Ephesians 2:11

In these verses the apostle proceeds in his account of the miserable condition of these Ephesians by nature. Wherefore remember, etc., Eph 2:11. 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, 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, etc., 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, Eph 2:12. "At that time, 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; 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. 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; 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; for, though they worshipped many gods, yet they were without the true God.

The apostle proceeds (Eph 2:13) further to illustrate the happy change that was made in their state: But now, in Christ Jesus, you who sometimes were far off, etc. 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. Unconverted sinners remove themselves at a distance from God, and God puts them at a distance: He beholds the proud afar off. "But now in Christ Jesus, etc., 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; but God is a help at hand to his people; and this is by the blood of Christ, 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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The Greek order in the oldest manuscripts is, "That in time past (literally, once) ye," &c. Such remembrance sharpens gratitude and strengthens faith (Eph 2:19) [BENGEL].

Gentiles in the flesh--that is, Gentiles in respect to circumcision.

called Uncircumcision--The Gentiles were called (in contempt), and were, the Uncircumcision; the Jews were called, but were not truly, the Circumcision [ELLICOTT].

in the flesh made by hands--as opposed to the true "circumcision of the heart in the Spirit, and not the letter" (Rom 2:29), "made without the hands in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ" (Col 2:11).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

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:

“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.” (Genesis 3:22,23)

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.

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.

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, (Romans 2:29,) which is also called the circumcision of Christ. (Colossians 2:11)

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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(11) Gentiles in the flesh—i.e., not having the bodily impress of circumcision, sealing the Jewish covenant.

Who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision.—The use of the phrase “called”—with a touch of the contempt implied in our phrase “the so-called”—simply 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, it is contrasted with the practical reality of obedience to God’s commandments; in Gal_5:6, with the inner reality of “faith working by love “; in Gal_6:15, with the divine gift of the “new creation”; in Col_3:11, with the spiritual unity of all in Christ. (Comp. also the whole argument of Rom_2:25 to Rom_4:12.)

In the flesh made by hands.—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, we read, “Beware of the concision; for we are the circumcision.” In Col_2:11, 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11–22. Regeneration of the Ephesians, an instance of the equal welcome of Gentiles to the Covenant Church, the true Temple

11. Wherefore remember] 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 in general; “when we were dead … He quickened us,” &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, spiritual regeneration was equally gracious and sovereign for Jew and for Gentile. But as to any previous intimations, it must needs come with a greater surprise to the Gentile.

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 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; Romans 2, 3, 9-11; Galatians 2-4.

in time passed] Lit., once.

Gentiles] Lit., the Nations; Heb., haggôyîm; 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” (McCaul’s Old Paths, p. 17, &c.).

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.

in the flesh] Does this mean, “physically,” or (Rom_8:8; and often) “in the unregenerate state”? 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 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.

called Uncircumcision] Or, regarding English usage of the article, the Uncircumcision; this was their sobriquet 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.

called the Circumcision] 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 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, 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. 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.

made by hands] Better, wrought by hand. Cp. Col_2:11 for the antithesis, “the circumcision wrought without hands;” a thing spiritual, invisible, the covenant mark from the Divine 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.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

In the flesh; either:

1. Carnal, unregenerate, as Rom 8:8,9. Or rather:

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

Who are called Uncircumcision, by way of reproach; to be uncircumcised being the badge of them that were not Israelites, and so were not in the number of God’s people.

By that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 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, made without hands, Col 2:11.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Eph_2:11

Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision.

Remembrance of our miserable condition by nature

It is good to be reminded of this, for it is

(1) a ground of meekness towards others;

(2) of stirring up groans;

(3) of tasting the benefits of redemption;

(4) of provoking to fruitfulness;

(5) it is the ground of a holy blush, with which all must walk before God;

(6) it is also a special furtherance of Gods glory, which cannot be safe if His works are not had in remembrance. (Paul Bayne.)

Miseries of a pagan condition, a motive to missionary zeal

I. The affecting condition described.

1. Upon his understanding.

2. Consider this subject as it affects the conscience. The whole world is guilty before God (Rom_3:19).

3. As it affects the character. Where Christ is not, morality sheds but a dim, a feeble, and Often a delusive ray.

4. 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.

5. Trace its operation on the civil and religious institutions of human society.

6. 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?

II. The duty of cherishing a distinct and constant remembrance of this condition.

1. The light of reason, and the custom of mankind, are sufficient to Show that we should cherish the grateful remembrance of eminent deliverances.

2. The express direction of Holy Scripture. On the Jewish Church such recollection was frequently and solemnly inculcated (Exo_13:3; see also Deu_5:15).

3. We may appeal to the impulse of good feeling in every mind that is rightly, by which I mean religiously, constituted.

III. The practical effects which should flow from this remembrance.

1. This recollection should be productive of deep humiliation and self-abasement.

2. This recollection should excite sentiments of the liveliest gratitude for the happy change which has taken place in our condition.

3. This recollection should endear to us our native land, which the religion of Jesus has hallowed and blessed.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.)

Remembrance of former sinful state

I. Show what uncircumcision denotes.

1. Rebellion (Jer_9:25-26).

2. Exclusion from the privileges of Gods chosen (Eph_2:12).

3. Pollution (Eze_44:7).

4. Liableness to death (Gen_17:4).

II. The ends for which believers should remember their former state of sin.

1. To create shame and self-abhorrence (Eze_16:60).

2. To create renewed views of Christ and His salvation (1Ti_1:13).

3. To remind us of the awful state of the ungodly (1Co_6:9-11).

4. To exclude boasting (Deu_9:6-7).

5. As a motive to forgive others (Eph_4:22).

6. As a motive to relieve the distressed (1Co_8:9).

7. To increase our love to God. (H. Foster, M. A.)

Conversion a great change

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.

Then and now

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.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 2:11-12. Wherefore — To increase your sense of God’s 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 Christ’s 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.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. The unification of Jew and Gentile into this one elect Church, 11-22.

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 (Eph_2:11) 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,) 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.

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 correspond to 1-3; and Eph_2:13-22 correspond to 4-10. As we have elsewhere remarked, (note on Rom_8:39,) it is the apostle’s style to begin in gloom and end in glory.

11. Wherefore—In view of the gracious history of Eph_2:4-10.

Remember—Review your past heathen condition, in order to appreciate your present Christian blessedness.

Gentiles in the flesh—As being not circumcised Hebrews.

Uncircumcision—The reproachful epithet of the Jews upon all who possessed not the mark of the Abrahamic descent and covenant.

