .R.] Our verse then contains an entirely general thought, which Eph 2:22<\/span> 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 (2Co 6:16<\/span>), and every congregation also such an one, being quite remote. Hence it does not mean: every<\/em> building (Meyer), nor every part of the building, walls, roof, etc.<\/em> (Chrysostom), since it is not these parts, but the building as a whole that grows into a temple. [Comp. however Eadie in loco.<\/em>R.]<\/p>\n

Fitly framed together is growing<\/strong> [ ].The present , instead of , like (Col 2:19<\/span>), 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. from , groove, joint, member (armus, artus<\/em>), as Heb 4:12<\/span>, occurs only here and in Eph 4:16<\/span>, and according to this and the parallel passage Col 2:19<\/span> is=framed together, incorporated together. The figure is derived from the organism of the body. (sometimes transitive=augere<\/em>, as in 1Co 3:6-7; 2Co 9:10<\/span>, but usually intransitive) is used most exactly of plants (Mat 6:28<\/span>; Mat 13:32<\/span>), but of men also (Luk 1:80<\/span>; Luk 2:40<\/span>; 1Pe 2:2<\/span>), of a nation (Act 7:17<\/span>), of the word of God (Act 6:7<\/span>; Act 19:20<\/span>), of faith (2Co 10:15<\/span>), of growth in grace (2Pe 3:18<\/span>; comp. Col 1:10<\/span>); John the Baptist uses it in a purely external sense of Christ (Joh 3:30<\/span> : ). 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 mnia surgunt;<\/em> the citizens themselves are largely involved. Bengel: crescit coagmentata, Vulgate: constructa<\/em>, but these renderings are insufficient.<\/p>\n

[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.]<\/p>\n

Unto <\/strong>a<\/em><\/strong> holy temple<\/strong>, .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<\/em> (Bengel) to this. [Meyer remarks: This is not to be translated: unto a holy temple; for the notion of several<\/em> temples was foreign to the Apostle in consequence of the Jewish national peculiarity, but: unto the<\/em> holy temple, which does not require the article. This accords with the extensive reference advocated above.R.]<\/p>\n

In the Lord<\/strong>, .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<\/em> (Winer, p. 118) and the context which refers back to , demand; He is the Mediator, in whom the members become . Hence is not to be taken as the simple dative (Beza, Koppe [Macknight] and others), or joined with = i.e., Dei<\/em> (Bengel). Others rightly refer it to Christ, but incorrectly join it with as one notion (Stier), or with (Meyer), in spite of . [The construction last named is rendered still more objectionable by taking =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 , 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 Apostles style, and it is favored by , Eph 2:22<\/span>. So Eadie.R.]<\/p>\n

Eph 2:22<\/span>. In whom ye also<\/strong> [ ].Per anaphoram iteratur<\/em> (Bengel), which is to be joined to Christ Jesus Himself, as Eph 1:13<\/span>. It is not to be connected with (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 Eph 2:22<\/span>, 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, with its ascensive and slightly contrasting force marking the exalted nature of the association in which the Ephesians shared (Ellicott).R.]<\/p>\n

Are being builded together<\/strong>, .This is indicative, not imperative (Calvin and others), according to the context, which says what the readers, and the church in general, are<\/em>, not what they ought to be.<\/em> The preposition as in 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 denotes the process of becoming built, magis magisque coaptari<\/em> (Bucer); hence with Luther we should retain: miterbaut<\/em> Werdet, not seid<\/em> (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.]<\/p>\n

For an habitation of God<\/strong>, .This sets forth the goal, as in Eph 2:21<\/span>. The word here chosen in the stead of occurs only here and in Rev 18:2<\/span>, marking the place of dwelling (Luther: Behausung<\/em>), while marks the place of worship. In this there is implied a significant advance, which explains the idea of the church. Comp. Doct. Note<\/em> 5. The genitive 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<\/em> Christians (Harless) and quite as little to be taken as dependent on , being regarded as a parenthesis (Griesbach, Knapp), so that the sense would be: that a dwelling of God might arise (Koppe, Rueckert).<\/p>\n

In the Spirit<\/strong>, .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 (Rom 14:17<\/span>), (Col 1:8<\/span>) should not be so decidedly rejected as inappropriate by Meter, as though this were possible only with abstract terms. Eph 4:1<\/span> : or , 1Th 4:16<\/span> : are by no means abstract. Comp. on the idea of this verse, 1Co 3:16<\/span> : to 2Co 6:16<\/span>; Rom 8:11<\/span>. 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= (Greek Fathers<\/em>, Rueckert and others), in accordance with 1Pe 2:5<\/span> : ; nor is = (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 Meyers objection to the interpretation of Braune, see Ellicott in loco<\/em>, Comp. Eadie, and Gal 5:5<\/span><\/em>, against the distinction of Harless respecting the use of the article with The reference to the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly the correct one and thus the verse brings the Trinity into view.R.]<\/p>\n

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The Trinity.<\/em> Eph 2:18<\/span> points to the Trinity: To the Father through Christ in the Spirit. But the allusion in Eph 2:22<\/span> 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.]<\/p>\n

2. The<\/em> anthropology of this section.<\/p>\n

a. Heathenism in distinction from Judaism.<\/em> The heathen<\/em> are termed those afar off<\/em> the Jews<\/em> those nigh.<\/em> 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 (Rom 1:19-20<\/span>; Act 14:17<\/span>; Act 17:27<\/span>), 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<\/em> gifts wallowed ever more deeply in the creature, the Jews with their gracious<\/em> gifts relied more and more on Gods 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 (Rom 1:18-32<\/span>); modern heathenism, which not only struggles to be free from the arm of Gods 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, Eph 2:11<\/span>; Rom 2:14-29<\/span>) throwing the theocratic<\/em> feature into the background and out of practice, but giving prominence and power to the national<\/em> element; modern Judaism has lapsed into the most frivolous emptiness.<\/p>\n

b.<\/em> Heathenism<\/em> and Judaism are alike<\/em> in this, that external position, neither in natural<\/em> endowments nor in the gifts of revelation, decides as to the personal<\/em> 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<\/em>, or anthropocracy<\/em>, 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 Christs, God-men, instead of new men, Gods 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.<\/p>\n

c.<\/em> The continued validity<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

d.<\/em> Natural and gracious endowments<\/em> do not exclude<\/em> 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 others interests through the fulfilment of their calling in life or history, of their ministry with the gifts entrusted to them.<\/p>\n

3. Christology.<\/p>\n

a.<\/em> Without Christ<\/em> 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 (Eph 2:15<\/span>) is of avail among Jews as well as Gentiles, and this is accomplished only through Him and in Him.<\/p>\n

b.<\/em> He is our Peace<\/em>, He, in His Person; and this peace is here defined by its antithesis, enmity (Eph 2:15<\/span>), by the hostility of Gentiles and Jews (Eph 2:11<\/span>), by the estrangement of the Gentiles from God and His law, as well as the distance and separation from God the Father (Eph 2:12<\/span>; Eph 2:18<\/span>) and the externality of the Jews (Eph 2:11<\/span>)as concord, as unity concluded and secured in agreement, in friendly intercourse. This peace is not a sensation, but a possession. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis<\/em>, II. 1, pp. 374) refers to the etymology, deriving the word from and , the circle, the place of assembly, or it may be traced to , to speak, quiet, friendly, independent intercourse in speech. Stier (Reden Jesu<\/em>, V., p. 224 on Joh 14:27<\/span>) compares it with , 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.<\/em> 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<\/em> peace (Joh 14:27<\/span>), has peace.56<\/span><\/p>\n

c.<\/em> The work of Christ culminates in the death of the cross<\/em> (Eph 2:13<\/span> : made nigh in the blood of Christ; Eph 2:16<\/span> : might reconcile them both to God through the cross), having for its end the reconciliation<\/em> with God and among each other (Eph 2:14<\/span> : who made both one; Eph 2:16<\/span> : having slain the enmity; Eph 2:17<\/span> : came and preached peace: Eph 2:18<\/span>; we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father), comp. Col 1:20-22<\/span>; Rom 5:10<\/span>; 2Co 5:18-20<\/span>. Enmity is to be overcome only on the side of man, on the part of God wrath (Eph 2:3<\/span>). We have only the popular expression: (Luk 18:13<\/span>) and 2M<\/span>a 1:5<\/span>; 2Ma 7:33; 2Ma 8:29 : .Non Deus inimicus erat hominibus, sed homines inimici erant Deo. Non cpit homines amare, qui cum eo reconciliati essent, sed quia ab terno 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<\/em> (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<\/em>, 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<\/em> but also to the law<\/em> is changed. In that He fulfilled the law in deed and in truth, performed Gods 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 (Eph 2:15<\/span> : in His flesh; Eph 2:16<\/span> : in Him; Eph 2:18<\/span> : through Him; Eph 2:21<\/span> : in whomin 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, qu liberanda<\/em> (Augustine). Neque Christo imputari potuissent peccata nostra, nisi tum natur ejusdem vinculo tum voluntaria sponsione nobiscum unitus esset, neque justitia Christi nobis imputaretur; nisi in unum cum Ipso corpus coaluissemus<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n

4. The law<\/em> here is the Mosaic law. This follows from the description: (Eph 2:15<\/span>), from the figure: (Eph 2:14<\/span>), 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. Rom 2:14-15<\/span> permits such a reference, the connection requires it and the nature of the case explains it: the bad<\/em> conscience is the still active conscience, so far as it is still good.<\/em> 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.<\/em> 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, oppositionwithin 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.<\/p>\n

5. The church<\/em> is essentially a fellowship<\/em>, closely united and organic.<\/em> Her support<\/em> is in Christ, her beginning<\/em> in the pure and powerful Word of God, in His Apostles and prophets, her design<\/em> respects every man and every nation, her task<\/em> 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 (Eph 2:19-22<\/span>). 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.<\/p>\n

6. The Holy Scriptures<\/em> are referred to in the expression: the foundation of the Apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20<\/span>). There is here evidently a reminiscence of the words of Christ (Mat 16:18<\/span> : Thou art Peter, etc.<\/em>), in which He promises to build His church, not upon the person of Peter, but upon Peters 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<\/em> is not the producer, but the product, not before the church, but within and for her. The word of God<\/em> springing up in the Apostles, as prophets of God, as men to whom revelation was imparted by the Holy Ghost, and preached<\/em> by them, is the foundation<\/em>, but what is given in fixed form in the Scriptures is the norm<\/em> for the church. She has her support<\/em> 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.]<\/p>\n

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

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, Gods 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 Gods 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.<\/p>\n

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? Act 22:28<\/span>. Thus we are assured of all possessions, liberties, privileges and protection. Psa 84:5<\/span>.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.<\/p>\n

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 wenotwithstanding revelation and the knowledge of the Lordfar 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 worldlyyes, Christian concerns, undertakings, plans and laborssomething, 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 beautifulstillunknown 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 Gods rest, in His love.Jesus Christ: 1) The cause, 2) Ground, 3) Strength of all peace.It is Christs 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.]<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

Christs 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.<\/p>\n

Stier:There was a little light even in the midst of heathenish darkness, just as on the other hand Israel<\/em> 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 Gods 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.<\/p>\n

[Eadie:<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11<\/span>. The exercise of memory would deepen their humility, elevate their ideas of Divine grace, and incite them to ardent and continued thankfulness.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:12<\/span>. The Jewish nationhad the Messiahnot Jesus indeedbut the Christ in promise. He was the great subjectthe 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 Satans dominion.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:15<\/span>. 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<\/em> manthe 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.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:16<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:18<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20<\/span>. 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?<\/p>\n

Eph 2:21<\/span>. Every stone is in its place, and fits its place. Ones ingenuity devises what anothers activity works out. As Fergusson saysBy 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 endsspiritual sacrifices are still laid on the altar to God.The Church is one, holy and Divine; it rests on Christis possessed by Godfilled with the Spiritand is ever increasing.R.]<\/p>\n

[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 countrys prosperity, so the activities once employed in hostility against God and man, are turned to edification.We have<\/em> our access, do we really enjoy it?Let men sneer at the saintsit 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 Eph 2:21<\/span>, and find in our own experience that we, together with this corner-stone, are being builded together for a habitation in the Spirit.R.]<\/p>\n

Footnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n

[29]<\/span> Eph 2:11<\/span>.[.3 D.3 K. L., and a number of versions and fathers support the order of the Rec<\/em>. ( ), which Braune seems to prefer, but Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer and English editors accept the reading of .1 A. B. D.1 ( ). The former arose from a regard for euphony in all probability. The pointing adopted above accepts as in simple apposition to , 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.]<\/p>\n

[30]<\/span> Eph 2:12<\/span>.[The Rec<\/em>. inserts before , with D.3 K. L., and some versions, but it is omitted in . 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<\/em>. again (Eph 3:5<\/span>).R,]<\/p>\n

[31]<\/span> Eph 2:13<\/span>. [The Rec.<\/em> reads , on the authority of D. K. L., Greek fathers; accepted by Meyer, Ellicott and others, on the ground of the contrast with . Lachmann, Alford, Braune. and others accept the order of . A. B., versions, which is quite as well supported.On the emendations see Exeg. Notes.<\/em>R.]<\/p>\n

[32]<\/span> Eph 2:15<\/span>.[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 partitionto wit<\/em>, the enmityin His flesh, having made void the law of the commandments expressed<\/em> in decrees (Ellicott). This joins in apposition to . and to . 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.<\/em> In any case we ought to put a comma instead of a colon at the close of Eph 2:14<\/span>R.]<\/p>\n

[33]<\/span> Eph 2:15<\/span>.[The Rec.<\/em>, .3 D. K. L., most cursives and fathers read: , accepted by Meyer, and most commentators. .1 A. B. F., 10 mss.: , 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 might easily be dropped, either from the interchange of forms, or after , 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.]<\/p>\n

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

[35]<\/span> Eph 2:17<\/span>.. A. B. D. E. F. G. and others: . 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<\/em>.R.]<\/p>\n

[36]<\/span> Eph 2:18<\/span>.[The article here is almost equivalent to the possessive.The E. V. again renders , by.R.]<\/p>\n

[37]<\/span> Eph 2:19<\/span>.[The Rec.<\/em> omits , with D.3 K. L., versions and fathers; but it was probably deemed superfluous, instead of emphatic it is found in . B. (both ), A. C. D.1 F., accepted by modern editors.R.]<\/p>\n

[38]<\/span> Eph 2:20<\/span>.[The Rec.<\/em> reads 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. .2 A. B., the Vulgate and other versions, some fathers, support the order: ; adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Alford and others. 1 has only , which Braune seems to favor. On the whole the order of the Rec.<\/em> should be given up.R.]<\/p>\n

[39]<\/span> Eph 2:21<\/span>.[The Rec.<\/em> inserts between and (.2 A. C., some cursives), but it is omitted in .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.<\/em> now-a-days saves a little trouble to the commentator.R.]<\/p>\n

[40]<\/span> [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<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11-12<\/span>.II. The means by which this alienation from God and the church has been removed, viz.<\/em>, 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<\/em>both are united in one body and reconciled to God<\/p>\n

Eph 2:13-18<\/span>.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<\/p>\n

Eph 2:19-22<\/span>.R.]<\/p>\n

[41]<\/span> [The Gentiles were called and really were the : the Jews were called the , but were not truly so (Ellicott).R.]<\/p>\n

[42]<\/span> [Here again Ellicott is excellent. He renders: performed by hand in the flesh<\/em>, 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 , not .R.]<\/p>\n

[43]<\/span>[On this distinction Eadie remarks: Not to contradict this refinement, we might add, that , allied to in, un, ohne<\/em>, might, in a general sense, signify privation; but 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. But, as Ellicott says, this distinction must be applied with caution, when it is remembered that is used forty times in the New Testament, and only three times.The connection of this phrase with : 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.]<\/p>\n

[44]<\/span> [The genitive seems to be one of privation<\/em>, or inverted possession. Bernhardy, Syn<\/em>. 3:49, p. 171; Khner, 2:163. Comp. Winer, p. 185, who takes the genitive here as one of separation, properly following the noun . Ellicott: genitive of the point of view.R.]<\/p>\n

[45]<\/span> [The reference to the personal Messiah, to Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ, seems to be quite certain (comp. Ellicott and Eadie).R.]<\/p>\n

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

[47]<\/span> [The strictly instrumental sense does not belong to , even here, where it seems so natural. At all events the idea of immanent<\/em> instrumentality is as much as can be conceded in that direction. Alford rightly prefers in as more comprehensive: The symbol of a fact in<\/em> whichthe seal of a covenant in<\/em> whichyour nearness to God consists. Hodge accepts by as the proper rendering without question.R.]<\/p>\n

[48]<\/span>[This particle introduces a confirmatory explanation of the preceding verse (so most commentators).R.]<\/p>\n

[49]<\/span>[Eadie, Alford, Ellicott follow De Wette in taking 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 . 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 (of which 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.]<\/p>\n

[50]<\/span> [Against Tittmanns distinction, according to which refers to the cessation of mutual enmity, and is employed in cases where the enmity has existed only on one side, see Eadie; comp. Usteri, Lehrbegriff<\/em>, p. 102; Fritzsche, Romans , 1<\/em>. p. 276; Tholuck, Bergpredigt<\/em>. p. 192; Trench. Syn. N. T<\/em>., 2d part, p. 137; and especially the notes of Drs. Lange and Schaff, Romans<\/em>, p. 166 f., and 2 Corinthians<\/em>, 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<\/em>., removed from us the Divine wrath against sin, of which we were the objects in consequence of sin.R.]<\/p>\n

[51]<\/span> [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<\/em> between this ground and the result, there must enter a thought of Gods wrath (Eph 2:3<\/span>) against sin. One thing remains clearwhatever 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 (Eph 2:15<\/span>) a member of the one body (Eph 2:16<\/span>).R.]<\/p>\n

[52]<\/span> [This seems doubtful in view of the repeated which interposes between and . Alford is better: Not to us<\/em> (i. e<\/em>., 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 commissionbeginning 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 Churcha theme the Apostle delighted in, proving, as it did the abolition of class privileges, and the commencement of an unrestricted economywas the result and proof of the truths illustrated in this paragraph.R.]<\/p>\n

[53]<\/span>[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.]<\/p>\n

[54]<\/span> [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.]<\/p>\n

[55]<\/span>[The word would ordinarily be spelled , but . A. B.1 C. D. E. F. G. support , 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<\/em>. 826. Certainly the compound is necessary to express the Apostles meaning, even though it belong in itself to the fatiscens Grcitas.<\/em>R.]<\/p>\n

[56]<\/span> [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.]<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. (14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; (16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: (17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. (18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

I cannot sufficiently admire, neither sufficiently recommend, to myself, and Reader, the blessedness of this sweet advice of the Apostle’s. Apostle’s, did I say, nay, it is God the Holy Ghost, which so tenderly, and affectionately recommends the Church, to remember her former state, when in unregeneracy, and her present state, when brought nigh, by the blood of Christ. And, therefore, blessed Spirit of all grace, give me grace, to keep in remembrance this precious teaching of thine?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

First: the Lord bids the Church to remember, what they once were, when in a state of unawakened nature, and dead in trespasses and sins. The Church at Ephesus, Paul reminds them, were Gentiles, not as a nation only, for in this sense they were Gentiles still; but when without Christ, and strangers to the Covenants of promise. In short, as far remote from any apprehension of the nature and being of God, as the brute that perisheth. Reader! pause over this account. Nothing serves more to magnify the riches of God’s grace, than when the Lord displays it, on such characters. And may not you, and I, take to ourselves, in the recollection of the days of our unregeneracy, what Paul once said to the Corinthian Church, when speaking of the same things ? And such (said he) were some of you! And, oh! how blessed, if to us may be said, what followed. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified; in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1Co 6:11<\/span> .<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Reader! let you and I take to ourselves what is commanded. It will be always profitable, to remember, the wormwood, and the gall, of a state of unregenerated nature. To look to the rock whence we were hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence we were digged. Isa 51:1<\/span> . Oh! what a stranger was I to God, and to Christ, all the long time of my unregeneracy ? Stranger to the word of his grace, to the sweet sound of salvation yea, a stranger to my own heart; unconscious of the want of Christ; ignorant of the love of God; and, like this Church of Ephesus, when first Paul came among them, I had never so much as heard, as to any saving knowledge in the soul, whether there was any Holy Ghost. Act 19:2<\/span> . Reader ! what are your views of these things?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