Made by hands—In distinction from the circumcision of the heart, made by the Spirit.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 11-22. CONTRAST BETWEEN PAST AND THE PRESENT.

Wherefore remember, that once ye, the Gentiles in the flesh. The practical tenor of the apostle"s teaching is indicated by his "wherefores." He is always gathering up his views into some lesson. They are to "remember" the change between the past and the present what they were by nature, and what they had become by grace. This is most useful to all, even though the contrast between the two be not so vivid as in the case of Paul and the Ephesians. The contrast is indicated in various particulars, both of outward condition and of inward privilege and character. First, the old condition. They were "Gentiles in respect of the flesh not bearing on their bodies the mark of the Israel of God, therefore not marked out for blessing, not apparently near it. Who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision in the flesh made by hands. Nicknamed, as it were, Uncircumcision by those who in a fleshly or mechanical, but not always in the true spiritual sense (Rom_2:28, Rom_2:29; Php_3:3; Col_2:11) were called Circumcision; they had a name which denoted the very opposite of that given to God"s people another illustration of their apparent distance from blessing; they revolved round the sun, as it were, not in the nearer orbits of planets warmed, brightened, and beautified by the solar beams, but in the outermost ring of all like the cold, dark orbit of Uranus or Neptune, which the sunbeams hardly reach to lighten or to warm.

Vers. 11-13.

Contrast between the past and the present.

The Ephesians are here called to look back, to remember what they were; not, however, with the feeling of a man who has raised himself in the world, and whom such retrospect usually fills with pride, but with the feeling of those whom God has raised, a feeling that ought to produce the deepest humility and gratitude.

I THE PAST is presented under two aspects one having respect chiefly to their outward condition, the other chiefly to their inward.

1. Outward condition. They were Gentiles the Uncircumcision" (ver. 11).

1. Inward condition, denoted by five negatives:

1. without Christ;

2. without a country;

3. without promises;

4. without hope;

5. without God (ver. 12).

What an accumulation of miseries! Yet men often ignorant of their misery and without desire for change. Need of Holy Spirit to convince us of our sin and misery.

II THE CHARGE. (Ver. 13.) This is one of the brightest verses in the Bible, as ver. 12 is one of the darkest. From being "far off," they are "brought nigh.

(1) Brought nigh in justification;

(2) in adoption;

(3) in sanctification;

(4) to be finally brought nigh in glory.

To be nigh or near to God is to be in a blessed relation to him, to be restored to an orbit in which we get all the blessed influences of his presence, so that the light of his countenance falls richly upon us, and we become changed into the same image, from glory to glory.

III THE GROUND AND MEDIUM OF THE CHANGE. In Christ Jesus." "By the blood of Christ." Great difference between God"s dealings with us in nature and in grace. The blood of Jesus omnipotent to save. "All hail the power of Jesus" Name!

Vers. 11-22.

The spiritual temple.

In the apostle"s prayer for the Ephesians the power of God to us-ward who believe was illustrated first in the experience of our risen and reigning Head, and secondly in the experience of us as risen and. reigning members of his mystical body. The unity of the members, however, has not been as fully brought out in the preceding verses as Paul desired, and so we have in the section now before us the subject amplified and completed mainly round the figure of a spiritual temple." It is this main figure which we shall now keep before us. And

I CONSIDER THE RAW MATERIAL OUT OF WHICH THE SPIRITUAL TEMPLE IS TO BE BUILT. (Vers. 11-17.) This is Gentiles and Jews, the Uncircumcision and the Circumcision, those far off from God and those that were nigh. The Gentiles were without God" (aqeoi ejn tw kosmw), by which we are not to understand "atheists" in the sense of disbelieving the Divine existence, but simply "without God in the world," as men who cling to the world in its corporate capacity, wherein it ignores the Divine sovereignty and lives an alien citizenship. The Jews, on the other hand, were nominally citizens of the sacred commonwealth, and the covenants of promise were in their hands, and they had hope in consequence . Yet the raw material in both cases was rough and unsightly until the Lord undertook its preparation for the temple wall. Both were under sin, both had to be redeemed from evil, taken out of the quarry of nature and fitted by Divine grace for their place in the building.

II THE FOUNDATION OF THE TEMPLE. (Ver. 20.) The spiritual temple is here said to be built on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets." This, of course, signifies that it is upon the revelation God made through apostles and prophets that the edifice is erected. It is not upon speculations or dreams, but upon "the sure Word of prophecy," that the structure rests. Without the witnesses in the inspired Word, we should have no basis for spiritual unity and no foundation for edification. Hence our deep indebtedness to the sacred writers. We cannot do without the Book;" we should only be building on the sand.

III THE CORNERSTONES. (Ver. 20.) The next consideration here is the cornerstones. Now, Christ is called here the chief Cornerstone," that without which the two walls could not be bound into one. He lies at the foundation of the structure, the massive stone, so to speak, which unites the two great wails. Above him and. upon him are laid other but minor corner-stones; for every Christian soul who longs to promote unity among men is so far a corner-stone in the great building. Hence the minor honor of being elements of union is given unto Christ-like souls. But Jesus is the indispensable Cornerstone. And the apostle shows how Jesus is the bond of union between Jew and Gentile. Both as under sin needed an atoning Savior; but only one Savior and one blood were provided. The Savior of the Jews was the Savior of the Gentiles also. Thus both Jews and Gentiles were brought of necessity to the one Savior; the one sacrifice on Calvary atoned for both; the one blood blotted out the transgression of both; the one crucifixion reconciled both to God, and. peace produced between both and God secured at the same time peace with each other. Jew and Gentile are united and brought nigh to God by the one blessed Savior.

IV THE UNITY OF THE TEMPLE. (Vers. 18, 19.) The seemingly discordant elements are reduced to real harmony, and the unity of the whole is realized in the Spirit which pervades all hearts. For when the Gentiles and the Jews realize access unto the Father by one Spirit, then the alienation has passed away, and citizenship and. the family feeling have supervened. It thus appears that "Christian prayer is a witness of Christian citizenship." We squabble about differences until we are united at the throne. It is the united prayer which really is felt to unite believers. Alienation cannot survive union at the throne of the heavenly grace.