But, secondly. Paul sweetly adds: but now in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace ! I pray the Reader to mark, with suitable observation, the whole cause of the Church’s recovery. All in Christ. All by Christ: and wholly for Christ’s sake. Here Paul evidently runs back, to the first, and original thought, with which he opened this Epistle. Chosen in Christ: adopted, and predestinated, to a son-ship in Christ to himself: and accepted in Christ: and all to the praise of the glory of his grace. And, what I pray the Reader not to lose sight of is the very sweet close of this paragraph: that through Him, that is, Christ, we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father! There is not, as far as I recollect, a verse in the Bible, so short as this, where the office-characters of the Three glorious Persons of the Godhead, are so sweetly joined together, and brought within so narrow a compass. And yet, what can more fully show, the constant access the children of God have always to the throne, in, and through Christ, when God the Spirit leads, and directs the heart into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Reader! do not dismiss this blessed portion of the chapter, before that you have gathered one or two sweet improvements, which, under the Lord’s teaching, it brings with it.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

First. The remembrance of our former state of unawakened nature, while it tends to keep our souls low in the dust before God, will always at the same time, heighten our views of the divine mercy: The one acts in opposition to the other. That I, who, as Paul said of himself, was once a blasphemer, persecutor, injurious; should obtain mercy ! Oh! what sweet encouragement to all that hear of it!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Secondly. And, while it acts as a motive to encourage others, what strength it brings with it to all future acts of faith in ourselves? If I found grace, the poor sinner may say, when dead in trespasses and sins, what may I not hope for now, amidst all my own dying frames, and circumstances ? It was nothing but grace then; and why not grace now ? If when dead I was quickened; now when brought low, will not the Lord help me?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Thirdly. Nothing will more powerfully tend, under the Lord’s blessing, to hide all pharisaical pride from the eyes, and to keep open a constant spring of true humbleness and sorrow, than the remembrance of what we once were, and what through grace we now are. Oh ! when our mercies, and especially our spiritual mercies, are traced to their source, and the free, unmerited, unlooked for, yet untaught of love of God, is seen, in all our path along, from first to last; how low the child of God lays before God; how small his own attainments, and how high he values divine mercies in Christ!<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

And, lastly, to mention no more; (though many more might be added:) what views will the child of God have, of the Person, love, grace, blood-shedding, and righteousness, of Jesus Christ, who unceasingly remembers his former ruined, and undone state, out of Christ; and his present everlastingly blessed; and secure state, in Christ? Oh! the preciousness of Jesus, when the daily sense, of a daily need of Jesus, is felt in the soul.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

XI<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

THE WALL OF PARTITION<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11-22<\/span><\/strong> .<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

This chapter commences with the seventh item of the analysis the breaking down of the wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, and the uniting of the two into one church, as an institution, which finds expression in every particular church. The particulars of the statement of the condition of the Gentiles prior to the proclamation of the gospel after Christ’s ascension are thus given in our text:<\/p>\n

1. Separate from Christ having no knowledge of him, or any interest in him “salvation is of the Jews.”<\/p>\n

2. “Having been alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” i.e., as uncircumcised, not entitled to citizenship in it. The force of “alienated” here is about this: The original promise of the gospel was to the race. Through both the antediluvian and Noachic periods the promise was universal in its application. But after these two race falls, particularism in a single nation succeeded. The race probations culminated at the Tower of Babel in the dispersion of the nations, followed by the call of a particular nation. This was the time of their alienation. In the Hebrew politeia<\/em> or “citizenship condition,” including country, constitution, economy, they had no part. The call of one nation made the others aliens.<\/p>\n

3. “Strangers from the covenants of the promise.” Mark the plural, including all covenants made with Abraham or any of his descendants. Mark the word “promise,” not promises in general, but the promise, that is, of the Messiah.<\/p>\n

4. “Having no hope.” This does not deny desire or aspiration, but expectation based on definite and reliable grounds. Hope is composite a blending of two elements, desire and expectation. We may desire what we may not expect and expect what we do not desire. Many heathen desired better things, but had no assured ground of hope. They had no accredited revelation. Mommsen in his History of Rome <\/em><\/strong> says, “In Hellas [Greece], at the epoch of Alexander the Great, it was a current saying, and one profoundly felt by all the best men, that the best thing of all was not to be born, and the next best to die.” Testimonies from the classics might be multiplied on this point.<\/p>\n

5. “Without God in the world.” Mark the Greek, Atheoi<\/em> i.e., “atheists,” not in the active but passive sense. They had indeed gods many their own creation. The one true God was unknown to them. See Paul’s speech at Athens referring to the altar inscribed to the “unknown God.”<\/p>\n

6. “Far off.” Compare Rom 1:18-32<\/span> , to see not only how far off, but just how they sinfully arrive at that dark and guilty distance.<\/p>\n

7. “A wall of partition” rigidly separated them from the people who were custodians of the Oracles of God, and the heirs of all the covenants from Abraham to David.<\/p>\n

The reader will miss the mark at this point if he does not look back carefully to the first eleven chapters of Genesis. There are in these chapters three distinct race probations. First, in Adam, as head of all human beings. Adam fell, and all his posterity, without distinction, fell with him and in him. Second, after his fall and expulsion from the garden of Eden, the throne of grace was set up at the east of the garden, and all his descendants, without distinction, were privileged to approach the God of grace and mercy through typical sacrifices based on the promise to the race, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head.” This race probation culminated in the flood, and a third race probation commenced with Noah, as the new head of the race and under a special covenant.<\/p>\n

When this third race probation failed at the Tower of Babel, and the dispersion of the nations then followed (Gen 12<\/span> ) the call of Abraham, and the fourth probation, commenced through one family to become a chosen nation under national covenants. The very constitution of one nation to become God’s organized people, by isolating laws and ordinances, left out all other nations as aliens and strangers. These segregating laws and ordinances constituted the wall of partition between the Hebrews and other nations.<\/p>\n

Circumcision, the entire sabbatic cycle, priesthood and sacrifices, with their ritual, all social and political ordinances of separation, prescribed limitations of citizenship, a special homeland, indeed the entire Sinaitic legislation, with its later developments in Numbers and Deuteronomy, entered into the wall of separation. There is no parallel in history to the isolating, exclusive legislation of Moses.<\/p>\n

We find in the New Testament that Christian Jews wanted to keep up that wall of partition to deny that Christ had broken it down. They said in order to be saved one had to become a Jew had to be circumcised. All of these laws with reference to their altar, the way of approach to God, etc., as embodied in the tabernacle, or its successor, the Temple, and its offerings setting forth ways and means by which one could come to God, were in the partition wall. In Galatians Paul says that even believers in Christ, up to the time the object of faith came that is, until Christ came were under these laws and had to observe these old ceremonial laws. The heirs by faith were under tutors until Christ died.<\/p>\n

So we see Christian Jews in New Testament times still wishing to keep up this wall of partition. When Peter went into the house of Cornelius and ate with the Gentiles he was sharply rebuked by some of the church at Jerusalem, but by patient explanation of all the circumstances he quieted the opposition, but did not conquer it.<\/p>\n

It reappeared at Antioch in the demand that the Gentiles must be circumcised in order to be saved. This was a vital and fundamental matter. So Paul and Barnabas sternly resisted it, and as these Judaizing teachers came from Jerusalem and claimed authority from the apostles and the mother church, the whole case was referred to them and resulted in the council described in Act 15<\/span> . Paul’s contention was fully sustained. Peter, and even James, sided with him.<\/p>\n

But even this solemn decision did not end the matter, so far as the Jews were concerned. The question of eating with the Gentiles was reopened at Antioch. While a Gentile might be saved without becoming a Jew, a Jewish Christian must remain a Jew. In this form of the question Peter and Barnabas were led to dissimulation, the more reprehensible on Peter’s part, since this was the very form of the question on which he had stood so nobly in the case of Cornelius. Paul won again, but the war went on.<\/p>\n

How did Christ break down the wall? In the letter to the Colossians is the clearest passage in the whole Bible on how the whole Jewish law was abrogated, Eph 2:14<\/span> : “Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us; and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross, having despoiled the principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a feast day, or a new moon, or a sabbath day.”<\/p>\n

Christ nailed the whole thing to the cross blotted it out. These things were typical. When Christ, the antitype, came they were done away forever. The whole sabbatic cycle is set forth in this passage; feast days, or annual sabbaths; new moons, or monthly sabbaths; a sabbath day, or weekly sabbath, are all blotted out, just as Hosea predicted: “I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feasts, her new moons, and her sabbaths and all her solemn assemblies.” Seventh Day Adventists try to get people to go back to keeping the seventh day instead of the first day of the week.<\/p>\n

That means Christ has not come that we are still under the bondage of types and ceremonies. Whoever believes that, announces himself as a Jew of the old kind.<\/p>\n

It took a Paul to make people see that the wall was broken down, ground to powder, and swept out of the realm of obligation by the breath of God’s abrogation. It is utterly gone. Paul would sometimes as a matter of expediency, out of consideration for weak brethren who believed it was something awful to eat meat offered to idols, refrain from eating meat. He said, “The idol is nothing. That is all done away with in Christ. And all of these laws about clean and unclean animals have no force now, but so far as I am concerned, if my eating meat will cause some weak brother to stumble and fall down and keep on falling, I will let it alone. I do not let it alone because there is any harm in it to me, but because of these weak brethren for whom Christ died.”<\/p>\n

While that wall of partition stood, on one side were men without God, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenant, who had no hope in the Messiah, therefore without God. It said to the Gentile, “You stand off yonder.” In Mar 7<\/span> , to show how extreme their position became, in addition to the law, they observed their added traditions; if a Jew went to market, when he came back he must immerse himself to be free from possible defilement by contact; he must immerse the table on which he ate, the couch on which he slept, the pots and vessels which he used. That entire typical ceremonial legislation which shut out the Gentile was abrogated. It was blotted out, abolished, and nailed to the cross of Christ.<\/p>\n

We will now see how the thought develops. The old distinction between Jew and Gentile being blotted out, he now uses a series of figures. The first figure is marriage, by which two entirely different individuals become one: “They twain shall be one flesh.” The scripture on that is Eph 2:14<\/span> : “He hath made both one.” And in Eph 2:15<\/span> : “That he might create in himself of the two, one new man.” The wall being broken down, it is the purpose of Christ to take the Jew and Gentile and make one new man, so that in Christ there will be neither Jew nor Greek. That is the first figure.<\/p>\n

The next figure is the new commonwealth. He says, “Ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow citizens with the saints.” Here is a citizenship, and it is just as good and proper for the Gentiles to be citizens in Christ Jesus as for the Jews. The next figure is the household, or family. This is the language: “And of the household of God.” So we have a new man, a new commonwealth, a new family.<\/p>\n

He changes the figure again to the Temple, or house of God. Here is the language: “Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.” That Temple at Jerusalem was one of the strongest factors in the wall of partition. Why? There was a certain place that the Gentiles were permitted to go the court of the Gentiles but they could not go any further. No Gentile could go up into the Jewish court.<\/p>\n

Now Paul says, “That old Temple is out of the way; he builds a new temple that the old one foreshadowed,” and in this new temple Gentile material will be used as well as Jewish material. The chief cornerstone in the foundation of this new temple is the rock, Christ Jesus. A cornerstone is one that holds two walls together. We notice in a building where two walls come together a large stone that goes into each wall and holds them together. Of course there are cornerstones all the way up, but the chief cornerstone is down next to the foundation. Every Christian who exercises the holding-together power is a cornerstone. Some just stick in the wall. Others we may call intermediate cornerstones. That is the imagery of the temple.<\/p>\n

In Eph 2:18<\/span> he shows a much more precious thought: “Through him we both [Jew and Gentile] have access to the Father.” Before, it was only the Jews who had access, but under this new economy, the Gentiles as well as the Jews have access in Christ to the Father. I stated that when Christ died he nailed to his cross all discriminating legislation. There was a signal token. Just at the time Christ died the veil in the Temple was rent in twain from top to bottom. That veil was said to be 70 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 4 inches thick. Ten yoke of oxen could not have torn it. It was closely woven and beautifully colored. At the moment Christ said, “It is finished,” it was rent in twain, commencing at the top and going all the way down. This signified that the way to the holy of holies was then made open to all.<\/p>\n

Paul refers to that in the letter to the Hebrews when he says, “Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us: which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and entering into that which is within the veil; whither as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Christ destroyed two enmities; first the enmity between Jew and Gentile, and made peace between these two and converted them into one; then he made peace between each one of them and the Father. Being reconciled to the Father through Christ we are reconciled to our fellow men.<\/p>\n

We now come to a very important thought. When Paul talks about the new man, and the church is said to be the bride made one with Christ, as Adam and Eve were made one, and when he talks about one commonwealth and one citizenship, and when he talks about them being one housebold, and being made into one temple, he is speaking of the church as an institution. God established a time institution. That institution is exemplified, becomes operative, in particular churches.<\/p>\n

This thought is expressed in Eph 2:21<\/span> : “In whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord.” That is to say, each particular congregation, particular church, is an expression of the church as an institution, and its only expression. For instance, a new state may provide for “trial by jury.” There, “jury” is an institution, of which each particular jury is an expression. So the expression, “I will build my church,” when that institution becomes operative, it is exemplified in a particular church. We must make the distinction in usage according to the laws of language between an institution in the abstract sense and its expression in every particular, concrete case. Speaking abstractly, we may say that the church is a temple. Speaking concretely, each particular church is a temple. Such usage of language is common. We never misunderstand its import in other matters. We never make the abstract sense a conglomeration. If we say abstractly “the husband is the head of the wife” we do not mean all husbands are blended into one big universal husband. But we mean that in every particular case the husband is the head of the wife. Just so in Eph 1:22<\/span> ; Eph 2:12-20<\/span> ; Eph 3:10<\/span> ; Eph 3:21<\/span> the church as an institution is discussed under several figures. But always Eph 2:21-22<\/span> (revised text) shows what the institution is in its expression. It becomes operative in particular churches only. Later Eph 5:23-33<\/span> will discuss the glory church.<\/p>\n

The Judaizing Christians fought Paul’s Gospel on every field of evangelism, and notwithstanding his letters to the Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews, he foresaw the coming of a great apostasy that after his day would revert to a national church with an earthly head and reincorporate into the Christian system the ideas, priesthood and ritual of an abrogated economy. He foresaw the coming of Christian interpreters, who would revert to the Jewish sabbath and insist on this restoration of a Jewish kingdom with a returned Christ a: King at Jerusalem and with the Gentile world in subjugation Tens of thousands of pulpits in Christendom today are seeking in some fashion to rebuild that wall which Christ demolished on the cross, and whose crumbling stone and wasting wood were pulverized and scattered as fine dust.<\/p>\n

From the old covenant, and from effete heathen religions and customs, they gathered fragments and blended them into a new yoke of bondage, setting aside the liberty and simplicity of the gospel. And particularly on the ideas of the church there is yet before Baptists a hard battle, whose preliminary skirmishes have already commenced.<\/p>\n

So far only the general line of thought has been followed. But we need to look more critically at some particular expressions, even though there be repetition.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:14<\/span> . “For he is our peace.” What the strict meaning? Is it limited to peace between Jew and Gentile, or is it the peace of both Jew and Gentile with God, or both? The peace under discussion is a reconciliation by the cross.’ The cross must have here an expiatory sense; it must propitiate toward God, making peace between him and the sinner, and as both Jew and Gentile draw near to God they draw near to each other. As all the diverging spores of a wheel come together and unite in the hub, so Jew and Gentile find in Christ, the center, primarily, peace with God, and, secondarily, peace with each other. Isaiah (9:5-6), Micah. (5:6), and Zechariah (10:10) predict peace through the coming Messiah.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:15<\/span> . “The enmity.” Here again the enmity is not merely or primarily the hatred between Jew and Gentile, but the enmity of both toward God. This is what stood in the way of peace. Enmity which antagonizes and holds nations apart can never be converted to peace until first the giunity toward God on the part of opposing nations is gotten out of the way. In the death of enmity toward God is also the death of enmity toward each other. The thought is beautifully imaged in the two staves of the prophet, the staff, “Beauty,” and the staff, “Bands,” the first representing the tie uniting Ephraim and Judah to God, the second binding the two together. “Bands” cannot be broken until “Beauty” is first broken.<\/p>\n

“Create in himself of the two one new man.” This is not demanding that a Gentile shall become a Jew, nor that a Jew shall become a Gentile; this would not be a creation. But he creates a new corporate body, i.e., the church as an institution. But as the two elements, Jew and Gentile, are blended into the new corporation, this would not be a creation on account of the use of pre-existing material. A mere blending, therefore, does not express the thought. The blending would be purely artificial if unchanged, incoherent elements are bound together. By the creating power of regeneration the Jew is made a Christian, and so the Gentile. This Christian material of the new corporation did not exist before. In this way he created in himself of the two one new man, i.e., a new church. As the corporation was new, so the elements which composed it were made new.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:16<\/span> . “Reconcile them both in one body, unto God, through the cross.” Here it is evident, what has been expressed before, that the reconciliation of peace is toward God, and sacrificially through the cross, and hence their peace with each other is only a secondary thought resulting from the first.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:17<\/span> . “And he came and preached peace to them that were far off and peace to them that were nigh.” “And he came. When and what this coming? It was the coming m the Holy Spirit on Pentecost the beginning of the execution of the commission given before this ascension. Instrumentally the church, endued with power by the Spirit, did the preaching.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:18<\/span> . “For through him [Christ] we both [Jew and Gentile] have access, in one Spirit, unto the Father.” Here in one short sentence we have all the persons of the Trinity in their distinguishing office work.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20<\/span> . “Foundation Cornerstone.” Christ is really the foundation and the cornerstone ( 1Co 3:10-15<\/span> ; 1Pe 2:6-7<\/span> ). The New Testament apostles and prophets are the foundation only in the sense that they laid it in their preaching, and in that way their vital doctrines, or what they preached, is called the foundation (Heb 6:1<\/span> ). Real foundation = Christ Teaching foundation = the apostles and prophets Doctrinal foundation = what they preached<\/p>\n

Eph 2:21-22<\/span> . Let the reader particularly note that the church as an institution, whether called “one new man,” “one body,” “one commonwealth,” “one household,” or “one temple,” finds expression in “each several building” or particular congregation, and that the leading idea of its mission is to become a habitation of God through the Spirit.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

QUESTIONS<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Cite and explain each particular of the condition of the Gen- tiles prior to the gospel proclamation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

2. What race probations in Genesis 1-11, and what change commences in Gen 12<\/span> ?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

3. What is the wall of partition?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

4. When and how abrogated?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

5. Prove that this includes abrogation of the Jewish sabbaths of all kinds.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

6. In what letters of Paul is all this made plain?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

7. Yet what did he foresee?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

8. In this chapter what various images are employed to express the idea of the church as an institution?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

9. Prove that this institution finds expression in particular churches.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

10. What is the meaning of “Christ our peace”?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

11. What is the meaning of enmity?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

12. What is the meaning of “He came and preached peace, i.e., when and how was this coming?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