V THE AUGUST GUEST WHO INHABITS THE TEMPLE. (Vers. 21, 22.) Every temple is erected for some god as guest. It may only enshrine a phantom or an idol, which is nothing in the world, and yet the idea in temple-building always is the enshrining of a god. Now, this temple, whose stones are the souls of religious men, and whose unity is realized in religious exercises, is meant to be the dwelling-place of the Holy Ghost. He does not dwell in temples made with hands, but he dwells in those temples which are made without hands. The personalities of saintly men become his glorious home, and he condescends to dwell within us richly and- to fill us with his fullness. It is the unifying power of his presence that moulds all into one. The temple grows from within, like every growth in nature. The guest determines the character of the temple. The Holy Ghost secures a holy temple. To this unity Paul desires the Ephesians to come. R.M.E.

Vers. 11-22.

Union of Jews and Gentiles in the Christian Church.

remember, that aforetime." The Ephesian Christians are reminded of what they were "aforetime," that is, before they received the gospel. It is a good exercise of memory for us all to go back on what we once were. For we did not all receive the gospel when it was first presented to us. Many of us who now believe were for years in a state of indifference; How well, then, does it become us to "remember" our former unconverted condition! The memory of what we were aforetime should make us humble and thoughtful, and quicken us in present duty.

I THOSE THAT WERE GENTILES BY NAME. Ye, the Gentiles in the flesh." The name Gentiles," both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, is "nations." It was applied by the Jews to all nations except their own, just as we distinguish Christians and heathen. The Jews were one nation over against many; and though Christians are relatively more numerous than were the Jews, still they are the few and the heathen the multitudinous. But the apostle has reference to what the Gentiles were "in the flesh," and so he applies a second name to them.

II THOSE THAT WERE THE UNCIRCUMCISION. "Who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands." The Jews were distinguished by a bodily mark. It is referred to in the language "in the flesh, made by hands." By this surgical mark on them, they were known as God"s. They were therefore properly called the Circumcision," as all others who had not the mark were properly called "the Uncircumcision." And when the apostle uses the noticeable language here, "Who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called Circumcision," he is not to be regarded as reflecting on the distinction, or on the names founded on it. He is simply exercising a little caution. Those who called themselves Circumcision, as superior to those whom they called Uncircumcision, should have answered to the name. But he will not say that circumcision in the flesh was also circumcision in the spirit. There is often this distinction to be drawn between what we are called and what we are. We are Christians in name; but are we also Christians in truth? We have many honorable names applied to us as Christians; but do we answer to them? Is there a broad line of distinction between us and men of the world in our characters?

III THEIR BEARING THE NAME OF THE UNCIRCUMICISION IMPLIED MUCH.

1. Separate from Christ. "That ye were at that time separate front Christ." They were not, indeed, without some connection with Christ. For it is only on the ground of his suretyship and work that men have a lifetime on earth, brief at it is. There was, therefore, indebtedness to Christ, even on the part of the uncircumcised; but they were separate from him in that they did not have him as their Messiah. There were Greeks and Romans that had more culture than Jews; where they came behind was in their having no Messianic privilege. There was no intimation to them of a Savior who was to come into the world. There was no presentation in type to them of the atonement that was to be made for sin. They were, therefore, excluded from such saving relation to Christ as was open to the Jews. The want of Christ is still the greatest want of the heathen world. He is not made known to them for their salvation. The radical defect in an unconverted man"s position is that he is out of Christ, and so has none to give him shelter and help.

1. Separate from the Church. "Alienated from the commonwealth of Israel." Israel was a commonwealth, as constituted, not for the good of a section, but for the good of all alike. It was constituted, not for mere political purposes, but for religious purposes principally. It was the Church more than the state. And the great privilege which every member of the commonwealth enjoyed was nearness to God. He was allowed to draw near to him and worship him in his temple, Now, when the Jews were thus constituted into a Divine commonwealth, the Gentiles were kept at an outside. The arrangement we know was for the ultimate benefit of the whole race; but none the less deplorable was their condition as aliens, or persons out of privilege. There is no arrangement now by which any are excluded from the Church of God, and yet it is with many as though such

2. an arrangement existed. There are some, in Christian lands, who are alienated from the Christian Church, it may be, to a certain extent owing to the faults of its members; but can it be wholly put down to that, when there is in the gospel such a representation of goodness as ought to attract all who are not prejudiced against goodness? Strangers from the covenants of the promise." There were promises to the Gentiles, but they did not pertain to them who lived before the coming of the Messiah. The Jews had the covenants of promise, viz. the covenants made to the patriarchs, founded, not on what had been effected for them, but on what was to be effected for them in the future, and which was promised. These covenants were their charter as a Church; what they could fall back upon as the reason for their existence. To these covenants the Gentiles were strangers; they had no share in them; theirs was an uncovenanted position. The covenant is not founded now on promise; it is founded on accomplished fact, it has been sealed with Christ"s blood. None now occupy an uncovenanted position, such as the old heathen world did; and yet it is with many as though no change had taken place.

3. Miserable condition in the world. "Having no hope." Not having the "covenants" to go upon, they had no hope at all. Reason did not suffice to give them a hope beyond the grave. The hereafter was not a certainty, but only a vague conjecture. It was not lightened up as it was to Old Testament saints. We Christians have a rich hope. It is the hope of a glorious resurrection, and of a perfected and. endless life with Christ as our risen Savior. When such a hope has been brought to the world, how sad that there are so many in heathen lands who are looking forward into a dark and cheerless future! And sadder far it is that there are those in Christian lands who place no value on the life and immortality that have been brought to light by the gospel. "Without God in the world." Out of the Church, they were in the world. And the great evil of their being in the self-seeking, God-forgetting world was that there they were unbefriended by God. They could not live in the sunshine of his love, for they did not know him to be the God of love. It was a loss for which nothing could compensate. What a gain would it be to the heathen of our day to conceive of God as having given his Son for them! And yet, of those who have the opportunity, how few enter into the felicity of the enjoyment of God"s love!

IV THEIR ALTERED POSITION. "But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made nigh in the blood of Christ." God had his earthly dwelling-place in the temple at Jerusalem. The Gentiles were literally far off from this center, compared with the Jews. But the distance in space was only emblematic of the moral distance at which they stood from God. They were at a distance, in their being out of harmony with his character. They were at a distance, in the displeasure with which he regarded their actions. But in Christ, in his becoming the personal historical Jesus, all this was altered. They were brought into a position of nearness to God. Christ ejected this by his blood. The blood which was shed on Jewish altars was only for Jews. The Jewish high priest represented the twelve tribes, but no more. The blood of Christ had a wider reference. It was for Gentiles as well as for Jews. And that being the case, Gentiles were kept no longer at a distance.