13. What verse of this chapter presents all the persona of the Trinity, distinguishing between their office work?<\/p>\n

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being<\/em> in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 11. Who are called uncircumcision<\/strong> ] In great scorn and reproach, as1Sa 17:26<\/span>1Sa 17:26<\/span> . Howbeit unregenerate Israel was to God as Ethiopia, Amo 9:7<\/span> . And Jether, by nature an Ishmaelite, 1Ch 7:17<\/span> , was for his faith and religion called an Israelite, 2Sa 17:25<\/span> . <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11 22<\/strong> .] HORTATORY EXPANSION OF THE FOREGOING INTO DETAIL: REMINDING THEM, WHAT THEY ONCE WERE ( Eph 2:11-12 ); WHAT THEY WERE NOW IN CHRIST ( Eph 2:13-22 ).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11<\/strong> .] Wherefore<\/strong> (since so many and great blessings are given by God to His people, among whom ye are) remember, that once ye, the<\/strong> (i.e. who belonged to the category of the) Gentiles in the flesh<\/strong> (i.e. in their corporeal condition of uncircumcision: ‘prputium profani hominis indicium est,’ Calv. construction see below), who are called (the) uncircumcision by that which is called (the) circumcision in the flesh wrought by hands<\/strong> (this last addition <\/strong> .<\/strong> seems made by the Apostle, not to throw discredit on circumcision, but as a reserve, having a higher and spiritual application: q.d. ‘but they have it only in the flesh, and not in the heart.’ As Ellic. well states the case “The Gentiles were called, and were<\/em> the : the Jews were called, but were not truly the .” See Col 2:11 ),<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11-22<\/span> . The second half of this chapter makes a paragraph by itself. Its subject is the case of those Gentile believers whom Paul has immediately in view their heathen past and their Christian present. They are reminded of what they once were outside Christ, outside the special privilege of Israel, without hope, and without God; and of what they have come to be by the power of Christ’s death placed on an equality with the chosen people, brought nigh to the Father, made part of the household of God and the living temple of the Lord.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11<\/span> . : Wherefore remember that aforetime ye<\/em> . The order of the TR, , is supported by such authorities as [141] 3 [142] 3 [143] (with before ), Syr.-Harcl., etc. Some authorities place the after the (Syr.-P., Boh.). But is the order of the best and oldest MSS. ( [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] *), the Vulg., etc., and is adopted by most (LTTrWHRV). As indicates, what follows is a personal, ethical application of what has been said; and the application is drawn not from the immediately preceding sentence, but from the contents of the prior paragraph as a whole. The great things done for them by God’s grace should incline them to think of the past from which they have been delivered. The remembrance of that past will make them more thankful for their present privilege, and more careful to walk in the good works which God has in view for them. The sentence is interrupted by descriptive clauses, but is taken up again in the next verse; where a second and the words are introduced, resuming the and the of Eph 2:11<\/span> . There is no need, therefore, to supply either or at this point. : Gentiles in the flesh<\/em> . The article is given to the , the class<\/em> to which the readers belong being in view (Win.-Moult., pp. 132, 217). It is not repeated before the , as the makes one idea with the (Win.-Moult., p. 169). The term also is to be taken literally, not as referring to the former unregenerate life, but (as the subsequent sentences show) in the sense of the flesh<\/em> to which circumcision<\/em> is applicable. They are reminded that they belonged to the class of the Gentiles, their bodies proclaiming their heathen character. : who are called Uncircumcision<\/em> . A further definition of what they were as , suggestive of the low regard in which they were held as members of that class. The name Uncircumcision!<\/em> a name of contempt, was flung at them. The term , which is unknown to profane Greek but is used in the LXX, is taken to be an Alexandrian corruption of . : by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hand<\/em> . So the RV. Better perhaps “by the so-called Circumcision, performed by hand in the flesh” (Ell.). Wicl. gives “made by hand in flesh”. A description of the Jew, given in a tone of depreciation. Hence probably the change from to . This sentence also is introduced with reference to the poverty of the previous condition of these Godless, Christless Gentiles. The point seems to be that the inferiority in which they were held, and which was expressed by the contemptuous name Uncircumcision<\/em> , meant all the more as it was fastened on them by those to whom, while proudly calling themselves the Circumcision<\/em> , the distinction was nothing more than an outward manual act performed on their bodies. The rite when its spiritual significance and use are in view, is spoken of with honour by Paul (Rom 4:11<\/span> ). As a mere performance, a barrier between Jew and Gentile, a yoke imposed by the former on the latter, a thing made essential to salvation, he spoke of it in terms of scorn and repudiation.<\/p>\n

[141] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.<\/p>\n

[142] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.<\/p>\n

[143] Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.<\/p>\n

[144] Autograph of the original scribe of .<\/p>\n

[145] Autograph of the original scribe of .<\/p>\n

[146] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).<\/p>\n

[147] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.<\/p>\n

[148] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Eph 2:11-22<\/p>\n

11Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands-12remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11 “Therefore” This could refer to (1) Eph 2:1-10, or (2) Eph 1:3 to Eph 2:10. Paul often uses this word to start a new literary unit by building on the combined truths of previous units (cf. Rom 5:1; Rom 8:1; Rom 12:1).<\/p>\n

This is the third major truth of Paul’s doctrinal section (Ephesians 1-3). The first was God’s eternal choice based on His gracious character, the second was the hopelessness of fallen humanity, saved by God’s gracious acts through Christ which must be received and lived out by faith. Now the third, God’s will has always been the salvation of all humans (cf. Gen 3:15; Gen 12:3; Exo 19:5), both Jew and Gentile (cf. Eph 2:11 to Eph 3:13). No human intellect (i.e., Gnostics) understood these revealed truths.<\/p>\n

“remember” This is a present active imperative. These Gentiles are commanded to continue to remember their previous alienation from God, Eph 2:11-12.<\/p>\n

“that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh” This is literally “nations” (ethnos). It refers to all peoples who are not of the line of Jacob. In the OT the term “nations” (go’im) was a derogatory way of referring to all non-Jews.<\/p>\n

“who are called ‘Uncircumcision'” Even in the OT, this rite was an outward sign of inner faith (cf. Lev 26:41-42; Deu 10:16; Jer 4:4). The “Judaizers” of Galatians claimed that this was still God’s will and was indispensable for salvation (cf. Act 15:1 ff; Gal 2:11-12). This was probably a term of derision. Be careful not to confuse the symbol with the spiritual reality for which it stands (cf. Act 2:38 for another example).<\/p>\n

Eph 2:12<\/p>\n

NASB”separate from Christ”<\/p>\n

NKJV, NRSV”without Christ”<\/p>\n

TEV”apart from Christ”<\/p>\n

NJB”you had no Christ”<\/p>\n

This is literally “on separate foundations.” These next few phrases, like Eph 2:1-3, show the helplessness and hopelessness of the Gentiles without Christ.<\/p>\n

NASB, NJB”excluded”<\/p>\n

NKJV, NRSV”being aliens”<\/p>\n

TEV”foreigners”<\/p>\n

This is a perfect passive participle meaning “have been and continued to be excluded.” In the OT this term referred to resident non-citizens with limited rights (aliens). The Gentiles had been and continued to be separated, alienated from the Covenant of YHWH.<\/p>\n

“the commonwealth of Israel” This is literally “citizenship” (politeia). This word came into English as “politics.” It refers to the chosen descendants of Abraham. Their benefits are enumerated in Rom 9:4-5.<\/p>\n

“to the covenants of promise,” The NT can refer to the OT as one covenant or as several covenants. This theological tension can be viewed as one faith covenant expressed in (1) differing requirements or (2) given to different persons. God confronted OT persons in different ways. His word to Adam was about things in the garden of Eden, to Noah about the ark, to Abraham about a son and a place to live, to Moses about leading the people, etc. But to all it involved obedience to the word of God! Some groups (dispensationalists) focus on the differentness. Other groups (Calvinists) focus on the unifying faith aspect. Paul focused on the covenant of Abraham (cf. Romans 4) as setting the paradigm for all faith relationships.<\/p>\n

The New Covenant is like the old covenants in its demand for obedience and personal faith in God’s revelation. It is different in how one is right with God (cf. Jer 31:31-34). The Mosaic covenant focused on human obedience and performance, while the NT focuses on the obedience and performance of Christ. This New Covenant is God’s way of uniting Jews and Gentiles by faith in Christ (cf. Eph 2:11 to Eph 3:13).<\/p>\n

The New Covenant, like the old, is both unconditional (God’s promise of grace and forgiveness) and conditional (human response). It reflects both the sovereignty of God (predestination) and the free choices of mankind (faith, repentance, obedience, perseverance).<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: COVENANT <\/p>\n

“having no hope and without God in the world” If there is truly one creator God and Israel was His chosen people, the Gentiles were cut off without any hope, lost in idolatry and paganism (cf. 1Th 4:13 and Rom 1:18 to Rom 2:16).<\/p>\n

Eph 2:13 “But now” There is a contrast between the hopeless past of the Gentiles, Eph 2:11-12, and their great hope in the gospel, Eph 2:13-22.<\/p>\n

“you who formerly were far off have been brought near” This same concept is repeated in Eph 2:17, where Isa 57:19 is quoted. In Isaiah this text referred to Jewish exiles but here in Ephesians it refers to Gentiles. This is one example of Paul’s typological use of OT passages. The NT Apostles have universalized the OT hope. As the exiled Jews were apart from God, so too, the Gentiles were alienated from God.<\/p>\n

“by the blood of Christ.” This referred to the vicarious, substitutionary atonement of Christ (cf. Eph 1:7; Rom 3:25; Rom 5:6-10; 2Co 5:21; Col 1:20; Heb 9:14; Heb 9:28; 1Pe 1:19; Rev 1:5). God’s family is no longer national, but spiritual (cf. Rom 2:28-29; Rom 4:16-25).<\/p>\n

The blood of Christ was a sacrificial metaphor (cf. Leviticus 1-2) for the death of the Messiah (cf. TEV). John the Baptist said of Jesus, “Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (cf. Joh 1:29). Jesus came to die (cf. Gen 3:15; Isaiah 53; Mar 10:45).<\/p>\n

It also was a way to assert the true humanity of Jesus, (cf. Eph 2:15) which the Gnostics denied.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:14 This verse has three verbals. The first is a present indicative. Jesus continues to be and to provide our peace. The second and third are aorist active participles (“made both one” and “broke down the barrier”); all that is necessary has been accomplished to unite Jews and Gentiles into one new entity (the church).<\/p>\n

Peace between Jew and Gentile is the focus of this literary unit, Eph 2:11 to Eph 3:13. This was the mystery of the gospel hidden in ages past. The term “peace” refers to<\/p>\n

1. peace between God and mankind (cf. Joh 14:27; Joh 16:33; Rom 5:1-11; Php 4:7; Php 4:9)<\/p>\n

2. peace between Jew and Gentile, Eph 2:14-15; Eph 2:17 (cf. Gal 3:28; Col 3:11)<\/p>\n

See note at Eph 2:15.<\/p>\n

“He Himself is our peace,” “He Himself” (autos) is emphasized (cf. Eph 2:15). The term “peace” means to “restore that which was broken” (reconciliation). Jesus the Messiah is called the Prince of Peace ( cf. Isa 9:6 and Zec 6:12-13). God’s peace in Christ has several aspects. See note at Eph 2:15 and Special Topics: Peace and The Christian and Peace at Col 1:20.<\/p>\n

NASB”who made both groups into one”<\/p>\n

NKJV”who has made both one”<\/p>\n

NRSV”he has made both groups into one”<\/p>\n

TEV”by making Jews and Gentiles one people”<\/p>\n

NJB”has made the two into one”<\/p>\n

Believers are no longer Jew or Gentile, but Christian (cf. Eph 1:15; Eph 2:15; Eph 4:4; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). This was the mystery of God as revealed in Ephesians. This has always been God’s plan (Gen 3:15). God chose Abraham to choose a people, to choose a world (Gen 12:3; Exo 19:5-6). This is the unifying theme of the Old and New Covenants (Testaments). See Special Topic: Racism at Col 3:11.<\/p>\n

NASB”the barrier of the dividing wall,”<\/p>\n

NKJV”the middle wall of division”<\/p>\n

NRSV”the dividing wall”<\/p>\n

TEV”the wall that separated”<\/p>\n

NJB”the barrier which used to keep them apart”<\/p>\n

This is literally “the middle wall of partition.” This was a rare term. In context it obviously refers to the Mosaic law (cf. v.15). Some commentators have asserted that it was an allusion to the wall in Herod’s Temple between the court of the Gentiles and the court of the Women which separated Jewish and Gentile worshipers. This same symbolism of the removal of barriers is seen in the veil of the Temple rent from top to bottom at Jesus’ death (cf. Mat 27:51). Unity is now possible. Unity is now the will of God (cf. Eph 1:10; Eph 4:1-10).<\/p>\n

In Gnosticism this term referred to a barrier between heaven and earth which may be alluded to in Eph 4:8-10.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:15<\/p>\n

NASB”abolishing”<\/p>\n

NKJV”having abolished”<\/p>\n

NRSV”has abolished”<\/p>\n

TEV”abolished”<\/p>\n

NJB”destroying”<\/p>\n

The term “abolish” is a favorite of Paul’s (cf. Rom 3:31; Rom 6:6; Col 2:14). It literally means “to make null and void” or “to bring to no effect.” It is an aorist active participle. Jesus has totally eliminated the death sentence of the OT Law (cf. Eph 2:16; Col 2:14; Heb 8:13).<\/p>\n

This does not mean to imply that the OT is not inspired and important revelation for the NT believer (cf. Mat 5:17-19). It does mean that the Law is not the means of salvation (cf. Acts 15; Romans 4; Galatians 3; Hebrews). The New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:22-36) is based on a new heart and a new spirit, not human performance of a legal code. The Law functions in sanctification, but not justification. Believing Jews and believing Gentiles now have the same standing before God-the imputed righteousness of Christ.<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: NULL AND VOID (KATARGE) <\/p>\n

NASB, NKJV”in His flesh”<\/p>\n

NRSV(Eph 2:14)”flesh”<\/p>\n

TEV(Eph 2:14)”in his own body”<\/p>\n

NJB(Eph 2:14)”in his own person”<\/p>\n

This emphasizes Jesus’ humanity (cf. Col 1:22) as well as His Incarnational ministry (cf. Eph 4:8-10). The Gnostic false teachers would have denied both because of their ontological dualism between spirit, which they saw as good, and matter, which they saw as evil. See Intro. to Ephesians “The Philosophical and Theological Background of the False Teachers [Gnosticism];(cf. Gal 4:4; Col 1:22).<\/p>\n

“the enmity” The balanced structure equates “the enmity” (cf. Eph 2:16) with “the Law of commandment contained in the ordinances.” The OT said “do and live,” but fallen mankind was unable to perform the Mosaic Law. Once broken, the OT laws became a curse (cf. Gal 3:10); “the soul that sins will surely die” (cf. Eze 18:4; Eze 18:20). The New Covenant removed the enmity by giving humans a new heart, a new mind, and a new spirit (cf. Jer 31:31-34; Eze 36:26-27). Performance becomes the result, not the goal. Salvation is a gift, not a reward for work accomplished.<\/p>\n

NASB”the Law of commandments contained in ordinances,”<\/p>\n

NKJV”the law of commandments continued in ordinances”<\/p>\n

NRSV”the law with its commandments and ordinances”<\/p>\n

TEV”the Jewish Law, with its commandments and rules”<\/p>\n

NJB”the rules and decrees of the Law”<\/p>\n

This referred to the way of salvation which was thought to be found only through performance of the Law of Moses (cf. Rom 9:30-32; Gal 2:15-21).<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE MOSAIC LAW AND THE CHRISTIAN <\/p>\n

“that in Himself He might make” The pronoun “Himself” is emphatic. God’s eternal purpose of uniting all humans in salvation (cf. Gen 3:15) and fellowship was accomplished exclusively through the performance of the person of the Messiah, not the Mosaic Law.<\/p>\n

“one new man,” This Greek term means “new” in kind, not time. The people of God are not Jews, not Gentiles, but Christians! The Church is a new entity, in and through and for Christ (cf. Rom 11:36; Col 1:16; Heb 2:10).<\/p>\n

“establishing peace” This is a favorite term for Paul. It is used eleven times in Romans and seven times in Ephesians (cf. Eph 1:2; Eph 2:14-15; Eph 2:17; Eph 4:3; Eph 6:15; Eph 6:23). He uses it in three ways:<\/p>\n

1. peace between God and mankind, Col 1:20<\/p>\n

2. subjective peace with God through Christ, Joh 14:27; Joh 16:33; Php 4:7<\/p>\n

3. peace between peoples, Eph 2:11 to Eph 3:13.<\/p>\n

This is a present passive participle. Christ continues to make peace for those fallen children of Adam who will respond by repentance and faith. Christ’s peace is not automatic (aorist subjunctive of Eph 2:16) but it is available to all (cf. Rom 5:12-21).<\/p>\n

Eph 2:16 “might reconcile” The Greek term means to transfer someone from one state of being to another. It implies an exchange of contrasting positions (cf. Rom 5:10-11; Col 1:20; Col 1:22; 2Co 5:18; 2Co 5:21). In a sense reconciliation is the removal of the curse of Genesis 3. God and mankind are restored to intimate fellowship even in this life, in this fallen world system. This reconciliation with God expresses itself in a new relationship with other humans and ultimately with nature (Isa 11:6-9; Isa 65:25; Rom 8:18-23; Rev 22:3). The reuniting of Jews and Gentiles through Christ (cf. Eph 1:7) is one beautiful example of God’s unifying work in our world.<\/p>\n

“in one body” This metaphor of unity is used in several different ways in Paul’s writings.<\/p>\n

1. the physical body of Christ (cf. Col 1:22) or the body of Christ, the church (cf. Col 1:23; Eph 4:12; Eph 5:23; Eph 5:30)<\/p>\n

2. the new humanity of both Jew and Gentile (cf. Eph 2:16)<\/p>\n

3. a way of referring to the unity and diversity of spiritual gifts (cf. 1Co 12:12-13; 1Co 12:27)<\/p>\n

In a sense they are all related to #1.<\/p>\n

“through the cross” The Jewish leaders meant Christ’s cross to be a curse (cf. Deu 21:23). God used it as a means of redemption (cf. Isaiah 53). Jesus became “the curse” for us (cf. Gal 3:13)! It became His victory chariot (cf. Col 2:14-15), giving believers victory over (1) the OT curse; (2) the evil powers; and (3) the enmity between Jew and Gentile.<\/p>\n

NASB”by it having put to death the enmity”<\/p>\n

NKJV”thereby putting to death the enmity”<\/p>\n

NRSV”thus putting to death that hostility through it”<\/p>\n

TEV”Christ destroyed the enmity”<\/p>\n

NJB”in his own person he killed the hostility”<\/p>\n

The English translations show that this phrase can be understood in two ways. This is because the singular pronoun can be a dative masculine (TEV, NJB) or dative neuter (NASB, NRSV). In context either is possible. The emphasis of the larger context is on Christ’s finished redemptive work.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:17 This is an allusion to Isa 57:19 or possibly Isa 52:7. Paul, by typological exegesis, applied OT texts to exiled Jews to Gentiles. Even the rabbis, going back to Isa 56:6, used this phrase to refer to Gentile proselytes.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:18 The work of the Trinity is clearly stated in this book (cf. Eph 1:3-14; Eph 1:17; Eph 2:18; Eph 4:4-6). Although the term “trinity” is not a biblical word, the concept surely is (cf. Mat 3:16-17; Mat 28:19; Joh 14:26; Act 2:33-34; Act 2:38-39; Rom 1:4-5; Rom 5:1; Rom 5:5; Rom 8:9-10; 1Co 12:4-6; 2Co 1:21-22; 2Co 13:14; Gal 4:4-6; Eph 1:3-14; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:14-17; Eph 4:4-6; 1Th 1:2-5; 2Th 2:13; Tit 3:4-6; 1Pe 1:2; Jud 1:20-21). See Special Topic at Eph 1:3.<\/p>\n

“we both have our access” This is a present active indicative meaning “we continue to have access.” This is the concept of Jesus personally bringing believers into the presence of God and giving them a personal introduction (cf. Rom 5:2; it is also used in the sense of confidence in Heb 4:16; Heb 10:19; Heb 10:35).<\/p>\n

“in one Spirit” This is also emphasized in Eph 4:4. The false teachers were causing disunity, but the Spirit brought unity (not uniformity)!<\/p>\n

Eph 2:19 The Gentiles who were estranged (Eph 2:11-12) are now fully included. This is clearly stated by the use of four common biblical metaphors.<\/p>\n

1. fellow citizens (city)<\/p>\n

2. saints (holy nation set apart for God)<\/p>\n

3. God’s household (family members)<\/p>\n

4. a spiritual building (temple, Eph 2:20-22 a)<\/p>\n

“saints” See Special Topic at Col 1:2.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20 “having been built upon” This is an aorist passive participle. The foundation (cf. Eph 2:12) of our faith has been fully, finally, and completely laid by the Triune God. God’s good news was proclaimed by the Apostles and prophets (cf. Eph 3:5).<\/p>\n