V JEWS AND GENTILES BROUGHT INTO AMICABLE RELATIONS. "For he is our Peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the twain one new man, so making peace." There is a change from "ye" to "our." There is a difference of opinion as to the extent of meaning belonging to the words, "he is our Peace." It is admitted that, in the two verses here, the idea of peace between both receives decided expression. But some think that there is also to be brought in, though subordinately, the idea of the peace of both toward God. The objection to that is, that it is superfluous. For already it has been said of the Gentiles that obstacles have been removed out of their way, and afterward there is the thought of both being reconciled to God, and also of peace, i.e. reconciliation to God, being preached to both. It seems much simpler, then, here to confine the thought to peace between both. Christ is this Peace in his own person. In him there is neither Jew nor Gentile. His work is described as making both (parts) one; and the manner of his doing it as breaking down the middle wall of partition. It seems warrantable to explain this by an intended reference to the arrangement in the temple. There was there a separating of Jews from Gentiles. There was a wall or boundary beyond which Gentiles were forbidden to advance. As by the rending of the veil was signified the opening of the way into the holiest of all, so by what is described as the breaking down of the middle wall of partition we are to understand that Jews and Gentiles are brought into the same nearness to God. The middle wall of partition is explained to be the late of commandments contained in ordinances. The Mosaic Law was, on one side, a system of separation. It was like a wall enclosing the Jews and shutting off the Gentiles. It forbade all familiar intercourse with the Gentiles. As Christ was called Peace, so the Mosaic system is here made synonymous with enmity or estrangement. The Jews were not to hate other nations (for Jehovah was the God of all the earth, and they were told of a time when all nations were to be blessed); but, as things were, they were necessarily separated in feeling from them. And the Gentiles, on their side, were not slow to hate the Jews for their exclusiveness. The Mosaic system, then, in its incidence especially on the Gentiles, was enmity. And this enmity, we are told here, Christ abolished in his flesh. The Jewish Law he fulfilled, and, by fulfilling, abolished, so that it was no more a separation, or cause of estrangement. The rending of the veil pointed to a rending of his flesh. So the breaking down of the wall suggests a breaking in his flesh. It was a breaking, it is further suggested, that, Jew and Gentile perishing, there might rise out of both a new creation, viz. Christian. "That he might create in himself of the twain one new man." The breaking thus resulted in a peacemaking: "So making peace.

VI HOW THIS WAS SHOWN.

1. In their being placed in one Church as reconciled to God by the same means. "And might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." There is an advance from "one new man" to "one body." "Christian" was created; but it was in order that a body of Christians might be formed. In this body Jews and Gentiles might very well be together; for they had the deepest ground of union in their both being reconciled to God. This equality extended even to the instrument of reconciliation, viz. the Cross. When they were thus reconciled to God by the same means, "the enmity was slain;" and there was no need for two Churches the Jewish Church continuing, and a Gentile Church forming a separate community. But there was the clearest case for one Church, viz. the Christian Church, containing both.

2. In their having the same gospel of peace preached to them. "And he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh." When it is said that Christ came and preached peace, we are to understand that it was under his authority and through his instruments. In comparison with what he himself had to do with it, others might very well be left out of account. There were obvious reasons for the clause in the parting command, "beginning from Jerusalem." But that only, as is implied, indicated the point of departure. And it was the same gospel that was to be proclaimed to all alike: "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his Name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

So here, with a certain emphasis in the repetition of the word "peace," as the purport of the message (to be understood in its God-ward sense) to you that were far off, and peace to them that were nigh." If, then, the gospel was preached to them in the same Name and in the same terms, they might well be "one body.

3. In their having, as reconciled, the same spiritual privileges. (Ver. 18.)

(1) Access unto the Father. For through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father." To Old Testament saints God was not unknown as Father. "I said, Thou shalt call me, My Father." But it is true that this is the distinction and favorite designation of God in the New Testament. And the Messiah is correspondingly the Son of God. The relationship stands out as it did not do before, and gives peculiar pathos to the whole story of redemption. Sonship too becomes a more blessed reality, as it was a new-gained right. The idea here is that both could exercise the right of sonship in going to the Father and asking his blessing. Why, then, should they be apart?

(2) Same Introducer. In Eastern courts there was one who acted the part of introducer into the presence of royalty. This part Christ performs for us. He not only acted for us on the cross, but, on the ground of his sacrifice, he still intercedes for us. And every time we go into the presence of God we need his services, if we are to be acceptable. This part Christ performed for both alike.

(3) Assistance of the same Spirit. There is not one Spirit with Jewish proclivities, and another Spirit with Gentile proclivities. But there is the one Spirit, making their interests one, and putting common desires into their hearts when approaching God. The equality thus extends along the whole line.

VII PRACTICAL CONCLUSION, IN WHICH THE EPHESIAN CHRISTIANS ARE ADDRESSED IN A THREEFOLD CHARACTER.

1. They are members of the spiritual commonwealth. "So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints." "Fellow-citizens with the saints." They are citizens in relation to God as Head of the commonwealth. "They are no more strangers and sojourners." There were those who stood in this relation to the Grecian states. They did not live on Grecian soil, or they lived on it without possessing the rights of citizens ." Such had been the relation of the Ephesians to the Jewish commonwealth. But now they were fully enrolled and recognized as citizens in that commonwealth in which were incorporated both Jews and Gentiles. The members of this commonwealth are designated "saints," as were the Ephesians in the opening of the Epistle. It points to their bearing a certain character, and having certain duties to perform. But the leading idea is the privileges of citizens. And these may be particularized.

(1) There is the privilege of good laws. In a civil community, laws are good where as much liberty of the subject is secured as is consistent with the public good, and where the interests of all classes are equally regarded. In this land we have been blessed in large measure with good laws. And our legislators are always trying to work out more perfectly the idea of justice. In the spiritual community, we do not need to concern ourselves about the improvement of the laws. They have had the character of finality from the beginning. We never need to distinguish here between law and equity. We can feel that the whole Divine dealing is characterized by the utmost fairness, reasonableness. "I know the thoughts which I think concerning you.

(2) There is the privilege of protect/on. A British subject, so long. as he keeps within the laws, has really the whole British power at his back. If a foreign state allows him to be trampled upon, he can claim protection from home. Such cases not unfrequently have arisen, and, where redress has not been given, there has been resort to punishment. A member of the Divine commonwealth who is possessed with its spirit has the theocratic power at his back has, it may be said, ten legions of angels at his command, as the Master had. "Whoso toucheth you toucheth the apple of mine eye." There was this protection enjoyed by the Israelites very remarkably in connection with their going up to their feasts. And, in the Christian commonwealth, we can feel there is a wall of protection round about us. We can boldly say, "If the Lord is on our side, who are all they that can be against us?

(3) There is the privilege of petitioning. It is a fundamental principle of the British constitution that every British subject has the right of petitioning the sovereign or Houses of Parliament. There is the same right vested in those who belong to the commonwealth of God. This right Daniel exercised when he made his petition three times a day.

2. They a re members of the household of God. "And of the household of God." The relation in the family is closer than in the state. The theocracy was as a house in relation to which they had been strangers or sojourners; but now they had the full rights of members of the family.

(1) There is the right of a place in the household. "The servant abideth not in the house forever; but the son abideth ever." There is no breaking up of the household of God, such as is witnessed in earthly families. There is no banishment, such as there was from the household of David.

(2) There is the right of intercourse. Not the right of interview, let it be noticed, but the right of living in the Father"s presence, and, in communion with him, entering into his thoughts and plans. "The servant" knoweth not what his master doeth. But of this intercourse we have not yet the full manifestation.

(3) There is the right of being provided for. "If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." God holds himself bound by covenant to make all suitable provision for us, here and hereafter. And in our Father"s house there is enough and to spare.

3. They are part of the temple of God. We are really subjects and really sons, but we are only compared to stones. It is a comparison by which are brought out some important truths.

(1) Apostles and prophets are foundation-stones. "Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets." The latter, in accordance with Eph_3:5 and Eph_4:11, are regarded as New Testament prophets. It is supposed that the meaning of the language, "the foundation of the apostles and prophets," must be ruled by 1Co_3:10, where Christ is called the only Foundation. But, apart from the consideration that a figure does not always need to be used in the same way, the sense in which the apostles and prophets are the foundation is supported by Peter being called the Rock, and also by the twelve foundations being identified with the twelve apostles. There is nothing derogatory in such an interpretation to Christ, to whom in the connected clause is given the place of pre eminence in the foundation. All that we are to understand is that, in what they had of Christ in their life and teaching, they were stones on which others were laid, and they were not stones far up in the building, hut were at the very foundation of the Ephesian Church. Nay, they were foundation-men for the Christian Church as a whole, and it can he said that we are builded on them. And they were men that subserved the Divine purpose well.

(2) Christ Jesus himself is the chief Corner-stone. Christ Jesus himself being the chief Corner-stone." Having said so much of the subordinates, he could not omit saying this of the Master. They were only ordinary stones of the foundation; but Christ was the chief Stone of the corner, not only supporting, but combining. He was a Stone disallowed by the Jewish builders. He was to be of no use in the Church or theocracy with which they had to do. And yet it was, in the wonderful working of God, in the very disallowing of him by these builders that he became the chief Stone of the corner. It is entirely owing to him as cause that a temple of God is being erected, each stone a saved soul.

(3) There are many buildings, but only one temple. "In whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord." It will be seen that, in the Revised translation, there is a change from "all the building" to "each several building." It is admitted that for the latter there is a necessity of scholarship; but for the former there is supposed to be a necessity of thought. It does not appear, however, that the naturalness and beauty of thought suffer by the translation which the Revisers have adopted. The key to the understanding of it seems to be Mat_24:1. His disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. Here the very word is used in the plural. There were parts that might have formed buildings by themselves. And if we think of the time when these buildings were going up together, extending in all directions, different sets of builders being employed at different points, would there not have been appropriateness in saying that the buildings were growing into, or toward, a holy temple? These Ephesians knew what a massive imposing structure was, in their temple which covered an immense area. And such is the Church of God, as it is now going forward in the world. Buildings, each with its set of builders, and they are growing, not into separate temples, but into one holy temple. Let us go out with the Master and view them, and form some idea of the imposing structure it is to be.

(4) The temple takes its whole conformation from Christ. "In whom ye also are builded together.

(a) Each several building in its parts. The idea of regulation is brought out in the word which is translated "fitly framed together." "Joint" and reason" both go into the word. There is not a mere putting of parts together, but there is a jointing as in the human body, and a jointing moreover that displays reason. It is in Christ as Cornerstone that this is done. tie, then, is the reason or thought of God (Logos he is called), according to which the various parts of the building are put together. It is on this thoughtful connecting of the parts that the stability of a building, which is a main excellence, depends. "A noble craft is that of mason: a good building will last longer than most books, than one book out of a million" (Carlyle).

(b) The several buildings as a whole. Regulation here also is pointed to in the word "grows." For there is a type according to which every living thing grows (which is from the Loges, by whom all things are made). So also is there a plan or distinct thought (in the mind of the Architect) according to which the buildings, separately proceeding, are made to "grow" into a holy temple. This also is in the Lord. The whole connecting of the spiritual structure belongs to him, and is shadowed forth by his being Cornerstone.

(5) The temple is for the habitation of God. "For a habitation of God in the Spirit." In the Revised translation there is an easy transition from the twenty-first verse to the twenty-second verse, from "each several building" to the Ephesian Church. That Church was one of the buildings. It was designed with a view to a habitation of God. But any one Church is too narrow for the dwelling-place of God. And so the Ephesians are reminded in the word which is employed that they were only a building along with other buildings all of which are needed to make up the habitation of God. How intimate the union between God and his people that they are as a house in which he dwells! We are the habitation of God in the Spirit who puts all holy thoughts within us. "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? R.F.

Vers. 11-22.

Gospel reconciliation its subjects, agency, and results.

remember, that ye being in lime past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 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: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our Peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 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; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner-stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." Reconciliation is the grand idea of this passage, and it sets before us the condition of its subjects, the nature of its agency, and the blessedness of its achievement.

I THE CONDITION OF ITS SUBJECTS. They are here presented in two aspects aspects in which all men in their unregenerated state are found. 1. As socially disharmonized. Between the Jews and the Gentiles there was no accord; on the contrary, there was a deep, mutual variance in sympathy and soul. There was a "middle wall of partition between them." That wall was built by political prejudices and religious differences, and was cemented by a mutual "enmity." So that they were "aliens," and "strangers," and morally "far off" from each other. There are these social differences between unregenerate men now, the world over. Instead of union, there is division harmony, there is discord love, there is enmity. Hence the eternal feuds, domestic, social, ecclesiastical, political. Some "middle wall of partition" divides family from family, class from class, nation from nation, man from man.