“the foundation of the apostles and prophets” Jesus laid the foundation of the gospel (cf. 1Co 3:11). Jesus is the new temple (cf. Joh 2:19-22). The OT prophesied the coming Kingdom of God, Jesus’ Spirit-led life, death, and resurrection accomplished it, and the Apostles preached its reality. The only question is, to whom does the term “prophets” refer? Are they OT prophets or NT prophets (cf. Eph 3:5; Eph 4:1)? The order of the terms implies NT prophets (cf. Eph 2:3; Eph 4:11), but the OT Messianic allusion to the “cornerstone” implies OT prophecy.<\/p>\n

The reason for the distinction between OT and NT prophets is the issue of revelation. OT prophets wrote Scripture. They were God’s instrument of inspired self-disclosure. However, prophecy is an ongoing gift in the NT (1Co 12:28; Eph 4:11). Does Scripture writing continue? There must be a distinction drawn between inspiration (Apostles and OT prophets) and illumination and spiritual giftedness (NT gifted believers).<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECY <\/p>\n

“the cornerstone” This is an OT Messianic metaphor (cf. Isa 28:16; Psa 118:22; 1Pe 2:4-8). In the OT God’s stability, strength and perseverance are often visualized in “Rock” as a title (cf. Deu 32:4; Deu 32:15; Deu 32:18; Deu 32:30; Psa 18:2; Psa 18:31; Psa 18:46; Psa 28:1; Psa 31:3; Psa 42:9; Psa 71:3; Psa 78:15).<\/p>\n

The metaphor of Jesus as a stone.<\/p>\n

1. a rejected stone – Psa 118:22<\/p>\n

2. a building stone – Psa 118:22; Isa 28:16<\/p>\n

3. a stone to stumble over – Isa 8:14-15<\/p>\n

4. an overcoming and conquering stone (kingdom) – Dan 2:45<\/p>\n

5. Jesus used these passages to describe Himself (cf. Mat 21:42; Mar 12:10; Luk 20:17)<\/p>\n

He was the key construction item who was ignored in OT ritualism and legalism (cf. Isa 8:14).<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: CORNERSTONE <\/p>\n

Eph 2:21-22 The collective or corporate idea of God’s people seen in Eph 2:19 (twice), 21 and 22 was expressed in the plural “saints.” To be saved is to be part of a family, a building, a body, a temple (cf. Eph 1:23; Eph 4:16; Col 2:19).<\/p>\n

The concept of the church as a temple is expressed in 1Co 3:16-17. This is an emphasis on the corporate nature of the church. The individual aspect was expressed in 1Co 6:16. Both are true! Jesus is the new temple, cf. Joh 2:19-22.<\/p>\n

The verbs in Eph 2:21-22 also have a corporate focus. They have the compound syn which means “joint participation with.” They are both present passive. God is continuing to build\/add to His church.<\/p>\n

There is a Greek manuscript problem connected with the phrase “the whole building.” The ancient uncial manuscripts *, B, D, F and G have no article, while c, A, C, and P do. The question is, was Paul referring to one large building (NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NIV, TEV, REB) or to several smaller buildings (ASV, NJB, Phillips) united in some way? The United Bible Society’s 4th Edition Greek text gives a “B” rating to the anarthrous construction, which indicates they are “almost certain” that it refers to one building. This one building is not finished. It is in the process of growing. The building metaphor alluded to the spiritual temple (the people of God).<\/p>\n

SPECIAL TOPIC: EDIFY <\/p>\n

Copyright 2013 Bible Lessons International <\/p>\n

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Uncircumcision. See Rom 2:25. <\/p>\n

by. App-104. <\/p>\n

the. Omit. <\/p>\n

made by hands. Greek. cheiropoietos. In the Epp. only here and Heb 9:11, Heb 9:24. Made Jews by rite. Compare Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11-22.] HORTATORY EXPANSION OF THE FOREGOING INTO DETAIL: REMINDING THEM, WHAT THEY ONCE WERE (Eph 2:11-12); WHAT THEY WERE NOW IN CHRIST (Eph 2:13-22).<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11. , remember) Such remembrance sharpens gratitude and strengthens faith, Eph 2:19.- ) , the Gentiles. , in the flesh) Paul purposely joins this expression with Gentiles, for the Jews simply called the Gentiles the uncircumcision, not the uncircumcision in the flesh.- , who are called uncircumcision) intended as a great insult to you. The word called, masc. and neut. (, ), applied to the uncircumcision and the circumcision, shows that these words are no longer in use, since the distinction is taken away.-, called) This word is construed with the circumcision, apart from the epithet, in the flesh made by hands.[26] And the circumcision is used in the concrete for the people circumcised; in the flesh made by hands, in the abstract.<\/p>\n

[26] i.e. does not apply to these last words.-ED.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11<\/p>\n

Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh,-He again addresses the Gentile converts in Christ and reminds them of their former condition. [They were to remember the change between the past and the present-what they were by nature, and what they had become by grace. The contrast is indicated in various particulars, both of outward condition and of inward privilege and character. The great things done for them by Gods grace should incline them to think of the past from which they had been delivered, which would make them more thankful for their present privilege, and more careful to walk in the good works which God had in view for them.]<\/p>\n

who are called Uncircumcision-[A further definition of what they were, suggestive of the regard in which they were held as members of that class. A name of contempt which was flung at them.]<\/p>\n

by that which is called Circumcision,-[This is a description of those who were Jews outwardly, but who were destitute of the true circumcision, which was of the heart. They were the concision. (Php 3:2). The Jews were a striking illustration of the effect of ascribing to external rites objective power, and regarding them as conveying grace and securing the favor of God, irrespective of the subject state of the recipient. This doctrine rendered them proud, self-righteous, malignant, and contemptuous, and led them to regard religion as an external service compatible of unholiness of heart and life. This doctrine the apostle everywhere repudiates and denounces as fatal.]<\/p>\n

in the flesh, made by hands;-This intimates that their circumcision was only of the flesh, not of the heart, and that they were no better than those they called Uncircumcision.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Reconciled and United by the Cross <\/p>\n

Eph 2:11-22<\/p>\n

The state of the unconverted must be described by a series of negations. Shut the sun out of the world, love out of the home, liberty out of the state! The unsaved know not of their infinite loss; but if they could see what we inherit through union with Jesus, they could cease to wonder that we run not with them into the same excess of riot. Does a maiden need much persuasion to cast aside paste jewels when real ones are offered her!<\/p>\n

There was no natural affinity between Jew and Gentile. This arose partly because of diverse nationality and genius; but in addition the whole code of Jewish customs as to eating clean meats and ceremonial pollution, prevented it. All these party-walls of division were swept away by Christ. In Him, as the cornerstone, two walls, running in different directions, met. Two sections of humanity, East and West, became united to each other, because each was united to Him, and thus was formed a new unit of humanity.<\/p>\n

What a noble conception is given of the Church and ultimately of the redeemed race, growing slowly through the ages and becoming Gods dwelling-place! Notice the Trinity; through Jesus, the Eternal Father comes by His Spirit to dwell in the heart of man.<\/p>\n

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Made Nigh by the Blood of Christ (Eph 2:11-18)<\/p>\n

In this passage, the apostle addressed converted Gentiles collectively and spoke of converted Jews collectively. In times past God had called one man, Abraham, out from the world and made him the depository of certain promises. Afterwards He gave to his seed the Mosaic covenant at mount Sinai, and by that God separated the people of Israel from all the other people of the world. Those outside of Israel were called Gentiles. When Christ came into the world and the gospel first began to be preached, it could be said that those who were Gentiles in the flesh, like ourselves, were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.<\/p>\n

Israel had a very definite hope. God had promised certain things to them. But the Gentiles had no such hope, they were outside of all this, and therefore without God in the world. It was not merely that they worshiped idols, gods of wood and stone, but the point was they did not know the true God at all. They were godless, atheists, in the world. But now, through the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and through His death on Calvarys cross, wondrous blessing goes out to the Gentiles, blessings of which they had never dared to dream in the past.<\/p>\n

Now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ (Eph 2:13). You see the Jew occupied a place of nearness to God through covenant relationship, while the Gentile was far off, being a stranger to it all. But the Jew through his failure to keep his part of the covenant of works, had himself become personally alienated from God, so that in His sight, as we read in the Epistle to the Romans, There is no difference, For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Therefore, the same grace that flowed out to Israel is the grace that overflows to the Gentiles. The Jews never obtained salvation on the ground of merit, or because they were Gods peculiar people marked off from the nations of the world by the covenant of circumcision, nor because of the sacrifices that they offered throughout the legal dispensation. Those of them who were saved owed everything to the matchless grace of God who gave the Lord Jesus Christ, their promised Messiah, to die for their sins on that cross of shame. And that same mighty Sacrifice which was offered on the tree avails for men everywhere who put their trust in Him. And so, although no covenant has been made with the Gentiles, yet every believing Gentile comes under all the spiritual blessings of the new covenant the moment he trusts in Christ, because salvation is all pure grace.<\/p>\n

The shedding of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ was the greatest crime ever perpetrated on the face of this earth. When a man murders another, he is held responsible for taking the life of his fellowman, but when a man stretches forth his hand against God incarnate, what can be said about his guilt! Yet that is the awful crime in which Jews and Gentiles participated. When the Lord Jesus Christ was nailed to Calvarys tree and His blood poured out, it was the demonstration of the worlds greatest sin, but it also became the greatest possible demonstration of the infinite love and grace of God. That which exhibited the enormity of mans sin and the corruption of his heart is that which shows the love of God to the greatest extent. All this was foreseen.<\/p>\n

Peter could say, Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain (Act 2:23). Yet this same Jesus is now made Lord and Christ, and through Him all who believe, as the apostle Paul says, are justified from all things. The Roman spear driven into the very heart of the Son of God expressed the wickedness of the heart of man, but that cleansing blood rushing forth to wash away our sins expressed the extent of Gods love. How wonderfully the grace of God has abounded over all our sins! We who sometimes were far off, we poor, wretched Gentiles, alienated from God by wicked works, and enemies in our minds, have now, by putting our trust in Him, been brought into a place of nearness that the law could never give even to Jews. And the Jew who believes in Him has been brought into this same blessed place. Together we have been made nigh by the blood of Christ.<\/p>\n

There was not sufficient intrinsic value in the blood of sacrificed beasts to settle the sin question. But in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we see the Holy, the Just, the Sovereign of the skies, stooping to mans condition. He had to be who He is in order to do what He did, and because He is the infinite God become man His blood has atoning value that no other blood could have. Thus we are brought near by that blood of Christ. We may well sing:<\/p>\n

So near, so very near, to God,<\/p>\n

Nearer I could not be;<\/p>\n

For in the person of His Son,<\/p>\n

I am as near as He.<\/p>\n

So dear, so very dear, to God,<\/p>\n

Dearer I could not be;<\/p>\n

The love wherewith He loves the Son,<\/p>\n

Such is His love to me.<\/p>\n

Dear Christian, does your heart grasp this profound truth? Do you realize that the very moment you came, a feeble trembling sinner, and reached out the hand of faith, accepting Gods Son, that moment by the precious blood of Christ you were brought into such an intimate relationship with God that you could not be drawn any closer? We are not brought to God by the sincerity of our repentance, by the strength of our faith, by the depth of our devotion, by the gladness of our spiritual experience, but brought near by the blood of Christ. We owe everything for eternity to the precious atoning blood of our Lord, and He who shed that blood, He who died for our sins on the cross, is Himself our peace.<\/p>\n

We read, Being justified by faith, we have peace with God (Rom 5:1). That peace is not merely an experience of calmness in the soul, but it is the realization that the sin question has been fully settled. The sin that separated our souls from God has been done away, done away in the cross, and so Christ Himself is our peace. You see I am not called on to be mastered by my feelings, but by Christ. I may be very happy today, and then circumstances may arise tomorrow that cause the clouds to overshadow my soul and hide the sunshine of Gods face. I may be in darkness, doubt, difficulty, and perplexity, but my peace remains unchanged.<\/p>\n

Peace with God is Christ in glory,<\/p>\n

God is just and God is love;<\/p>\n

Jesus died to tell the story,<\/p>\n

Foes to bring to God above.<\/p>\n

And so when I get disgusted with myself and my own poor experience, I can look away from self and look up by faith to Him, the blessed Christ of God seated there on the right hand of the Majesty in Heaven, and say, There is my peace; my heart rests in Him. God rests in Him, and I rest in Him. Has your soul truly understood this? I hope these things become a practical part of our lives, not merely doctrinal statements, but realities that sink into the depths of our beings.<\/p>\n

For He is our peace, who hath made both one (Eph 2:14). Does Paul mean that God has made Christ and us one? That is blessedly true, but that is not what is spoken of here. He was speaking a little farther back of two opposite groups-the circumcision and the uncircumcision, the Jew and the Gentile, the covenant people and those who are strangers to the covenants of promise. But when Christ died, He died for both, and we who believe from both of these groups are now reconciled to God, and therefore we read, He hath made both one. And so my Jewish brother and I, his Gentile brother, are one in Christ.<\/p>\n

And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us. I think the apostle is referring, as an illustration at any rate, to the wall in the old temple, separating the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Israelites. On this wall there was an inscription that was dug up some years ago, and it read, Let no Gentile, let no man of the nations, go beyond this wall on pain of death. But the apostle wrote, Christ hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.<\/p>\n

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace (Eph 2:15). What does he mean by one new man? It is the body consisting of redeemed Jews and Gentiles here on earth and our glorious Head, our Lord Jesus Christ, in Heaven. Redeemed sinners united by the Holy Spirit to Christ in Heaven from now on form one new man, and so in a double sense peace has been made between the individual soul and God, and between Jew and Gentile, once separated by this middle wall of partition. In order that peace might be made between the individual soul and God, the law with its regulations had to be abolished.<\/p>\n

That law pronounced a curse and condemnation on all who violated it. It was the Jews pride and boasting that they were custodians of the law of God, and yet they did not realize that same law put them all under the curse. They thought they were a blessed people and a privileged people to have the law of God, but sadly they had broken the law, and God said, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Gal 3:10). But the Lord Jesus went to the cross and was made a curse for us-As it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree (Gal 3:13). And so by enduring the cross, by bearing the judgment, He abolished the law. And now both Jews and Gentiles come to God on the same basis, as sinners, but as sinners for whom Christ died. The redeemed from these two groups comprise the new man of which Christ is the Head.<\/p>\n

Then in verse Eph 2:16 he used the other term, the body: That he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. Why not say, That He might reconcile both unto God in one new man? We read that He has made in Himself of Jew and Gentile one new man. That includes the body on earth and the Head in Heaven. However, Christ does not have to be reconciled to God. It is we, the body, that must be reconciled to Him, for we were all poor sinners, we were once on our way to everlasting ruin, but we have been reconciled to God in one body. How are we reconciled to God? You remember, our Lord came into the world to manifest the love of God to sinners, and we read, God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. But what was the result? Did men receive Him gladly? Did they acknowledge Him as Savior and Lord? Instead of that they nailed Him to the cross of shame. But love that was stronger than death, love that the many waters of judgment could not quench, led Him to go down into the darkness of the tomb for us. He destroyed the hostility by taking our place on the cross and bearing the judgment for us. Now through faith in the risen Christ who died for our sins, we have been reconciled to God.<\/p>\n

[He] came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh (Eph 2:17). In resurrection power, having settled the sin question, having completed the work that makes atonement, the blessed Lord returned to this very world that rejected Him. He appeared here for forty days in His resurrection body, and gave the message of the gospel to His disciples to carry into the world. He proclaimed the good news of peace to you which were afar off- Gentile sinners dying in ignorance and darkness-and to them that were nigh-Jews to whom His Word had come. The Jews had received the oracles of God and the light that the Gentiles knew nothing of, but they had joined with the Gentiles in crucifying the Lord of glory. In the love of His heart, Christ preached the message of peace to Jews as well as to Gentiles.<\/p>\n

In verse Eph 2:18 we have a wonderful statement: For through him- the resurrected Christ who ever lives at Gods right hand to make intercession for us-we both-Jews and Gentiles who were once far off-now have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Under the old covenant there was no immediate access to God. The temple curtain told of a God hidden in the dark. God was not able to come out to man because the sin question was not settled, and man could not go into God for there was no way for his sins to be cleansed. But now the death of Christ has torn the separating veil.<\/p>\n

The veil is rent! Our souls draw near<\/p>\n

Unto a throne of grace;<\/p>\n

The merits of the Lord appear,<\/p>\n

They fill the holy place.<\/p>\n

His precious blood has spoken there,<\/p>\n

Before and on the throne:<\/p>\n

And His own wounds in heaven declare,<\/p>\n

The atoning work is done.<\/p>\n

Tis finished! Here our souls have rest,<\/p>\n

His work can never fail:<\/p>\n

By Him, our Sacrifice and Priest,<\/p>\n

We pass within the veil.<\/p>\n

Within the holiest of all,<\/p>\n

Cleansed by His precious blood,<\/p>\n

Before the throne we prostrate fall,<\/p>\n

And worship Thee, O God!<\/p>\n

Through Christ we both have immediate access to the Father by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit was given by God at Pentecost, baptizing believing Jews and Gentiles into one body, making us both members of one new man. What a wonderful thing it is to be a Christian! What a wonderful thing it is not only to have your sins forgiven but to have been brought into the family of God, and to have been made a fellow member with other believers of the body of Christ. Not only that, but to be accepted by God and to be as near to the heart of God as His own beloved Son. Not only that, but to have immediate access at any moment into His presence in the power of the Holy Spirit. And all this rests on the infinite value of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. We truly are made nigh by the blood of Christ.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

3. The Mystery Made Known<\/p>\n

CHAPTERS 2:11-3:21<\/p>\n

1. The condition of the Gentiles (Eph 2:11-12)<\/p>\n

2. But now in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:13-19)<\/p>\n

3. The new and great relationship (Eph 2:19-22)<\/p>\n

4. The Mystery made known and Pauls ministry (Eph 3:1-13)<\/p>\n

5. The prayer (Eph 3:14-19)<\/p>\n

6. The doxology (Eph 3:20-21)<\/p>\n

With the eleventh verse of the second chapter we reach a new division in this Epistle. The great mystery of the masterwork of God, the Church, is next revealed by the Holy Spirit. We saw in the first chapter of this wonderful Epistle how God planned His masterpiece. Then we learned in the first ten verses of the second chapter how God deals with us individually and fashions lost sinners, who trust in Christ, into His masterwork. And now we are led higher, and the fact is made known that all believers are united into one body. This truth was briefly mentioned at the close of the preceding chapter (Eph 1:22-23).<\/p>\n

First, the condition of the Gentiles, the uncircumcision, as called by the Jews, is briefly described. They were without Christ; aliens from the commonwealth of Israel; strangers from the covenants; and without hope and without God. Such was the condition of the great Gentile world.<\/p>\n

Well may we remember in the dreadful days of apostasy, which are upon us, that Gentiles, who have had the gospel preached unto them, are turned once more from the light, yea, from Gods best. Christendom in denying Christ is rapidly waning, and must eventually plunge into a greater darkness than the darkness of the Gentile world before the cross. Without Christ, without hope, and without God! Fearful and solemn words these are! When Christ is given up, His deity and His blood rejected, when men deliberately turn away from Him, and deny His person and His glory, they rush into the outer and eternal darkness without hope and without God.<\/p>\n

But now Christ being preached and believed in, Gentiles who were once far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. The little word now is of importance.<\/p>\n

This present dispensation of grace in which He makes known the mystery, which in other ages was not made known, that the Gentiles, once without Christ and without God, should be fellow-heirs and of the same body, is the now in which the surpassing riches of Gods grace are made known. Now, after Israel rejected the King and the Savior, now, when He is upon the Fathers throne, now, when the Holy Spirit is on earth to do His appointed work, now, during the present age, God makes fully known what He had planned before the foundation of the world. He is producing His masterwork, taking the material from Israel, and reaching out with His mighty power after the Gentiles, to put them into one body. The poor, miserable, naked beggar upon the dunghill, the Gentile, is taken up to sit among princes and inherit the throne of glory.<\/p>\n