2. Is religiously disharmonized. There was not only a mutual variance between Jew and Gentile, but there was a variance between both and God.

Religiously the Jew is represented here as being "without Christ," ignorant of him, and uninterested in him; without hope," without any well-founded hope of future good; "without God" practical atheists. Living every day as if no God existed, Does not this describe the religious condition of all unregenerate men in every part of the world? What a picture of the moral world! Hideous, yet life-like!

II THE NATURE OF ITS AGENCY. Who is the great Reconciler? Who is he that reconciles men to men, and all to God? There is One, and only One. "Now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh." The passage gives three ideas about this reconciling.

1. It is the work of self-sacrifice. Christ does it by his "blood," by his "cross." What is the blood of Christ? Not, of course, the vital fluid which flowed through his corporeal veins not his mere existence, but the governing moral spirit of his life. The real life of a man is his governing disposition. This is the moral blood that circulates through all his activities. What is the governing spirit of Christ? Self-sacrificing love. "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. It is by that self-sacrificing spirit of his in teaching, working, praying, and dying, that he does the work of the world"s reconciliation. Love alone can kill enmity. Christ"s moral blood is the atoning power.

2. It is the work of abolishment. Christ"s mission is destructive as well as constructive. He pulls down as well as builds up. He came to destroy the works of the devil.

(1) He abolishes dividing forms. He breaks down the "middle wall of partition." When he died upon the cross, not only was the veil in the great temple of life, which divided men from God, rent asunder, but the wall that divided man from man was broken down. "The whole law of commandments contained in ordinances" was abolished. "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross". (Col_2:14) He gave man one system of worship. "God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

(2) He abolishes the dividing spirit. "The enmity." The abolishment of the mere separating forms would still leave souls asunder if enmity existed. He slays the enmity.

3. It is the work of preaching. "Preaching peace." "And came and preached peace to you." Christ preached peace himself both before and after his death. His personal ministry was emphatically a ministry of peace in spirit and in doctrine in example and in aim. He preached by his servants. This was the grand subject of the apostolic ministry. This is the grand subject of all ministers. The gospel is a gospel of peace; Christ was the Prince of peace.

III THE BLESSEDNESS OF ITS ACHIEVEMENT. What is the grand result of his reconciling agency?

1. Union of man to man. "To make in himself of twain one new man." Giving all men, however diverse in temperament, circumstances, and education, one moral soul. This is the true union, the union of heart, making men one one in sympathy, one in purpose, one in Christ.

2. Union of man to God. "And that he might reconcile both unto God." In truth, man can only become truly united to his brother man, by first becoming united to God. He must love the-great Father supremely before he will love his race with the affection of a genuine brotherhood. True philanthropy grows out of piety. Men thus united to God, the passage suggests, are united together:

(1) As citizens of the same spiritual state. They are fellow-citizens with the saints." The common "citizenship" of all is in heaven. All are alike loyal to the same authority, obedient to the same laws, inheritors of the same rights.

(2) As members of the same spiritual family. They are of the "household of God." They are united not by mutual interests or covenant arrangements, but by the clinging instincts of family affection. They are of the family of God.

(3) As parts of the same spiritual temple. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," etc. In some respects the parts of a building are more united even than the members of a family. In a well-constructed edifice one part is so dependent on another, that to disturb a portion would be to injure the whole. All whom Christ reconciles are parts of a grand temple.

(a) Beautifully united, "framed together.

(b) Gradually advancing: "groweth," the growth of a living organism, not the mere growth of a building.

(c) Religiously consecrated: "a holy temple." What a glorious temple is this! The temple of Diana these Ephesians originally considered as the glory of the world, hut it would appear to them contemptible by the grand spiritual temple that Paul here pictures to their imagination. D.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

Eph_2:11. Wherefore remember, that ye, etc.—All that follows in the verse serves to define the “ye,” the verb following in Eph_2:12 after the repeated “ye”—“ye 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.”

Eph_2:12. Without Christ.—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. 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.—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. Like Eph_2:2-3, 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.—To be godless—not sure that there is any God—this is to take the “master-light of all our seeing” from us; to live regardless of Him, or wishing there were no God—“that way madness lies.” To be “God-forsaken” with a house full of idols—that is the irony of idolatrous heathenism.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Eph_2:11-12

The Forlorn State of the Gentile World.

I. Outcast.—“Gentiles, … called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision” (Eph_2:11). 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 bigotry—here is the Jew. On the other hand, the intellectual searchings, the political aspirations and mechanical contrivings—science, art, literature, commerce, sociology, the liberty which threatens to luxuriate into licence—here 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.

II. Christless.—“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 all—a vivid contrast to the Christlessness of a former age.

III. Hopeless.—“Being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope” (Eph_2:12). 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.

IV. Godless.—“Without God in the world.” With numberless deities the Gentiles had no God. They had everything else, but this one thing they lacked—knowledge 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.

Lessons.—

1. Man left to himself inevitably degenerates.

2. When man abandons God his case is desperate.

3. The rescue of man from utter ruin is an act of divine mercy.

GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES

Eph_2:11-12. The Condition of the Ephesians before their Conversion descriptive of the State of Sinners under the Gospel.

I. They were in time past Gentiles in the flesh.—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.

II. Reminds them of the contempt with which they had been treated by the Jews.—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.

III. They were without Christ.—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.

IV. They were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel.—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.

V. They were strangers from the covenants of promise.—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!

VI. They had no clear hope of a future existence.—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.

VII. They were atheists in a world in which God was manifest.—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.

Eph_2:12. Hopeless and Godless.—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.

1. The heathen religion was the seeking 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.

2. The Hebrew religion was the hoping 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, as all true hope must be—faith in the promises of God. They had the promise of a Deliverer 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.”

3. The Christian religion is the complement and perfection 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 Hope—“Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is our Hope” (1Ti_1:1).

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.

(1) Hope is not simply expectation. We expect many things we do not hope for. In the natural course of things we expect difficulties, we expect opposition and misrepresentation—“black wounding calumny the whitest virtue strikes”—we expect affliction and suffering, we expect the infirmities and disabilities of age; but we are none of us so fond of trouble for trouble’s sake as to hope for any of these things.

(2) Hope is not simply desire. 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 wealth—the most dangerous and disappointing of all human wishes—we 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.

(3) Hope is the expectation of the desirable, 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.