And all who believe are made nigh by the blood of Christ. Then we find three statements in Eph 2:14-15 : 1. He is our peace, making of both one. The parties mentioned here as made one are Jews and Gentiles. 2. Broken down the middle wall and abolished the law of commandments. Between these two there stood a middle wall of partition, which separated them. This wall is the law. God Himself had put it up. But now in the cross of Christ, God has broken down this middle wall and made an end of the enmity which existed between Jews and Gentiles. And the law of commandments and ordinances finds its end in the cross. 3. Making in Himself one new man.<\/p>\n

Jews and Gentiles, believing, trusting in Christ, made nigh by His blood, are made both one and constitute one new man. This is what God has accomplished, taking believing Jews and believing Gentiles, gathering them into one. This is the masterwork of God, He does during this age. When the kingdom age comes the Jews will receive their place of blessing and glory in their land, and the Gentiles will be greatly blessed and enjoy righteousness and peace. Both Jews and Gentiles will be in the kingdom then, but not as one body. In the present age a body is forming where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all (Col 3:11). This new man is the church, and Christ is the Head of that new man. Grace flowing from the cross of Christ, where peace was made in the blood, takes up Jews and Gentiles and makes them one. When our Lord prayed in His high priestly prayer that they may all be one as we are one, He must have thought of this great truth, now fully revealed in this Epistle by the Spirit of God.<\/p>\n

In Eph 2:16 we have two similar statements as in the preceding verses: 1. Both (Jews and Gentiles believing) reconciled unto God in one body. 2. The enmity slain by the cross. And furthermore He came and preached peace to both, to those afar off (Gentiles) and to those that were nigh (the Jews). Then follows the blessed result. For through Him we both (believing Jews; and Gentiles) have access by one Spirit unto the Father. The Jew did not know anything in Old Testament times about access unto the Father. He had a tabernacle and the way into the holiest was not yet made known. And the Gentile was without God altogether. But now believing Jews and Gentiles belong to the family of God, indwelt by the same Spirit, the Spirit of Sonship.<\/p>\n

In Eph 2:19 we hear of the new relationship into which believing Gentiles are brought in Christ. Now therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God. In Eph 2:20 the Church comes into view, and we hear that Gentiles saved by grace and made nigh by blood are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone. The Church is compared to a building.<\/p>\n

In the Old Testament God had a building in which He manifested His presence and His glory. The tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple of Solomon were shadows of the Church, which God is now building. The foundation upon which the Church as the house is built, we find mentioned first. One of the common mistakes concerning the foundation upon which the Church is built, is that, which claims that the foundation are the prophets of the Old Testament. According to this view the Old Testament saints belonged to the Church, and the Church itself was therefore in existence throughout the previous dispensations. This view is often based upon the words we have under consideration, that the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Now if the prophets were mentioned before the apostles, there might be a possibility that the prophets of the Old Testament are meant. But it says apostles and prophets. They are the New Testament apostles and prophets. Eph 3:5 gives positive evidence on this whole question. The Church is called a mystery which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets does not mean that the apostles are the foundation. The apostles are the foundation through their inspired teachings as Paul wrote, I have laid the foundation. But he also adds for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (1Co 3:9-11). The Lord Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Christ is the foundation. This the apostles taught. And the Lord Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone (Isa 28:16; Psa 118:22; Mat 21:44; Act 4:11; 1Pe 2:4-5). In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord (Eph 2:21). The building, the true Church is fitly framed together, which means that God puts it together in His own marvelous way.<\/p>\n

Solomons temple gives a little illustration of this. When that temple was building, hammer, axe and tools of iron were not heard. And the house, when it was building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither, so that there was neither hammer nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was building. Every stone was prepared beforehand and fitted into the place where it belonged. How beautifully it illustrates the fitting together of the house, His Church! He chooses and prepares the material and puts each in its proper place (1Co 12:1-31). What a contrast with mans methods in trying to increase church membership! The divine revelation is forgotten. Christendom has departed from the faith in these revelations concerning the one Church and its architect. But all the confusion, the wrong conceptions and attending evils, cannot frustrate the purpose of the Lord. He is building His Church. He takes the material and puts it as living stones in the place where it belongs. This is the work of His Spirit.<\/p>\n

And the Holy Spirit dwells there. He dwells in the true Church, because He indwells every individual member of the body of Christ. We are the habitation of God. As He dwelt of old in the tabernacle, so He dwells in the Church through the Spirit. God does no longer dwell in an earthly house. The conception of a church building being a holy place which we must call the house of the Lord or a temple is absolutely wrong. It is the Jewish idea. God does no longer dwell in an earthly house and yet He has His habitation here. Wherever two or three are gathered together in His name, there He is in the midst; that is a Church and the habitation of God through the Spirit. Even now in the state of imperfection, by the Spirit dwelling in the hearts of believers, that God has His habitation in the Church; and then when the growth and increase of that Church shall be completed, it will be still in and by the Holy Spirit, fully penetrating and possessing the whole glorified church, that the Father will dwell in it forever. (Dean Alford, Greek New Testament.)<\/p>\n

In the first verse of the third chapter Paul speaks of himself as the prisoner of the Christ, Jesus, for you Gentiles. He became a prisoner on account of the Gentiles, when on his last visit to Jerusalem (Act 22:21-22). And to him was made known the mystery which was hidden in other generations. And the mystery is that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ by the gospel.<\/p>\n

That Gentiles should be fellow-heirs with Jewish believers in a distinct body is a new revelation. The Old Testament abounds in promises for the Gentile nations. These promises speak of righteousness and peace, which the nations of the earth are to enjoy. But they all stand connected with the age which is yet to come. That age is introduced by the visible manifestation of the Lord. At that time the people Israel will receive the place of headship among the nations. The Gentiles will join themselves to Israel, and Israel has the promise that the nations will seek the light and glory revealed in their midst. And the nations shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about and see; all they gather themselves together, they come to thee. Thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. Then shalt thou see, and be filled with delight; and thine heart shall thrill, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the nations shall come unto thee (Isa 60:3-5).<\/p>\n

Many other passages could be quoted, but in not one of them is it said that Gentiles should be joint-heirs. in this mystery of the Church there is revealed an inheritance which is far greater than any blessing promised to earthly Israel during the coming kingdom. Both, believing Jews and Gentiles are joint-heirs of Christ, and in the coming day of glory they will reign and rule with Him.<\/p>\n

Then of the same body joint-members. The believing Jews on the day of Pentecost were formed into one body by the Holy Spirit. They became then one spirit with the Lord, and that marvelous organism, the body of Christ, had its beginning. Gentiles are joint-members of the same body; they are united with all the saints in one body. And therefore believing Gentiles are joint-partakers of His promises in Christ by the gospel. These promises do not concern the earth, but they concern the glory to come. Israels promises will be fulfilled, and they will be under Christ as King, when He comes to reign. But the body of Christ has far greater promises in Christ. The body will be joined to the head, share the glory of the head and be where the head is. The Head, Christ, and the body, the Church, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, joint-heirs, joint-members, joint-partakers–this is the mystery.<\/p>\n

And of all this the Apostle Paul was the minister. Beautiful words, Unto me, whom are less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ. The great revelation had made him very humble.<\/p>\n

He might have made much of his superior knowledge, of the great revelation given to him, and he might have paraded a kind of an official pride as the apostle to the Gentiles. But the high calling, the mystery made known unto him, the blessed ministry given to him, produced far different results. It humbled him into the dust before God. it could not be otherwise. Grace, such wondrous grace, as revealed through Paul, reaching down to such as we are, lifting so high with such an unspeakable calling and destiny, will ever humble us into the dust to give Him the glory. Grace necessitates this. The more we know of the blessed mystery of Gods masterpiece, the less we shall think of ourselves and delight to take the lowest place. Truth learned or knowledge gained in spiritual things, which does not humble us and make us think less and less of ourselves, is a dangerous thing. Truth, must ever break us down and lead into self-judgment and self abasement.<\/p>\n

The purpose of preaching the mystery concerning the church (Eph 3:9-13) is twofold: 1. To make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery; to make it known among men. 2. To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God. The heavenly hosts look on (1Co 11:10) and behold by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.<\/p>\n

That which no prophet ever saw, what no human being could have imagined, what no angel ever knew, what was known alone to God, took place. The Church, the body of Christ, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all, began on earth with the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. They see how this body is being built, fitly framed together, and they know the glory which awaits that body. Therefore now is made known unto angels by the Church the manifold wisdom of God.<\/p>\n

And because the angels possess this knowledge, they rejoice over one repenting sinner (Luk 15:7). They know what it means to the sinner, and more so to Christ, when another member is added to His body. Nor must we lose sight of another statement. Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation? (Heb 1:14). We do not know how they minister to our need, but we know they do minister.<\/p>\n

The second prayer in this epistle (Eph 3:14-21) is addressed to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The petitions of the prayer are five: 1. To be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner Man 1:2. That Christ may dwell in your heart. 3. To comprehend with all saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height. 4. To know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge. 5. To be filled with all the fullness of God. The Holy Spirit who gave this prayer wants Gods people to know more of Christ, to feed on Him and by knowing the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, to be filled unto all the fullness of God. Think of the dimensions of this love! We are to comprehend with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and depth and height. But who can know all this? It will take eternity to comprehend it all. Look at the outstretched arms of the blessed One on the cross! Here we behold the breadth. Come unto Me all–that is the breadth of His love. The length is from eternity to eternity. The first chapter told us of the fact that before the foundation of the world He thought of us. He loved us before we ever existed. His love has no beginning and no end. it is an eternal love with which He loveth us.<\/p>\n

And the depth! How deep, oh! how deep did He go down! The manger? The boyhood days in Nazareth? The manhood when He had not where to lay His head? The life that spent and was spent? Ah! the depths are far deeper. Let the hours of darkness give the answer, when He descended into the deep, dark waters of judgment and Gods face was hidden from Him. Shall we ever know the depths of His love?<\/p>\n

The height takes us into the heaven of heavens. Look into an opened heaven! See the glory-light! Behold there on that throne, there sits, not an angel, but a man! We see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor. And into that glory He has taken us. His love could never stop short of that. Where He is there the objects of His love shall ever be with Him. The glory Thou hast given me I have given them. Oh! the breadth, the length, the depth, the height!<\/p>\n

To know the love of Christ that passeth knowledge. We are to know something which passeth knowledge. It is a paradox. We know that love, and the more we know it the more it passeth our knowledge. Shall we ever know fully the love that passeth knowledge? This ever must be our blessed occupation to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge. And what are the consequences? That ye may be filled unto (not with) all the fullness of God. In the measure in which we know the love of Christ and comprehend the dimensions of this love, in the measure in which we have Christ dwelling in our hearts by faith and are rooted and grounded in love, in that measure shall we be filled unto all the fullness of God.<\/p>\n

The blessed doxology ends this wonderful section of Gods highest revelation. Now unto Him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, unto Him be glory in the church, in Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end, Amen. What assurance and what encouragement to pray. Let us ask much in spiritual things and He will do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

remember: Eph 5:8, Deu 5:15, Deu 8:2, Deu 9:7, Deu 15:15, Deu 16:12, Isa 51:1, Isa 51:2, Eze 16:61-63, Eze 20:43, Eze 36:31, 1Co 6:11, 1Co 12:2, Gal 4:8, Gal 4:9 <\/p>\n

Gentiles: Rom 2:29, Gal 2:15, Gal 6:12, Col 1:21, Col 2:13 <\/p>\n

Uncircumcision: 1Sa 17:26, 1Sa 17:36, Jer 9:25, Jer 9:26, Phi 3:3, Col 3:11 <\/p>\n

made: Col 2:11 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Gen 17:10 – Every Num 15:15 – One Deu 6:21 – General Jos 5:9 – I rolled away 1Sa 14:6 – uncircumcised Psa 103:2 – forget not Psa 106:7 – they Isa 33:13 – Hear Isa 55:5 – thou shalt Isa 56:7 – them will Mic 6:5 – remember Mat 8:11 – That Mat 12:18 – and he Mat 20:7 – Because Luk 14:23 – Go Luk 22:61 – And Peter Act 10:45 – the Gentiles Act 11:18 – hath Rom 2:9 – of the Jew Rom 2:17 – thou art Rom 2:25 – circumcision Rom 4:9 – Cometh Rom 7:5 – in the flesh Rom 9:24 – not of the Jews Rom 11:17 – being 1Co 10:18 – Israel 1Co 12:13 – whether we be Jews Eph 1:13 – ye also Eph 3:3 – as I Col 4:11 – who<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(Eph 2:11.) The second part of the epistle now commences, in a strain of animated address to the Gentile portion of the church of Christ in Ephesus, bidding them remember what they had been, and realize what by the mediation of Christ they had now become- <\/p>\n

-Wherefore remember. The reference has a further aspect than to the preceding verse- commencing the paragraph, as in Rom 2:1, and in this epistle, Eph 3:13, Eph 4:25; though in some other places it winds up a paragraph, as in 2Co 12:10; Gal 4:31. These things being so, and such being the blessings now enjoyed by them, lest any feeling of self-satisfaction should spring up within them, they were not to forget their previous state and character. This exercise of memory would deepen their humility, elevate their ideas of Divine grace, and incite them to ardent and continued thankfulness. The apostle honestly refers them to their previous Gentilism. Remember- <\/p>\n

-that ye, once Gentiles in the flesh. is understood by some, and by others; but of such a supplement there is no absolute need-the construction being repeated emphatically afterwards. The article before signifies a class, and it is omitted before to indicate the closeness of idea. –has a special meaning attached to it. Not only were they foreigners, but they were ignorant and irreligious. Mat 18:17. If simply signified non-Israelites, then they were so still, for Christianity does not obliterate difference of race; but the word denotes men without religious privilege, and in this sense they were -once-heathen. But their ethnical state no longer existed. Some render -by natural descent, as Bucer, Grotius, Estius, Stolz, and Kistmacher. This meaning is a good one, but the last clause of the verse points to a more distinct contrast. Ambrosiaster, Zanchius, Crocius, Wolf, and Holzhausen take the term in its theological sense, as if it signified corrupted nature; but would have been in that case the more appropriate idiom. Jerome supposes the phrase to stand in opposition to an implied . But the verse itself decides the meaning, as Drusius, Calvin, Beza, Rollock, Bengel, Rckert, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, de Wette, and Stier rightly suppose. Natural Israel was so- ; the Gentiles were also so- . Col 2:13. Both phrases have, therefore, the same meaning, and denote neither physical descent nor corrupted nature, but simply and literally in flesh. The absence of the seal in their flesh proved them to be Gentiles, as the presence of it showed the Jews to be the seed of Abraham. If denoted natural descent, then the fact of it could not be changed. Heathens, and born so, they must be so still, but they had ceased to be heathen on their introduction into the kingdom of God. The world beyond them, whose flesh had been unmarked, was on that account looked down upon by the Jews, and characterized as . The apostle now explains his meaning more fully- <\/p>\n

-who are called the Uncircumcision. The noun is, according to Fritzsche (on Rom 2:26), an Alexandrian corruption for . This term has all the force of a proper name, and no article precedes it. Middleton, Greek Art. p. 43. It was, on the part of the Jews, the collective designation of the heathen world, and it sigmatized it as beyond the pale of religious privilege Gen 34:14; Lev 19:23; Jdg 14:3; 1Sa 14:6; Isa 52:1; Eze 28:10. And the Gentiles were so named-, H6888- <\/p>\n

-by the so-called Circumcision-this last also a collective epithet. This was the national distinction on which the Jews flattered themselves. Other Abrahamic tribes, indeed, were circumcised, but the special promise was-In Isaac shall thy seed be called. The next words- -hand-made in the flesh, as a tertiary predicate, do not belong to . In the flesh made by hands was no portion of their boasted name, but the phrase is added by the apostle, and the Syriac rightly renders it- -and it is a work of the hands in the flesh. He cannot, as Harless and Olshausen remark, be supposed to undervalue the right of circumcision, for it was signum sanctitatis. Indeed, his object in the next verses is to show, that the deplorable condition of the Gentiles was owing to their want of such blessings as were enjoyed by the chosen seed. Still, the apostle, by the words now referred to, seems to intimate that in itself the rite is nothing-that it is only a symbol of purity, a mere chirurgical process, which did not and could not secure for them eternal life. Rom 2:28-29; Gal 5:6; Philip. Eph 3:3; Col 2:11; Col 3:11. The word is used in a good sense in Act 10:45; Act 11:2; Rom 15:8; Gal 2:7-9; Col 4:11; Tit 1:10. The apostle alludes mentally to the true circumcision made without hands, which is not outward in the flesh, and which alone is of genuine and permanent value. Remember- <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11. Gentiles in the flesh denotes that the Ephesians were in the class of mankind that was distinguished from the Jews, and that the distinction was a fleshly one. Called circumcision. This rite was the fleshly mark that designated the classification as to which nation a man belonged. Hence the terms circumcision and un-circumcision were used to identify Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11. Wherefore. Since you have been blessed, as set forth in Eph 2:1-7, the declaratory portion of the foregoing paragraph (Ellicott).<\/p>\n

Remember. The exhortation, as is evident, is to recall both their previous and present condition, since the contrast is to heighten their gratitude.<\/p>\n

That once ye, Gentiles in the flesh. Once here = formerly. Ye refers to those of the readers who are now Christians. Gentiles, lit., the Gentiles, but the English article does not convey the force of the original, belonging to the class of. In the flesh has not here the ethical sense, but refers to their external condition of un-circumcision, as appears from what follows.<\/p>\n

Who are called Uncircumcision. This further defines the class to which they belonged. The Gentiles were thus called, in accordance with the fact, but the name was contemptuously bestowed by the Jews: by that which is called (or, by so-called) Circumcision. There is here a change of form, indicating that in this case the thing and the name do not coincide exactly, as in the previous instance.<\/p>\n

In the flesh wrought by hands, i.e., wrought in the flesh by mens hands. The Apostle does not undervalue circumcision, but suggests that the true circumcision is of the heart (Rom 2:29; Col 2:11), to which the external sign was designed to point. 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 un-circumcised 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 (Braune).<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Section 1. (Eph 2:11-22.)<\/p>\n

One new man and one habitation of God.<\/p>\n

1. Having had thus the individual Christian position which the Spirit of God makes good to the soul, we now come to that which is the fruit of the Spirit, uniting us together and to Christ above. The Church is seen here in the first place as the body of Christ, and then as the house of God. The relation of the bride does not as yet come before us. The apostle goes back now to comment upon what they were to whom he was writing, as “in time past Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision” by that which was, after all, only the “circumcision in the flesh made by hands” but still in the state of privilege, as the people of God on earth. The Gentile state was that of wanderers altogether, who had turned their backs upon God and who were left, as to the mass, in the state which they had chosen. They were “without Christ,” “aliens” too “from the commonwealth of Israel,” “strangers from the covenants of promise;” they had “no hope,” that is no hope that was rightly founded, little in fact of any kind, and were “without God in the world,” an awful position, but which he only refers to here, in order to make the contrast now more wonderful.<\/p>\n