(4) Hope presupposes faith; 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.

(5) Hope is the balloon of the soul, 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, 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 soul’s living union with Christ.

(6) A false hope is really no hope. 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, 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.

A State of Sin a State of Ungodliness.—

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.

Man without God.—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, hope—the 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.

Practical Atheism.—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.

I. The text is applicable to those who have no solemn recognition of God’s all-disposing government and providence—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.

II. Is a description of all those who are forming or pursuing their scheme of life and happiness independent of Him.—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.

III. Is a description of those who have but a slight sense of universal accountableness to God as the supreme authority—who have not a conscience constantly looking and listening to Him and testifying for Him. This insensibility of accountableness exists almost entire—a stupefaction of conscience—in 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 Him—without 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.

IV. The description belongs to that state of mind in which there is no communion with Him 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 of a human soul in this destitution.

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; 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.

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.—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.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

2. Extolling comparison of their previous and their present condition

Eph_2:11-22

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

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Detailed description of their previous condition. Eph_2:11-12.40

Eph_2:11. Wherefore remember.—Διό,“wherefore,” refers, like Eph_1:15 : διὰ τοῦτο, to the preceding section (Stier, Bleek), since the object of “remember” is their previous quite as well as their present condition, or the “creating” of those who were “dead,” Talis recordatio gratum animum acuit et fidem roborat (Bengel), taking into view not merely the obtained riches, but also the poverty and misery from which they were released. The reference to Eph_2:5-10 (Meyer) is not correct, since Eph_2:5 resumes the object of Eph_2:1-3, and Eph_2:4 contains the subject, nor that to the last thought only (Chrysostom), since this sums up the whole. [Ellicott suggests the reference “to the declaratory portion of the foregoing paragraph, Eph_2:1-7; Eph_2:8-10 being an argumentative and explanatory addition.—R.]

That once ye, Gentiles in the flesh, ὅτι ὑμεῖς ποτὲ [ποτὲ ὑμεῖς] τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί.—(See Textual Note 1.] The ἦτε (Eph_2:12), introduced by the resumptive ὅτε after the apposition, belongs here, so that it need not be supplied. “Ye” means those who are now Christians (σεσωσμένοι), and that they have been “Gentiles in the flesh” is marked by ποτέ. Accordingly τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί is a predicatory appositional phrase. The article marks the designation as one well-known, the substantive, which in itself has no dishonorable meaning, being used with a reference to גוֹיִים, and thus with the additional notion of a fault. Accordingly, Paul adds, “in the flesh.” This is not κατὰ σάρκα (Eph_6:5; Rom_9:3; Rom_9:5; 1Co_10:18), which denotes a relation, while here a status is spoken of, one which has been, but is no longer existing (ποτέ). Joined without the article it forms with “Gentiles” one conception: Goim in the flesh, denoting what is external: Ye former heathen in the flesh, in the natural condition, uncircumcised, without a sign of the covenant, not even externally, in the flesh, endowed with the known sign of the people of God. [Σάρξ is taken in this its simple meaning by nearly all later commentators (Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Hodge, Eadie, for the very good reason that the context plainly points to it, especially ἐν σαρκί just below. Braune’s view of the construction is also the usual one.—R.] Otherwise we must take τὰ ἔθνη without any reference to heathenism and the therewith connected deficiencies, as the nations excepting Israel, and find its quality denoted in the added phrase, as designating what was defective in them. Bengel: hoc considerate Paulus conjungit cum Gentes; nam Judæi gentes simpliciter dicebunt præputium, non præputium in carne—Gentiles, not Gentiles in the flesh. Hence it is incorrect to take ἐνσαρκί=natalibus, origine carnati (Grotius); for this they would continue to be. Nor does it designate the carnal mind, the unholy life (Ambrose, Anselm, Calovius), nor has it a typical reference (Stier) for which Heb_7:16; Heb_9:10, give no occasion.

Who are called the Uncircumcision by that which is called [the so called] Circumcision in the flesh wrought by hands [οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστὶαὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου.].—Ἀκρο βυστία, “uncircumcision,” is evidently in apposition to “Gentiles in the flesh,” and οἱ λεγόμενοι, already prepared for by τά before ἔθνη, is placed first for emphasis. The nations are called “Uncircumcision” on account of heathenism, the absence of the sign of the covenant in the flesh. The abstract noun, denoting here the essential point, is here a name also; hence it stands for the concrete=the uncircumcised. Col_3:11; Gal_2:7; 1Co_7:19, and περιτομή=the circumcised. In the phrase “who are called the Uncircumcision,” the fact that they were (Luther) and are so termed, is stated here objectively, while in ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς, instead of τῶν λεγομένων, which is called, instead of are called, it is indicated that the thing and the name do not coincide in the same way, i.e., by the so-called circumcision, the so-called circumcised.41 Accordingly the added phrase “in the flesh,” corresponding precisely with “in the flesh “in the last clause, marks the externalness, in the flesh where it takes place.

Χειροποιήτον, “wrought by hands,” is added with special emphasis, forming the antithesis to ἀχειροποιήτῳ, Col_2:11, and to what is perfect, wrought by God (Heb_9:11; Heb_9:24; Act_7:48; Act_17:24). It has a typical reference, as the passages in Hebrews plainly affirm, so that this reference is not contained in ἐν σαρκί, which is not opposed to ἐν πνεύματι, either here or in the previous clause (Stier). Hence we should connect closely “circumcision in the flesh,” and explain: which is made by hands in the flesh (Meyer, Bleek). There is indeed a special significance in circumcision, which is mentioned by Moses (Deu_10:16; Deu_30:6), and the prophets (Jer_4:4; Jer_9:24-25; Eze_44:7; Eze_44:9). This the Apostle does not wish to undervalue; he only does not permit it to pass for something merely external, over against that of the heart, wrought by God (Php_3:3 : Rom_2:29; Col_2:11), to which that wrought in the flesh points.42 He marks here the Jew in the people of Israel; the Jew, who remains satisfied with this external mark of the covenant with Israel, is a so-called circumcised one, and exalts himself without reason arrogantly above the uncircumcised and unclean nations. How miserable must be the condition of the heathen, who are despised by the Jew! So much the more glorious is it that they as Christians are now exalted above the latter. Hence we should not accept here a repugnance toward the Jews (Rueckert), or an advantage of the Gentiles (Chrysostom), or the opinion, that uncircumcision was no detriment to the Gentiles, and circumcision no advantage to the Jews (Clarius). In ea æqualitate, quam antea commemorat apostolus, nunc latentem inæqualitatem profert, ut Gentes, quo longius a Deo abfuerant, eo plura se gratiæ Dei debere fateantur (Beza).