2. Now in Christ Jesus, they who were “far off” were “made nigh,” made nigh at infinite cost, by the blood of Christ; that which at once declares the enormity of sin in the sight of God and at the same time the infinite love which could pay the price necessitated. That which has declared the sin of the world in its fullest character is that which has put it away for every one who believes. He Himself is “our peace,” and this in a double character. First of all, as the apostle puts it here, He has made Jew and Gentile “one,” having “broken down the middle wall of partition.” In fact, what was Jew or Gentile, when both were dead in trespasses and sins? All distinctions of necessity vanish in death and when both alike need to have peace made for them, both alike are practically far off from God, whatever the outward nearness. In fact, the very law which the Jew prided himself upon, the law of commandments in ordinances, was itself the enmity, that is, a cause of distance between God and men. Not only it could not bring nigh, but as long as it was maintained, it actually held men at a distance from God. It was the accuser of the Jew who boasted in it. It was that which made exceeding sinful the sin which it exposed. Thus it was the enmity which Christ met and abolished in His cross. This has been all worked out for us in previous epistles, but it is now looked at as connecting with the Church as the body of Christ, for which Jew and Gentile had to come together and both had to be brought nigh to God. The enmity was not merely in its effect towards the Jew only, because the condition of the Jew was only the condition of man thoroughly exposed. The enmity, therefore, had to be slain (a strong word used as to it) by that cross which was its penalty, taken and thus removed from those for whom it was taken. Thus, Jew and Gentile in Christ are brought together in “one new man.” He does not say “one body” simply, now, because Christ, the Head, is also seen here. Thus it is “one new man” and both are reconciled to God also “in one body by the cross.” He could not say the “new man” was reconciled, just because that brings in Christ. It was, therefore, here simply “in one body.” The full announcement of this must be given as the gospel is given. Christ, therefore, has come and preached peace. We have there contemplated His coming into the world, but now made effective by the work of the cross, so that He preaches peace; whoever may be the instrument used, yet He Himself clearly is the great Proclaimer of it. Coming nigh, as He has done to those afar off, the distance between them and God is ended and over. He found none who did not need peace. It had to be preached to “those afar off and those that were nigh,” and now “through Him” “both have access,” by the one Spirit given to both, to God as Father. Thus not only is the distance removed on God’s side, but it is removed on our side also. God Himself having, by the work of the Spirit, thus put us into the position practically to which the cross had given title. Here then is the first declaration really of the body of Christ, as we see directly, the revelation of the mystery in other ages unknown to the sons of men, but now revealed. We have nothing yet, as in Corinthians, of the relation, properly speaking, or at least of the activity in the relation of those brought together in this manner. It is glanced at afterwards, but at present the great point is the relation of the Head to the body which, indeed, be has spoken of before, and with the implication of the blessedness attaching to it for His people. He who is Head to the Church is “Head over all things” and thus all things are made to minister to the people whom His work has brought nigh.<\/p>\n

3. Thus we have had, in the first part of the epistle, the relationship to the Father as children. We have had, just now, the relationship to Christ as His body. This is, of course, to Christ as Man therefore; His humanity is needed for it, and now we have the relationship to the Spirit as the house of God, ind welt of Him. The body and the house are only, in this way, different aspects of the Church. The Spirit of God dwells in the body, a truth which has its corresponding presentation in the fact that it is in our bodies also that the Spirit dwells. We remember also that in the Lord personally, His body is spoken of as the temple of God. Thus, the body in this sense also becomes the temple of God, being, in fact, that in which the Spirit displays Himself, by which His mind is made known. That is the thought of the body. Here we have the thought rather of the glory to God resulting from it. The house indwelt of the Spirit becomes a “holy temple.” The apostle refers, therefore, again to their condition as being once “strangers and. foreigners.” Now they are “fellow-citizens with the saints,” not with Israel, of course, although they might be and are called so in the Old Testament; but yet those brought, in fact, near to God, the remnant of Israel, but now in another and nearer relationship, are those with whom. the Gentile Ephesians are made fellow-citizens. That is on the human side. On the divine side, they are of the household of God. The thought of the temple is to be qualified by this, that it is a living temple now, not a house made with hands, but God dwelling and walking in His people. This only, of course, gives fuller truth to the temple character which the apostle goes on to; built solidly upon the “foundation of apostles and prophets” (those, as we see by the order here, and as we see more fully presently, of the New Testament alone) “Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,” the One who in Himself unites, as it were, the two sides of the building, -the Jew and the Gentile, -together, while He is the foundation of the whole. The “apostles and prophets” are not the foundation, but they lay the foundation. “Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” In Christ, therefore, all the building is fitly framed together. No one thought can express what Christ is to His people. They are built upon Him, but they grow up in Him also and thus growing, they are to be for eternity a “holy temple in the Lord.” The title given to Him here shows His authority over it. He is, in fact, the Leader of the praises of His people and the One who is, as we may say, their praise note also. But He would not have us consider the temple as being simply a future thing; that would leave us without the present blessing of it. He adds therefore, that we are “builded together for an habitation of God” in Christ. The building is not complete, but it is an actual existence, none the less. It is a house in which God’s praises are already begun, an “habitation of God,” not such as Israel’s of old, but “in the Spirit.” These things are, as yet, simply delineated, as we may say, and outlined for us. We shall find the practical working elsewhere. The whole triune God is in relation to us, Father, Son and Spirit, and we have a different character and blessing in relation to each one, Christ Himself being, as we know, the ground of the whole.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Our apostle doth two things in these two verses, namely, <\/p>\n

1. He calls upon the Ephesians to remember their former miserable condition before conversion, when they were in their heathen and unregenerate state, when they were Gentiles and reproached by the Jews for being uncircumcised, and looked upon by the Jews as dogs; he calls upon them here, to remember their obligations to God, for bringing them out of this miserable state and deplorable condition; Remember, that in times past, ye were Gentiles in the flesh.<\/p>\n

Learn hence, That believers, remembering and calling to mind the sin they were guilty of, and the misery they were exposed to, in their natural and unregenerate state, may many ways be of singular use and advantage to them, and be spiritually improved by them; namely, thus<\/p>\n

1. To excite us to magnify the greatness of God’s love, and to admire the freeness and riches of his grace. This we shall certainly do, when we remember, that where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.<\/p>\n

2. To inflame our love to Jesus Christ: Mary loved much, when she remembered that much was forgiven her.<\/p>\n

3. To increase our godly sorrow for sin: Then shall they be confounded when they remember that I am pacified towards them for all their abominations, Eze 16:63.<\/p>\n

4. To quicken us up to greater zeal and industry for God: it was the remembrance of what Paul was before conversion, that fired him with holy zeal, and carried him forth with such vigour and industry after his conversion, that he laboured more abundantly than all the apostles.<\/p>\n

5. The remembrance how bad we were ourselves before conversion, will be a special mean to keep up our hearts in hopes of, in prayers for, and endeavours after the conversion of others, though very bad at present. What they are, that thou once wert; and what thou now art, that they may also be.<\/p>\n

Observe, 2. That as St. Paul does put the Ephesians in mind of their former miserable condition, in their heathenish and unregenerate state; so he does particularize the same, and branch it forth into its distinct parts and members.<\/p>\n

When they were unconverted Gentiles,<\/p>\n

1. They were without Christ, that is without the knowledge of Christ, without any relation to him, or interest in him, without union and communion with him, without any communications of life and light, of grace and holiness, of joy and comfort, of pardon and protection, received from him. They did not discern any excellency, nor taste any sweetness, in Christ; and consequently had no love to him, no longings after him, no delight or satisfaction in him.<\/p>\n

Ah! miserable condition of a Christless soul: if thou art without Christ, thou are without the spirit and grace of Christ, to enlighten thee, to quicken thee, to sanctify and save thee.<\/p>\n

2. They were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel: that is, they were no members of Christ’s church either visible or invisible: they did not so much as profess themselves to be a people, that stood in any relation to God; they were unchurched Gentiles; for in Jewry only was God known, and his name great in Israel, Psa 76:1<\/p>\n

Verily, whatever the world thinks of it, it is a very great favour from God to be born within the pale of the visible church, and to have communion with her; for thereby we partake of many excellent privileges; namely, the word and sacraments, the communion of saints, together with the offers of Christ, and salvation by him.<\/p>\n

3. They were strangers to the covenant of promise; that is, to the covenant of grace, first made with Adam after the fall, then with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, afterwards with Israel upon Mount Sinai; for which reason it is here by the apostle called covenants, in the plural number, though it was always one and the same covenant in substance; and its being called the covenants of promise, seems to point at the promise made to Adam, Gen 3:15 that first grand original promise, of which promise all the following promises were but branches, or more full explanations.<\/p>\n

Now the Ephesians are here said to be strangers to the covenant of promise; because, as Gentiles, this covenant was never revealed to them, nor any offer of it made by the ministry of the word, and consequently they could have no actual interest in the blessings and privileges of it.<\/p>\n

This intimates to us, that for men to live and die without an offer of the covenant of grace made unto them, is a woeful, sad, and dangerous condition, because their salvation is rendered in an ordinary way impossible, forasmuch as the terms upon which salvation may be had are concealed from them.<\/p>\n

4. They were without hope; that is, they were without the grace of hope, and without the means of hope: they were without hopes of redemption, without hopes of redemption, without hopes of pardon and reconciliation, and consequently without any well-grounded hope of eternal life and salvation. Such as are Christless, must be hopeless; such as are without faith, must needs be without hope; and such as are without the promise, must necessarily be without faith: for the promise is the ground of hope.<\/p>\n

Learn, That for a person to be without a well-grounded hope of future happiness, is a very deplorable case and condition; but all such as are without the pale of the Christian church, without the bond of the covenant of grace, without the offer of a Savior in the gospel, they must be without hope, even in this life, and so are of all men most miserable.<\/p>\n

5. They were without God in the world; that is, without the knowledge of the true God, without worshipping of him as God, without any affiance or trust in him, without performing any obedience to him: not that the Ephesians, and other heathens, lived without any sense or sensible apprehension of the majesty and holiness of the true God: now,this is to live without God in the world; and verily such a life is worse than death.<\/p>\n

The apostle calls all the Gentiles, not only the barbarous and savage, but the best polished and civilized nations, Atheon, Atheist, because they wanted the right knowledge of God by and through a Mediator: there is no knowing God acceptably, except we know him in Christ, and approach unto him by Christ.<\/p>\n

In this affecting manner doth our apostle set before the Ephesians their dark and dismal state whilst Gentiles, and before brought into the Christian church by preaching the gospel of Christ unto them; they were without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. God grant that every unregenerate sinner may think of it till his heart and soul are affected with it.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The Gentiles’ Condition Without Christ<\/p>\n

Anyone who has been converted as an adult, especially if he lived a very wicked life, would do well from time to time to think back to the life he led prior to becoming a Christian. Such will give great cause for thankfulness for all God has done for us. The Gentiles of Ephesus naturally did not bear the physical mark of the covenant made with the Jews. Because of this, they were called the uncircumcision by those who bore the physical mark. Of course, the cutting away of the physical flesh was accomplished with human hands (2:11).<\/p>\n

A thought provoking description of the Gentiles’ condition prior to Christ’s coming is presented in 2:12. As Paul has already shown, all spiritual blessings are in Christ ( Eph 1:3 ), so to be separated from him is to live in spiritual deprivation. In the commonwealth of Israel, God was the ruler and the Jews were his subjects. Certain privileges were theirs as God’s people.<\/p>\n

An alien is a stranger or foreigner who has no right to the privileges of citizenship. God made great promises to Abraham of which the Gentiles did not know, much less enjoy ( Gen 12:13 ). How sad to face this life’s suffering, pain, sorrow, sickness and eventual death with nothing more to look forward to, yet such was the state of the Gentiles outside of Christ. The world, of course, cannot exist without God ( Col 1:16-17 ). However, it can so spurn him as to be without all the rich blessings he provides (2:12).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11-12. Wherefore To increase your sense of Gods goodness in saving you, and of the obligation he hath thereby laid on you to do good works; remember that ye being in time past Gentiles Ignorant, vicious, and idolatrous, neither circumcised in body nor in spirit; who were accordingly called Uncircumcision By way of reproach, by that which is called the Circumcision By those who call themselves the circumcised, and think this a proof that they are the people of God; and who, indeed, have that outward circumcision in the flesh made by hands By this description of circumcision, the apostle puts his readers in mind of the inward circumcision, the circumcision of the heart, made by the Spirit of God, of which the outward circumcision was only an emblem, (Rom 2:29,) and intimated that the Jews had no reason to boast of the outward circumcision, unless it was accompanied with the circumcision of the heart. That ye were without Christ Having no faith in him, or knowledge of him, and so were destitute of all those blessings which he bestows on his believing and obedient people; being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel Both as to their temporal privileges and spiritual blessings; and strangers from the covenants of promise Namely, that made with Abraham, and that made with the Israelites at Sinai, which promised and prefigured Christs coming to procure and bestow those blessings. As the promises contained in these covenants centred in the great promise of the Messiah, and of salvation through him, he therefore speaks of them in the singular number, as only one promise. Having no hope No sure hope, either of present pardon or future felicity, because they had no promise whereon to build their hope. That the heathens had among them the doctrine of a future state, says Dr. Doddridge, and that it was popularly taught, and generally believed by the common people, must, I think, appear incontestable, to any who are at all acquainted with antiquity; but it is as apparent that they reasoned very weakly upon the subject, and that they had no well-grounded hope of future happiness, and that they were but very little impressed with it, so that they had no Deity to which they prayed for eternal life, as the fathers often demonstrate. And by far the greater part of their most learned philosophers either expressly denied, in private lectures to their pupils, the doctrine of future rewards and punishments, or taught principles quite inconsistent with it. And without God Being wholly ignorant of the true God, and so in effect atheists. Such in truth are, more or less, all men, in all ages, till they know God by the teaching of his own Spirit: in the world The wide, vain world, wherein ye wander up and down, unholy and unhappy. Both the Christians and heathens, as Dr. Whitby observes, called each other atheists, though both worshipped some deity, real or imaginary; because each supposed the other to reject that which was the true object of adoration. But it is not to be conceived that the apostle would have given to the heathens the character of atheists, if the worship of the one living and true God had really prevailed among them to that degree which some Christian divines have incautiously maintained that it did. The truth of the matter seems to have been, that, though several of them speak of their Jupiter in terms proper to the one self-existent and eternal Deity only, yet they taught and believed other things of him quite inconsistent with such perfections. And those who had some knowledge of the one Supreme Eternal Cause, yet practically disregarded him: and, however they might reconcile it with the dictates of their consciences, worshipped inferior deities; and many of them such as were represented under the most scandalous characters, to the neglect of the Supreme Being, and the destruction of all true religion.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:11-22. The Gentile is now One with the Jew in Gods New Man, and an Integral Part of Gods Temple.Those who, like the readers, were once Gentiles, are especially bound to remember the condition from which they were rescued (Eph 2:11): at that time without Messiah, they were aliens in relation to the commonwealth of Gods people, foreigners in relation to the covenants of promise, lacking in that hope of the future which the Jew had always possessed, and living in ignorance of God; such had been their condition in the world (Eph 2:12); but now that they are in Christ Jesus, the far-off peoples are become nigh in Messiahs blood (Eph 2:13); it is Messiah who is the peace both of Jew and of Gentile, He who made the two things one and broke down the enmitythe dividing barrier that separated themin His own flesh by annulling the Law with its injunctions and decrees (Eph 2:14 f.): so that He made peace (a) by a creative blending of the two (Jew and Gentile) in Himself into a single New Man; (b) by a reconciliation of both, in the one body thus formed, to God through the Cross whereby He slew the enmity (Eph 2:16). His coming was thus a preaching of peace both to Gentiles who were far off and to Jews who were nigh (Eph 2:17): for the access of both in one Spirit to the Father is through Him (Eph 2:18). Christian Gentiles have therefore ceased to be foreigners, alien residents in the Divine city; they are sharers in the citizenship of Gods chosen people, members of the Divine household, stones built in on the apostolic and prophetic foundation in that building whose corner-stone is Christ Jesus (Eph 2:19 f.); it is in Him that all building work upon that edifice, as it is progressively accomplished, is so morticed together as to grow into a holy shrine in the Lord (Eph 2:21); it is in Him that the readers also are built to form (part of) Gods dwelling-place in the Spirit (Eph 2:22).<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11. Gentiles in the flesh: physically Gentiles.called: i.e. in current Jewish terminology; for those who hold (with the writer) that circumcision and uncircumcision are matters of the heart (Rom 2:28 f.), having nothing to do with the physical rite, uncircumcision is no more necessarily the badge of the Gentile than circumcision of the Jew.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:12. A comma should be inserted before in the world, which stands in emphatic contrast to what follows.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:13. Cf. Isa 57:19.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:14. Christ is the author of peace between Jew and Gentile, for in reconciling them both to God He has reconciled them to one another and thus made the two things one thing.the middle Wall of partition: in Herods Temple at Jerusalem, a barrier marked the point beyond which a Gentile might not penetrate under penalty of death (Rev 11:2*).<\/p>\n

Eph 2:15. in his flesh: i.e. by His physical death.the enmity: this expression is in apposition with middle wall of partition, and should be connected with the words and brake down, the phrase law of commandments in ordinances (i.e. the Law, which consisted of injunctions in the form of decrees) alone being governed by the participle having abolished.that he might create: the literal translation is create in Himself the two unto one New Man.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:16. in one body: i.e. the Church; the mystical, not the physical, body of Christ is meant.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:17. Isa 57:19 combined with Isa 52:7 (LXX). The reference is either to Christs preaching in His earthly ministry or to the gospel as proclaimed by the risen and exalted Lord. But the two need not here be distinguished; the mission of the Saviour as a whole constituted a proclamation of peace.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20. Probably the foundation consisting of the apostles and prophets rather than the foundation laid by them. The prophets are those of the Christian Church, not those of OT. The metaphor of the corner-stone is from Isa 28:16; cf. Psa 118:22.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:21. each several building: read, all building-work that is done. The idea of a plurality of buildings does not suit the context either in thought or in language. The Temple at Jerusalem included a variety of buildings, but the word here translated temple properly means shrine and refers to the Holy of Holies.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:22. The ancient shrine was not a place of worship but a dwelling-place of the Deity. Christians are to be built into a spiritual whole, in which the Divine Presence is to be enshrined here upon earth.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 11 <\/p>\n

Called Uncircumcision. This was then a term of reproach.–By that, &c.; by the Jews.–Made by hands; that is, bodily circumcision,–so designated to distinguish it from a spiritual state of obedience and faith which is sometimes called circumcision, as in Colossians 2:11.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

SECTION 6. THROUGH CHRIST, BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT NEAR TO GOD. CH. 2:11-22.<\/p>\n

For this cause remember that formerly ye, the Gentiles in flesh, those called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in flesh, made by hands- that ye were at that time separate from Christ alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who formerly were far off have become near in the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one and has broken down the middle wall of partition, having made of no effect the enmity, in His flesh, even the law of commandments in dogmas; in order that He may create in Himself the two into one new man, making peace; and that He may reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. And He came and announced peace, as good news, to those far off and to those near; because through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. Therefore no longer are ye strangers and sojourners but fellow-citizens of the saints and members of the household of God, having been built up on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the chief corner stone being Christ Jesus Himself in whom every building, being fitly framed together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom also ye are being built together for a dwelling-place of God in the Spirit.<\/p>\n

Like 4 and 5, 6 depicts the contrast of past and present. This is indicated by the word formerly in Eph 2:2-3 and in Eph 2:11; Eph 2:13. But the earlier contrast was that of men once dead through their sins but now reigning in life. The contrast here is of the same men once far off from the people of God but now united with them in the one rising temple. The first contrast was personal and spiritual: this one is social and in a sense ecclesiastical. Paul comes now to look at salvation in its bearing on the great distinction of Jew and Gentile, a distinction ever present to his thought and already faintly indicated by the change from we to you and you to we in Eph 1:13; Eph 2:3. This distinction, and the equal importance here given to Jew and Gentile are indications both of early date and of Pauline authorship. For no such conspicuous distinction is found in sub-apostolic writings; nor can we conceive it coming from a writer of the second century: and even in the N.T. it is peculiar to Paul.<\/p>\n

As containing respectively the dark and bright sides of the contrast, Eph 2:11-12 correspond to 4, Eph 2:13-22 to 5.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11. For which cause: because God has so wonderfully saved you, remember what you once were.<\/p>\n

Formerly: placed for emphasis at the beginning of the clause. It recalls the same word in Eph 2:2, and resumes conspicuously the contrast of past and present.<\/p>\n

The Gentiles: the well-known class to which they belonged. Its distinguishing mark, viz. absence of circumcision, is in the perishing body: in flesh. These added words give definiteness to the distinction.<\/p>\n

Who are called; further depicts the readers as they were looked upon by those who with some right claimed to be the people of God. Cp. 1Co 8:5.<\/p>\n

Uncircumcision circumcision: abstract terms put for the persons in whom the abstract quality is found: close parallel in Rom 2:26-27. They who, with evident contempt, called the Gentiles uncircumcision, called themselves circumcision. That the distinction is said to be, on both sides, a matter of a name, suggests that it was now practically only a name.<\/p>\n

In flesh, made by hands: not governed by the word called: for Jews would not so speak of circumcision. It is rather Pauls own reflection, confirming the above suggestion. He remembers that circumcision was, in the case of those who spoke of the Gentiles as uncircumcised, a mere cutting of the flesh by the hand of man. Yet such was once his readers position that men who had nothing better than this could speak of them as lower than themselves: for the absence even of this external rite marked them out as destitute of the many advantages of the ancient people of God. The repetition of the words in flesh and the added word made-by-hands keep vividly before us that the vaunted rite was in the lower side of mans nature and was only a work of man.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:12. The grammatical order is broken by a repetition of the word that, added for the sake of greater clearness after a rather long description of the Gentiles.<\/p>\n

At that season; corresponds to formerly in Eph 2:11, referring to the readers heathen life. Contrast Rom 3:26; Rom 11:5, in the present season.<\/p>\n

Separate from Christ: destitute of all the spiritual blessings which flow from inward union with Him. This full sense is required by the very conspicuous contrast in Eph 2:13, but now in Christ Jesus; and by the contrast maintained throughout this chapter between the past and the present. But the words following show that this spiritual destitution is here looked upon in the light of the separation of the Gentiles from the nation to which the ancient promises were given. In those days they had not so much as heard the name of the promised Messiah.<\/p>\n

Now follow four further descriptions of those Gentiles, arranged in two pairs. The relation of these items to the main assertion, ye were separate from Christ, is left to the readers.<\/p>\n

Commonwealth: either a community of citizens looked upon as definitely constituted, or the rights of its members. Same word in this last sense in Act 22:28. The former sense here, and, with a cognate word, in Php 3:20 : but in these two passages the difference is not great.<\/p>\n

The commonwealth of Israel: the nation looked upon as a community in which each citizen had personal rights. The whole tone of the verse reminds us that Israel possessed the highest spiritual advantages on earth. Cp. Rom 3:1; Rom 9:4.<\/p>\n

Israel: a name of honour, as in Rom 9:4; 2Co 11:22, etc. Before Christ came there was a privileged community: but its members looked upon the Gentiles as aliens.<\/p>\n

Alienated: same word and form in Eph 4:18; Col 1:21. [The perfect participle does not imply that they had once been citizens; but simply calls attention to the process of alienation, thus depicting more vividly the sad state of those alienated.]<\/p>\n

The Covenants: the mutual engagements into which God entered with Abraham, and through Moses with Israel. From these covenants came all the spiritual advantages of the Jews. Same word in same connection in Rom 9:4 : a close coincidence of thought. A conspicuous feature common to these covenants, and the source of their value, was the promise. It is here spoken of as one because all the promises looked forward to one glorious consummation. Otherwise in Rom 9:9, which recalls the many promises. To these covenants and to this promise, the Gentile readers of this Epistle were once strangers: same word in Heb 11:13.<\/p>\n

Now follows an awful result of the foregoing. The only hope on earth worthy of the name rests upon the great promise given in outline to Israel. Consequently, they who have not this hope have no hope. To them the roughness of the present life is not cheered by any reasonable and assured prospect of good things to come.<\/p>\n

Without-God: literally atheists, i.e. destitute of all the help and peace and joy which comes through knowledge of God and faith in God. This subjective absence of God is quite consistent with the objective truth (Act 17:28) that in Him we live and move and are. The lack of conscious intercourse with a personal God is a marked feature of the best classic writings as compared with the Old Testament. The heathen have no Father in heaven on whose bosom they can rest.<\/p>\n

In the world: the locality of this destitution. In the seething mass of sinful humanity, dominated by the god of this world, away from the brightness of the smile of the God of heaven and from the joy of hope, these Gentiles were: for they had no part in the covenants which God made with Israel nor place in the sacred nation.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:13. But now: a conspicuous and favourite phrase of Paul recalling the contrast, ever present to his mind, of the past and the present. Same words in same sense in Col 1:22; Col 1:26; Col 3:8; Rom 3:21; Rom 6:22; Rom 7:6; Rom 11:30, etc. They are another note of authorship.<\/p>\n

In Christ Jesus: objectively, in the actual and historic person born at Bethlehem, whom Paul acknowledges to be the hoped-for Messiah. Hence the fuller title. Same words and sense in Rom 3:24. They are more fully expounded at the end of the verse.<\/p>\n

Ye who formerly were far off: sums up the description in Eph 2:12. This summing up of the lower side of a contrast is, as in Eph 2:5, an indisputable trace of the hand of Paul.<\/p>\n

Become near: to God and to the people of God. For distance from Israel and from God are the chief points of the description in Eph 2:12. And in Eph 2:14-15 we have peace between Jews and Gentiles given as an explanation of this verse, and in Eph 2:16; Eph 2:18 reconciliation and approach to God through Christ.<\/p>\n

In the blood of Christ: more specific than in Christ. It suggests (cp. Eph 1:7) the continued validity of the violent death of Christ as the means of salvation.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:14-15. Explanation and justification of the triumphant assertion in Eph 2:13, and especially of its last words.<\/p>\n

He is: each word very emphatic, pointing conspicuously to Him in whose blood the Gentiles have been brought near.<\/p>\n

Our peace; implies that the distance involves hostility. The words following prove that Pauls first thought is peace between Jews and Gentiles. But the words reconciled to God in Eph 2:16 followed by access to the Father in Eph 2:18 prove that this involves peace between men and God. In both references, Christ is our peace. For where He is, and there only, is peace. Cp. Joh 11:25, I am the Resurrection and the Life.<\/p>\n

The plain statement He is our peace, which explains and justifies Eph 2:13, is itself expounded and supported in Eph 2:14-18. The result of the whole is stated triumphantly in Eph 2:19-22.<\/p>\n

Made or has-made: simple statement of fact without reference to any definite time.<\/p>\n

Both one: literally the both things into one thing. As in Col 1:16, etc., the neuter looks upon persons merely as objects of thought without reference to personality.<\/p>\n

And has broken down etc.: additional detail explaining the general assertion.<\/p>\n

Middle-wall: between houses or courts. Found elsewhere only once: but the meaning is clear. It is further defined by the addition, of the partition or fence. Same word in Mat 21:33. It denotes something designed to keep away intruders. Here the fence is represented as a wall between the men to be kept apart. The whole phrase unites the ideas of separation and solidity. This barrier, Christ has broken down. He has thus made the two hostile divisions into one whole.<\/p>\n

At the Temple of Jerusalem, between the court of the Gentiles and that of the women, the latter being a part of the sacred enclosure, was a dividing wall on which were inscriptions in different languages warning foreigners, on pain of death, not to pass: Josephus, Wars bk. v. 5. 2. This was a visible embodiment of the barrier which Paul here depicts in the metaphor of a wall; and helps us to realise the spiritual separation of Jews and Gentiles. But his words do not betray any direct reference to it.<\/p>\n

Having-made-of-no-effect (as in Rom 3:3) the enmity: means by which Christ has broken down the barrier. Consequently, the enmity is that between Jew and Gentile; especially as the aim of its removal is to create the two into one new man.<\/p>\n

In His flesh: evidently our Lords crucified flesh and blood: so Eph 2:16.<\/p>\n

The law of commands in dogmas: in apposition to the enmity. By rendering invalid the Law, Christ brought to nothing the enmity.<\/p>\n

The commandments or commands: definite prescriptions of the Law. An example is quoted in Rom 7:8-13. These were a characteristic feature of the Law. And they took the form of dogmas, i.e. decrees by a superior authority: same word in Col 2:14, where see note. This Law can be no other than that of Moses. In what sense Christ has made it invalid, we learn from Gal 3:25-26. As first given, obedience to the prescriptions of the Law was a condition of the favour of God: Lev 18:5. This Condition made the favour of God impossible. For none can keep the Law, as it claims to be kept. By proclaiming righteousness through faith, Christ set aside, as a condition and means of the favour of God, the ancient Law. Paul says here that by doing so He removed also the hostility between Jew and Gentile. This we can understand. For the Law of Sinai, given only to a part of mankind, became a separation between those who had, and those who had not, received it. And this separation was followed by mutual hatred and hostility. This hatred and its occasion, Christ removed. In Him, both Jew and Gentile, the Law now powerless to condemn or to separate them, become brethren.<\/p>\n

That He may create etc.: purpose for which Christ has set aside the Law and its decrees, viz. to unite by creative power into one new unity the two parts into which the Law divided mankind. In Eph 2:14 this unity is represented as already attained: who made both one. For it will infallibly result from what Christ has already done. It is here represented as a purpose: for its full realisation is still future, dependent on each ones faith.<\/p>\n

Create; recalls the same word in Eph 2:10; Col 1:16. It implies that this unity is wrought by the creative power of God, breathing new life and order into hitherto discordant elements. Creation always produces something new. Same thought in 2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15 : an important coincidence.<\/p>\n

The two persons into one new man: the masculine form calling attention to the personality of the reconciled ones. So, but less conspicuously, in Gal 3:28.<\/p>\n

In Himself: Christ being the surrounding element in which the new creation takes place, and in which the resulting unity abides. While cherishing and working out this purpose, Christ is making peace. These words, which describe the entire process of salvation from its conception in the heart of God to its full accomplishment, link the new creation to the peace mentioned in Eph 2:14, thus keeping it before us.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:16. And that He may reconcile etc.: a second purpose of Christ, parallel with that He may create etc. He designed not only to unite together the two hostile divisions of mankind but to reconcile the united race to God. This implies that. behind the hostility of man against man there was also hostility between man and God. Each kind of hostility Christ resolved to remove. The two reconciliations are so closely related that either may be placed before the other, according to the point of view chosen. In this section and Epistle Pauls chief thought is unity of Jew and Gentile. He therefore mentions first peace between man and man. But he remembers that this can be only by peace between man and God. Hence these words.<\/p>\n

Reconcile to God: cp. Col 1:22, where see note. Another mark of Pauline authorship: Rom 5:10; 2Co 5:18-20.<\/p>\n

Both persons, or the two persons: a mode of thought different from Eph 2:14 the two things into one thing, and keeping before us the personality of those to be reconciled.<\/p>\n

In one body: viz. the Church, which is the body of Christ. It is thus parallel to one new man in Eph 2:15; and keeps up the dominant thought, viz. the unity of Jews and Gentiles. This exposition agrees better with the tenor of the context than to interpret the one body as that nailed to the cross. Moreover, nowhere in the N.T. is attention directed to the oneness of the human body of Christ.<\/p>\n

Through the cross: as the instrument of reconciliation: so through His death in Col 1:22; Rom 5:10.<\/p>\n

Having-slain etc.: mode by which Christ purposed to reconcile men to God. It thus expounds through the cross.<\/p>\n

The enmity: probably, of Jews and Gentiles. For this is at once suggested by the same word in Eph 2:15; and is the chief thought of this section. And the removal of this ancient enmity, itself a result of mans sin, comes through the death of Christ. For, had He not died, its removal would have been impossible. While writing about Christs purpose to break down the barrier between Jew and Gentile, Paul remembers that this can be done only by breaking down another barrier, that between man and God. Now man can be reconciled to God (see my Galatians Diss. vii.) only through the death of Christ. Consequently, thereby or therein, i.e. in the cross on which He died, Christ slew not only the enmity between man and God but that between man and man, in order to bring in universal harmony. For had He not died, this unity would have been impossible: now it is certain.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:17. Another detail in this reconciliation, added as an independent assertion.<\/p>\n

And He came: at His incarnation.<\/p>\n

And announced-good-tidings-of-peace: on earth before His death. Cp. Luk 4:21. For the words then spoken were a proclamation of peace for all mankind, and, in view of their subsequent announcement throughout the world by the Apostles, may be said to have been spoken to all mankind. This is better than to understand these words as referring to the preaching of the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost under the influence of the Holy Spirit whose descent is in Joh 14:18 spoken of as a coming of Christ. For the preaching of the Apostles was but a re-echo of the words spoken by Christ on earth, who not only obtained for us peace through His death but announced through His own lips the good-tidings-of-peace. To this end He came from heaven to earth.<\/p>\n

Good-tidings: see under Rom 1:1; cp. 1Th 3:6.<\/p>\n

Peace: between man and man, as throughout the section. This implies peace with God. But to this last we have no need to assume any direct reference here.<\/p>\n

Those far off: put first, although the Gospel came first to the Jews, because the entrance of the Gentiles into the one fold of Christ is the chief matter of this section. This order shows that Paul is thinking of Christs words, not as spoken to those who heard them on earth, but as spoken virtually to the whole world.<\/p>\n

Far off: as in Eph 2:13.<\/p>\n

Those near: the Jews who from childhood had beard of the coming Messiah and of the blessings He would bring. They were the sons of the Covenant: Act 3:25.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:18. A fact, later in date, yet virtually underlying the assertion of Eph 2:17. It is practically a re-statement of Eph 2:13.<\/p>\n

Through Him: the emphatic words of the verse.<\/p>\n

Access: same word and almost the same phrase in Rom 5:2, through whom we have obtained access; a very close parallel. A cognate verb in 1Pe 3:18. Christ took us by the hand and led us to the Father. Similarly Eph 2:13 : made near in the blood of Christ. It includes the whole work of salvation.<\/p>\n

We both: Jews and Gentiles, whose union in Christ is the dominant thought of this section.<\/p>\n

In one Spirit: the divine Agent of all abiding harmony of man with man. So Eph 4:4; Php 1:27; 1Co 12:13 : important coincidences.<\/p>\n

Notice here the relation of each Person of the Trinity to the work of salvation. Both Jews and Gentiles were far away from God; and consequently each far from the other. Through the agency of the Son, and in the Holy Spirit dwelling in the hearts of all His people, they have been led into the presence and smile of God, and into the harmony of spiritual brotherhood. And to this end the Son Himself came into the world and proclaimed peace to men. Notice also that of this salvation the death of Christ is conspicuously pointed to as the means. In His blood we have been made near. And Christs aim is to reconcile us to God through the cross, and in that cross to kill the previously-existing enmity.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:19. Argumentative summing up of 6.<\/p>\n

Therefore: two Greek words, a collocation favourite with, and peculiar to, Paul. It sums up the foregoing and draws from it an inference. A close parallel in Rom 5:18.<\/p>\n

Strangers: as in Eph 2:12.<\/p>\n

Sojourners: foreign residents without civic rights. Same word in Act 7:6; Act 7:29; 1Pe 2:11. Even in this summing up Paul states, as his wont is, the full contrast of past and present.<\/p>\n

But ye are: solemn repetition of the verb, stating not only what they have ceased to be but what they actually are.<\/p>\n

Fellow-citizens: sharing all municipal rights. It represents the Church as a city.<\/p>\n

The saints, or holy ones: the sacred people of God. Israel at Sinai was called a holy nation: Exo 19:6. The priests were specially holy: Num 16:3; Num 16:5. In the New Covenant, they who believe the Gospel become the peculiar people of God, and receive as their usual designation the name saints: see under Rom 1:7; cp. Act 9:13; Act 9:32; Act 9:41. Of this sacred company, the earliest members were Jews. Then Samaritans were added to it; and now these far off Asiatic Greeks.<\/p>\n

Members-of-the-household: same word in Gal 6:10, where see note. In the great household of God, all are both sons and servants. And to this house and home belong now these far off Gentiles.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:20. Process by which these aliens were received into the city and house of God. It further describes their present position. The household of God suggests easily a favourite metaphor, viz. the Church as a building, and more specifically as the temple of God. In this splendid metaphor culminates Pauls teaching here about the union in Christ of Jews and Gentiles. Cp. Mat 16:18 from the lips of Christ; 1Co 3:9-17; 1Co 6:19; 2Co 6:16; Rom 15:20; 1Pe 2:5. It underlies the word rendered edify or build. The composite word here used is found also in 1Co 3:10; 1Co 3:12; 1Co 3:14; Col 2:7; and denotes to carry up a building already begun.<\/p>\n

The foundation of the Apostles: that laid by them. So 1Co 3:10, where Paul stated his own relation to this foundation. And nothing more is suggested now. Another conception in Mat 16:18. But of this there is no hint here. Upon Christ rests firmly, and rises, the Church.<\/p>\n

By preaching Christ and leading men to Him, the Apostles laid this foundation in actual human life. See under 1Co 3:11. Now the Apostles, in laying this foundation, were building the house and city of God. To it therefore belong those who were being built into the rising walls.<\/p>\n

Prophets: conspicuously mentioned in 1Co 12:28 as holding the second rank in the Church. And this is indisputably the meaning of the same word in Eph 3:5; Eph 4:11. As in O.T., they were men who spoke under special inspiration: see note under 1Co 14:40. Had the reference here been to the O.T. prophets, the order would have been inverted, prophets and apostles.<\/p>\n

Corner-stone: 1Pe 2:6, quoted from Isa 28:16; but not found elsewhere. Same idea in Psa 118:22, quoted in Mat 21:42. Christ is both the foundation underlying the entire building and a conspicuous corner stone uniting its walls and thus giving solidity to the whole. This word, which recalls an ancient prophecy touching the Church of Christ, is very appropriate here in a summary of Pauls teaching that in Christ Jews and Gentiles are united into one whole.<\/p>\n

Christ Jesus Himself: cp. Eph 2:14, He is our peace.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:21. Further account of this building and of its relation to Christ.<\/p>\n

Every building: various parts of the one great structure. Such were the various Churches, Jewish or Gentile. So Mat 24:1, the buildings of the Temple: i.e. the various parts of the Temple at Jerusalem. Frequently a great building is begun at different points; and in the earlier stages its parts seem to be independent erections: but as it advances all are united into one whole. So there were in Pauls day, as now, various Churches. But, to his eye, they were parts of, and were advancing towards, one great temple. The separation was apparent and passing: the unity was real and abiding.<\/p>\n

Being-fitly-joined-together: as a living body is united by its joints. Same word in Eph 4:16. [The present participle describes the process of union as now going on. So does the next word.]<\/p>\n

Is-growing: for the progress of the building is a development of its own inner life. This word supplements the metaphor of a building by that of a tree. Similar metaphor in 1Co 3:6; 1Co 3:9; Rom 11:16-24, Joh 15:1-8.<\/p>\n

A holy temple: a conception familiar to Paul: see 1Co 3:16-17, and my note. The various buildings, separate as they are during erection, are designed to become one great temple. And the temple is essentially holy: for it belongs to God. Consequently, they who are built upon the one foundation are numbered among (Eph 2:19) the citizen saints.<\/p>\n

A holy temple in the Lord or a temple holy in the Lord: Christ Himself being the surrounding element of this holiness. It notes a closer relation than the O.T. phrase, holy to the Lord. In virtue of their inward union with the one Master, the Jewish and Gentile Churches are growing into one holy temple.<\/p>\n

Eph 2:22. In whom: as in Eph 2:21. It keeps before us Christ as the element of growth.<\/p>\n

Also ye: as in Eph 2:3; Eph 1:13. It brings the Christians at Ephesus conspicuously under the foregoing general assertion; a thought present throughout the Epistle.<\/p>\n

Are-being-built-together: as stones in a rising building. It is, under another metaphor, practically the same as fitly joined together, in Eph 2:21, which suggests the union of bones and members in a living body.<\/p>\n

Dwelling-place (same word in Rev 18:2) of God: parallel with holy temple in Eph 2:21. For this is the central idea of a temple: 1Co 3:16, where see note.<\/p>\n

In the Spirit: the Agent of this indwelling of God in man. They in whom the Spirit dwells are also in the Spirit: Rom 8:9. For the Spirit within raises them into a new element of life. Thus these last words connect Pauls teaching about the holy temple with His frequent teaching about the Holy Spirit. Cp. 1Co 3:16; 1Co 6:19. They are also parallel to in one Spirit in Eph 2:18. For the Spirit is the surrounding element both of mans approach to God and of Gods presence in man. Same words also in Eph 3:5.<\/p>\n

In view of the great work wrought in them by God, Paul reminds his readers of their former heathen state. Even before Christ came there was an organized community on earth in special covenant with God, holding special promises and cherishing glorious hopes. By its members, the readers of this Epistle were looked down upon as aliens. And, having no share in its hopes and in its covenant with God, they were without hope and without God. Through the death of Christ, all this is changed. The barrier between Jew and Gentile, which separated both Jews and Gentiles from God, Christ has through His own death broken down; in order that, by creative power, He may make out of two enemies one new man reconciled to God. Of this peace, He is not only the Author but the Herald. And of this approach to God the Holy Spirit is the Agent and Element. Then all is changed. The aliens have become members of the sacred commonwealth and of the family of God. That city and family are a temple whose foundations have been laid by men divinely sent and inspired, and whose conspicuous corner stone is Christ Himself. On this foundation day by day living stones are being laid and fitted together. And thus, in virtue of its own inherent life, the temple is growing. It seems to consist of various separate buildings. But, as it rises, these various parts are becoming, through the one indwelling Spirit, one holy temple of God.<\/p>\n

Very conspicuous in this section is the death of Christ as the means by which (Eph 2:13) the far off ones have been brought near, the barrier between Jew and Gentile broken down, and both Jew and Gentile reconciled to God. The barrier thus broken down is the Law with its prescriptions. Similarly in Eph 1:7 the violent death of Christ is the means of the forgiveness of sins. All this is in close harmony with Pauls constant and varied teaching that salvation comes through the death of Christ upon the cross. It can be explained only on the principle asserted in Rom 3:26, viz. that God gave Christ to die in order to harmonize with His own justice the justification of believers, or in other words that the need for this costly means of salvation lay in mans sin viewed in the light of the justice of God.<\/p>\n

The union of Jews and Gentiles suggests the unity of the Church, a thought already implied in the universal purpose asserted in Eph 1:1 ff.<\/p>\n

To and further developed in Eph 4:3-6. This unity is a conspicuous feature of the Epistle.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Section Four: 2:11-22 <\/p>\n

Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; <\/p>\n

We are to remember on a continuing basis. It has the idea of calling to mind, considering a thing or situation. We tend to operate in this mode anyway, so Paul gives them something spiritual to call to mind. <\/p>\n

We have no problem calling to remembrance the good old days, the times when we had more money than now, the good times in a marriage, the best Christmas etc. Paul wants them to remember what Christ has done for them – something worthwhile to consider. In Philippians he called the believer to “think on these things” to consider the good things of our spiritual life. The other alternative is that we dwell in all those things that make us unhappy and discouraged, so it makes more sense to consider God and His things rather than us and our things that we can’t buy right now. Php 4:8 “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things. 9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.” <\/p>\n

I included verse nine for its statement that this will bring the realization that God is with us whether we have that old “self” stuff or not, that it is God that is important, not the rest of all the stuff of life. <\/p>\n

Gentiles is the Greek word “ethnos” which can mean as little as a company, troop, or swarm, but usually depicts a class of people, in this case all that are not Jews. Paul uses this term to speak of all non-Jewish peoples. (In Act 2:5 we see “ethnos” used to describe all of mankind. It relates to all the “nations” of the world. “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.”) <\/p>\n

Here he makes a distinction in mankind – the Jews and the Non-Jews in a general statement of the Gentiles relationship to God. This usage is somewhat time sensitive, in that not all God’s people are Jews. The Jews came much later in history and many of the peoples of the Old Testament were not Jews. At the time of Abraham God began to deal with only the one people, though even in the law there was grand provision for any non-Jewish people to come to God and be a part of His people. There is a complete system whereby people of this sort can be brought into the Jewish community and find acceptance with God. <\/p>\n

However at this time in the family of God it was Jews and the rest, two divisions of mankind. Within Judaism there was coming that body of Christ which would eliminate this division and basically set up another. God’s people and the lost people. Jewish and Gentile believers become one body, the church, the children of God while all else on earth is lost and never to be a part of the family of God lest they believe upon the head of that body, the church. <\/p>\n

The phrase “made by hands” interests me, though I am not sure there is anything special meant by it. It seems that it is of note because Paul included it, but just why he included it is of interest. Was he suggesting that the Jewish Christians might give a little more emphasis to circumcision than they ought? This is possible because that is what they seemed to do in the early history of the church until the apostles set them straight on the topic. <\/p>\n

Was Paul giving a contrast in the verse? “Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;” Paul seems to point out that the circumcision was no real special SPIRITUAL thing to be excited about. It was done by the hands of men – no big deal. The context is the thought that before the Gentiles were outsiders, while now they are insiders and equal to the Jews. The point might be suggested, that being insiders, they are on now equal to the Jew and no more outsiders. This might have been written for the Jews as much as for the Gentiles. <\/p>\n

Some suggest, and I would tend to agree that Paul is showing the division between lost Gentiles and lost Jews. The phrase relating to hands would point out the lostness of the Jews he was speaking about. The thinking is that if he were speaking of Christian Jews he would have phrased it differently. <\/p>\n

Most Jews in Paul’s day were Christ rejecters, but very pious in their devotion to the law, even if their devotion was to the law as they understood it and interpreted it. Paul’s use of the phrase would point out their reliance on their own efforts had the lost Jew had opportunity to read this letter. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

2:11 {10} Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are {k} called Uncircumcision by that which is {l} called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;<\/p>\n

(10) Applying the former doctrine to the Gentiles, he shows that they were not only as the Jews by nature, but also after a special manner, strangers and without God. Therefore they ought so much the more remember that same so great a benefit of God.<\/p>\n

(k) You were called in no other state than as Gentiles, so that all the world might witness your uncleanness.<\/p>\n

(l) Of the Jews who were known by you by the mark of circumcision, the mark of the covenant.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

1. Present ministry 2:11-22<\/span><\/p>\n

The apostle first stated the reality of the union of all believers in Christ (Eph 2:11-13). Then he explained what this involves (Eph 2:14-18). Finally he described the consequences of this union (Eph 2:19-22).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

B. Corporate calling 2:11-3:19<\/span><\/p>\n

New spiritual life does not just mean that we have experienced regeneration individually. Additionally God brings every Christian into union with every other Christian. In Christ we have solidarity with other believers as well as solidarity with God. Paul next explained this corporate aspect of our being in Christ.<\/p>\n

". . . a major focus of this letter and of the Prison Epistles in general is the corporate nature of those who are in the body of Christ. Believers do not have a private faith; they have corporate relationship and responsibility to each other." [Note: Bock, p. 308.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The reality of Gentile believers’ union with Jewish believers 2:11-13<\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

In view of what God has done for us in changing us, Gentile believers need to remember certain things. Paul used "flesh" here in the literal sense (i.e., the body) rather than in one of its metaphorical senses (i.e., the sinful human nature, or all that we are in Adam). Great differences existed between Jewish and Gentile believers before the Cross.<\/p>\n

"The one word that best describes the Gentiles is without<\/span>. They were ’outside’ in several respects." [Note: Wiersbe, 2:22.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Chapter 9<\/p>\n

THE FAR AND NEAR<\/p>\n

Eph 2:11-13<\/p>\n

The apostles “Wherefore” sums up for his readers the record of their salvation rehearsed in the previous verses. “You were buried in your sins, sunk in their corruption, ruined by their guilt, living under Gods displeasure and in the power of Satan. All this has passed away. The almighty Hand has raised you with Christ into a heavenly life. God has become your Father; His love is in your heart; by the strength of His grace you are enabled to walk in the way marked out for you from your creation. Where fore remember: think of what you were, and of what you are!”<\/p>\n

To such recollections we do well to summon ourselves. The children of grace love to recall, and on fit occasions recount for Gods glory and the help of their fellows, the way in which God led them to the knowledge of Himself. In some the great change came suddenly. He “made speed” to save us. It was a veritable resurrection, as signal and unlooked for as the rising of Christ from the dead. By a swift passage we were “translated from the power of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of His love.” Once living without God in the world, we were arrested by a strange providence – through some overthrow of fortune or shock of bereavement, or by a trivial incident touching unaccountably a hidden spring in the mind-and the whole aspect of life was altered in a moment. We saw revealed, as by a lightning flash at night, the emptiness of our own life, the misery of our nature, the folly of our unbelief, the awful presence of God- God whom we had forgotten and despised! We sought, and found His mercy. From that hour the old things passed away: we lived who had been dead, -made alive to God through Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n

This instant conversion, such as Paul experienced, this sharp and abrupt transition from darkness to light, was common in the first generation of Christians, as it is wherever religious awakening takes place in a society that has been largely dead to God. The advent of Christianity in the Gentile world was much after this fashion, like a tropical sunrise, in which day leaps on the earth full-born. This experience gives a stamp of peculiar decision to the convictions and character of its subjects. The change is patent and palpable; no observer can fail to mark it. And it burns itself into the memory with an ineffaceable impression. The violent throes of such a spiritual birth cannot be forgotten.<\/p>\n

But if our entrance into the life of God was gradual, like the dawn of our own milder clime, where the light steals by imperceptible advances upon the darkness-if the glory of the Lord has thus risen upon us, our certainty of its presence may be no less complete, and our remembrance of its coming no less grateful and joyous. One leaps into the new life by a single eager bound; another reaches it by measured, thoughtful steps: but both are there, standing side by side on the common ground of salvation in Christ. Both walk in the same light of the Lord, that floods the sky from east to west. The recollections which the latter has to cherish of the leading of Gods kindly light-how He touched our childish thought, and checked gently our boyish waywardness, and mingled reproof with the first stirrings of passion and self-will, and wakened the alarms of conscience and the fears of another world, and the sense of the beauty of holiness and the shame of sin, –<\/p>\n

“Shaping to truth the forward will Along His narrow way,”<\/p>\n

such remembrances are a priceless treasure, that grows richer as we grow wiser. It awakens a joy not so thrilling nor so prompt in utterance as that of the soul snatched like a brand from the burning, but which passes understanding. Blessed are the children of the kingdom, those who have never roamed far from the fold of Christ and the commonwealth of Israel, whom the cross has beckoned onwards from their childhood. But however it was-by whatever means, at whatever time it pleased God to call you from darkness to His marvellous light, remember. But we must return to Paul and his Gentile readers. The old death in life was to them a sombre reality, keenly and painfully remembered. In that condition of moral night out of which Christ had rescued them, Gentile society around them still remained. Let us observe its features as they are delineated in contrast with the privileges long bestowed on Israel. The Gentile world was Christless, hopeless, godless. It had no share in the Divine polity framed for the chosen people; the outward mark of its uncircumcision was a true symbol of its irreligion and debasement. Israel had a God. Besides, there were only “those who are called gods.” This was the first and cardinal distinction. Not their race, not their secular calling, their political or intellectual gifts, but their faith, formed the Jews into a nation. They were “the people of God,” as no other people has been-of the God, for theirs was “the true and living God”-Jehovah, the I Am, the One, the Alone. The monotheistic belief was, no doubt, wavering and imperfect in the mass of the nation in early times; but it was held by the ruling minds amongst them, by the men who have shaped the destiny of Israel and created its Bible, with increasing clearness and intensity of passion. “All the gods of the nations are idols-vapours, phantoms, nothings!-but Jehovah made the heavens.” It was the ancestral faith that glowed in the breast of Paul at Athens, amidst the fairest shrines of Greece, when he “saw the city wholly given to idolatry”-mans highest art and the toil and piety of ages lavished on things that were no gods; and in the midst of the splendour of a hollow and decaying Paganism he read the confession that God was “unknown.” Ephesus had her famous goddess, worshipped in the most sumptuous pile of architecture that the ancient world contained. Behold the proud city, “temple-keeper of the great goddess Artemis,” filled with wrath! Infuriate Demos flashes fire from his thousand eyes, and his brazen throat roars hoarse vengeance against the insulters of “her magnificence, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth”! Without God-atheists, in fact, the apostle calls this devout Asian population; and Artemis of Ephesus, and Athene, and Cybele of Smyrna, and Zeus and Asclepius of Pergamum, though all the world worship them, are but “creatures of art and mans device.”<\/p>\n

The Pagans retorted this reproach. “Away with the atheists! “they cried, when Christians were led to execution. Ninety years after this time the martyr Polycarp was brought into the arena before the magistrates of Asia and the populace gathered in Smyrna at the great Ionic festival. The Proconsul, wishing to spare the venerable man, said to him: “Swear by the fortune of Caesar; and say, Away with the Atheists!” But Polycarp, as the story continues, “with a grave look gazing on the crowd of lawless Gentiles in the stadium and shaking his hand against them, then groaning and looking up to heaven, said, Away with the atheists! “Pagan and Christian were each godless in the eyes of the other. If visible temples and images, and the local worship of each tribe or city made a god, then Jews and Christians had none: if God was a Spirit-One, Holy, Almighty, Omnipresent-then polytheists were in truth atheists; their many gods, being many, were no gods; they were idols, -eidola, illusive shows of the Godhead.<\/p>\n

The more thoughtful and pious among the heathen felt this already. When the apostle denounced the idols and their pompous worship as “these vanities,” his words found an echo in the Gentile conscience. The classical Paganism held the multitude by the force of habit and local pride, and by its sensuous and artistic charms; but such religious power as it once had was gone. In all directions it was undermined by mystic Oriental and Egyptian rites, to which men resorted in search of a religion and sick of the old fables, ever growing more debased, that had pleased their fathers. The majesty of Rome in the person of the Emperor, the one visible supreme power, was seized upon by the popular instinct, even more than it was imposed by state policy, and made to fill the vacuum; and temples to Augustus had already risen in Asia, side by side with those of the ancient gods.<\/p>\n

In this despair of their ancestral religions many piously disposed Gentiles turned to Judaism for spiritual help; and the synagogue was surrounded in the Greek cities by a circle of earnest proselytes. From their ranks St. Paul drew a large proportion of his hearers and converts. When he writes “Remember that you were at that time without God, ” he is within the recollection of his readers; and they will bear him out in testifying that their heathen creed was dead and empty to the soul. Nor did philosophy construct a creed more satisfying. Its gods were the Epicurean deities who dwell aloof and careless of men; or the supreme Reason and Necessity of the Stoics, the anima mundi, of which human souls are fleeting and fragmentary images. “Deism finds God only in heaven; Pantheism only on earth; Christianity alone finds Him both in heaven and on earth” (Harless). The Word made flesh reveals God in the world.<\/p>\n

When the apostle says “without God in the world, ” this qualification is both reproachful and sorrowful. To be without God in the world that He has made, where His “eternal power and Godhead” have been visible from creation, argues a darkened and perverted heart. To be without God in the world is to be in the wilderness, without a guide; on a stormy ocean, without harbour or pilot; in sickness of spirit, without medicine or physician; to be hungry without bread, and weary without rest, and dying with no light of life. It is to be an orphaned child, wandering in an empty, ruined house.<\/p>\n

In these words we have an echo of Pauls preaching to the Gentiles, and an indication of the line of his appeals to the conscience of the enlightened pagans of his time. The despair of the age was darker than the human mind has known before or since. Matthew Arnold has painted it all in one verse of those lines, entitled “Obermann Once More,” in which he so perfectly expresses the better spirit of modern scepticism.<\/p>\n

“On that hard Pagan world disgust<\/p>\n

And secret loathing fell; <\/p>\n

Deep weariness and sated lust <\/p>\n

Made human life a hell.”<\/p>\n

The saying by which St. Paul reproved the Corinthians, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” is the common sentiment of pagan epitaphs of the time. Here is an extant specimen of the kind: “Let us drink and be merry; for we shall have no more kissing and dancing in the kingdom of Proserpine. Soon shall we fall asleep to wake no more.” Such were the thoughts with which men came back from the grave-side. It is needless to say how depraving was the effect of this hopelessness. At Athens, in the more religious times of Socrates, it was even considered a decent and kindly thing to allow a criminal condemned to death to spend his last hours in gross sensual indulgence. There is no reason to suppose that the extinction of the Christian hope of immortality would prove less demoralising. We are “saved by hope,” said St. Paul: we are ruined by despair. Pessimism of creed for most men means pessimism of conduct.<\/p>\n

Our modern speech and literature and our habits of feeling have been for so many generations steeped in the influence of Christs teaching, and it has thrown so many tender and hallowed thoughts around the state of our beloved dead, that it is impossible even for those who are personally without hope in Christ to realise what its general decay and disappearance would mean. To have possessed such a treasure, and then to lose it! to have cherished anticipations so exalted and so dear, -and to find them turn out a mockery! The age upon which this calamity fell would be of all ages the most miserable.<\/p>\n

The hope of Israel which Paul preached to the Gentiles was a hope for the world and for the nations, as well as for the individual soul. “The commonwealth [or polity] of Israel” and “the covenants of promise” guaranteed the establishment of the Messianic kingdom upon earth. This expectation took amongst the mass of the Jews a materialistic and even a revengeful shape; but in one form or other it belonged, and still belongs, to every man of Israel. Those noble lines of Virgil in his fourth Eclogue-like the words of Caiaphas, an unintended Christian prophecy- which predicted the return of justice and the spread of a golden age through the whole world under the rule of the coming heir of Caesar, had been signally belied by the imperial house in the century that had elapsed. Never were human prospects darker than when the apostle wrote as Neros prisoner in Rome. It was an age of crime and horror. The political world and the system of pagan society seemed to be in the throes of dissolution. Only in “the commonwealth of Israel” was there a light of hope and a foundation for the future of mankind; and of this in its wisdom the world knew nothing.<\/p>\n

The Gentiles were “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel,”-that is to say, treated as aliens and made such by their exclusion. By the very fact of Israels election, the rest of mankind were shut out of the visible kingdom of God. They became mere Gentiles, or nations, -a herd of men bound together only by natural affinity, with no “covenant of promise,” no religious constitution or destiny, no definite relationship to God, Israel being alone the acknowledged and organised “people of Jehovah.”<\/p>\n

These distinctions were summed up in one word, expressing all the pride of the Jewish nature, when the Israelites styled themselves “the Circumcision.” The rest of the world-Philistines or Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, or Barbarians, it mattered not-were “the Uncircumcision.” How superficial this distinction was in point of fact, and how false the assumption of moral superiority it implied in the existing condition of Judaism, St. Paul indicates by saying, “those who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in flesh, wrought by human hands.” In the second and third chapters of his epistle to the Romans he exposed the hollowness of Jewish sanctity, and brought his fellow-countrymen down to the level of those “sinners of the Gentiles” whom they so bitterly despised.<\/p>\n

The destitution of the Gentile world is put into a single word, when the apostle says: “You were at that time separate from Christ “- without a Christ, either come or coming. They were deprived of the worlds one treasure, -shut out, as it appeared, forever from any part in Him who is to mankind all things and in all-Once far off!<\/p>\n

“But now in Christ Jesus ye were made nigh.” What is it that has bridged the distance, that has transported these Gentiles from the wilderness of heathenism into the midst of the city of God? It is “the blood of Christ.” The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ transformed the relations of God to mankind, and of Israel to the Gentiles. In Him God reconciled not a nation, but “a world” to Himself. {2Co 5:19} The death of the Son of man could not have reference to the sons of Abraham alone. Ii sin is universal and death is not a Jewish but a human experience, and if one blood flows in the veins of all our race, then the death of Jesus Christ was a universal sacrifice; it appeals to every mans conscience and heart, and puts away for each the guilt which comes between his soul and God.<\/p>\n

When the Greeks in Passion week desired to see Him, He exclaimed: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto me.” The cross of Jesus was to draw humanity around it, by its infinite love and sorrow, by the perfect apprehension there was in it of the worlds guilt and need, and the perfect submission to the sentence of Gods law against mans sin. So wherever the gospel was preached by St. Paul, it won Gentile hearts for Christ. Greek and Jew found themselves weeping together at the foot of the cross, sharing one forgiveness and baptised into one Spirit. The union of Caiaphas and Pilate in the condemnation of Jesus and the mingling of the Jewish crowd with the Roman soldiers at His execution were a tragic symbol of the new age that was coming. Israel and the Gentiles were accomplices in the death of the Messiah-the former of the two the more guilty partner in the counsel and deed. If this Jesus whom they slew and hanged on a tree was indeed the Christ, Gods chosen, then what availed their Abrahamic sonship, their covenants and law-keeping, their proud religious eminence? They had killed their Christ; they had forfeited their calling. His blood was on them and on their children.<\/p>\n

Those who seemed nigh to God, at the cross of Christ were found far off, -that both together, the far and the near, might be reconciled and brought back to God. “He shut up all unto disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all.”<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wherefore remember, that ye [being] in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 11 22 . Regeneration of the Ephesians, an instance of the equal welcome of Gentiles to the Covenant Church, the true Temple 11. Wherefore remember ] … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 2:11”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29178","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}