Eph_2:12. That ye were at that time [ὅτι ἦτε τῷ καιρᾦ ἐκείνῳ].—Ὅτι, “that,” is a resumption of the first ὅτι (Eph_2:11), and connects with “remember,” adding to the status miserabilior of the heathen, already defined, the inner side. The verb placed first for emphasis marks the past, and τῷ καιρᾠ ἐκείνῳ, the dative of time (Luk_12:20 : ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί; Winer, p. 205) renders it even more prominent than work (Eph_2:11).

Without Christ, χωρὶς Χριστοῦ.—Χωρίς ad subjectum, quod ab objecto sejunctum est, refertur, avev, ad objectum, quod a subjecto abesse cogitandum est (Tittmann, Syn. I., 93 ff.). Thus χωρὶς Χριστοῦ affirms: the heathen are in a condition, where they are deprived of Him: vos eratis procul a Christo; ἄνευ Χριστοῦ esset; Christus non adorat vobis.43 “Christ” refers to the promised One, the eternal Son of God; since a time is spoken of when He had not appeared in the form of a servant. Hence the name “Jesus” is not inserted. Christ, by means of ἐπιδημία νοητή (Olshausen), as the Angel of the Covenant (Rueckert), dwelt already in the people of Israel (see 1Co_10:4), and the people of God stood in an attitude of longing, hope, trust and faith, towards the coming One. The antithesis is in Eph_2:13 : “in Christ Jesus.” Hence we have here the summary which is expanded in the succeeding clause; this is not then a first point followed by a second and third (Schenkel), but a κεφάλαιον. [Hodge takes the following clauses as a confirmation of this phrase, but Ellicott, more correctly, as an elucidation of its significance.—R.] It is incorrect also to explain it as=sine, Christi fide vel notitia (Anselm, Calovius).

Being alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ.—This is the first of two co-ordinate members of one thought; it describes the external relation, the other the internal. We have marked here, a separation from the πολιτεία of the people of Israel, which has become and will become ever greater, and at the same time an internal estrangement (comp. Eph_4:18; Col_1:21). The word indicates, if not an original fellowship, still an earlier nearness and equality. Bengel: Abalienati, non: alieni; participia prœsupponunt, gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum, imo potius ante lapsum Adami fuisse participes lucis et vitæ. So Rueckert, Olshausen, Stier. [Meyer does not think this notion of a previous fellowship is here implied. Alford: “Gentiles and Jews were once united in the hope of redemption—this was constituted, on the apostasy of the nations, into a definite πολιτεία for the Jews, from which and its blessings the Gentiles were alienated.” To which Ellicott adds: “The Gentile lapsed from it, the Jew made it invalid (Mat_15:6, comp. Chrysostom); and they parted, only to unite again (ἔθνη καὶ λαοὶ Ἰσραήλ, Act_4:27) in one act of uttermost rebellion, and yet, through the mystery of redeeming love, to remain thereby (Eph_2:15-16) united in Christ forever.”—R.]

By πολιτεία (Aristotle: τῶν τὴν πόλιν οἰκούντων τάξις τις) we necessarily understand here according to the context the constitution of the State, the external polity, from which the Gentiles were ever farther removed; a reference to the theocracy also is of course included. Hence too the theocratic name of honor, of “Israel” (Gen_32:28), not “of the Jews.” Tota respublica, Israelis spectabat Christsm (Bengel). Comp. Joh_1:48; Rom_9:4; Rom_9:6; 2Co_11:22; Gal_6:16. The genitive τοῦ Ἰσραήλ denotes the possessor, the usufructuary, of the πολιτεία. [So Ellicott, who rightly insists that the word marks their religious and spiritual, rather than their national or political distinctions. Hodge and Alford accept as more simple the view of Harless, that the genitive is that of the identical nation: “the commonwealth which is Israel.” Alford notices that the word “alienated” requires an objective reality as its reference, hence the meaning mentioned next is to be rejected.—R.] Certainly we should not refer this to the civil constitution (Anselm, Grotius), for which a Roman or Greek could have no desire; what the Gentiles, who became Christians, lacked previously and now possessed, was certainly not “places of honor” or “citizenship in the Jewish State” (Harless). We should not then think of citizenship (Bullinger, Calvin).

And strangers from the covenants of the promise, καὶ ξένοιτῶν διαθηκῶν44 τῆς ἐπαγγελίας.—This clause is closely connected with the preceding (καὶ), as a formula. So too the words correspond: “strangers” to “alienated,” “covenants” to “polity,” “promise” to “Israel.” “Strangers” respects what has come to pass in the course of development or the internal position, which that development furthers (Bullinger: eandem rem significat utraque, nisi quod posterius prius); “covenants” designates the repeated renewal of the covenant from Abraham to Moses (Gen_12:2 f. 7; Gen_13:15; Gen_15:18;. Gen_17:20; Gen_22:16 ff.; Gen_26:2 ff.; Gen_28:13 ff.), to the prophets; the context speaks merely of the time before Christ. All these repeated agreements, however, serve the one promise given to Abraham referring to all nations as well as characterizing the covenants, and reechoing again and again. So in Rom_9:4 : “the covenants” and “the giving of the law” are placed side by side. Hence this is not to be referred to the two covenants, the old and the new (Calovius and others), or to the two tables of the law (Beza and others).

Having no hope, etc.—Here again we have two clauses connected and belonging together. Ἐλπίδαμὴἔ χοντες, “having no hope,” owing to the absence of the article, denotes that they have no hope of any kind; not merely a definite hope, but all hope is denied in their case. Hence we should not understand it of the resurrection and eternal life (Bullinger, Grotius), or of the promised possessions (Estius, Bengel), as the object of the hope, nor indefinitely of deliverance (Harless). At most we might join to it from the following ἄθεοι, in accordance with Act_24:15 : “toward God,” πρὸς (εἰς) τὸν θεόν. In 1Th_4:13 we find the expression used as absolutely as here. The negative μή is used with the participle in this clause, which is dependent on μνημονεύετε, “remember,” as a subjective negative. Winer, p. 444. Accordingly this clause is not to be put in dependence upon the preceding “strangers,” etc. (Bengel: si promissionem habuissent, spem habuissent illi respondentem; Harless); the clause would thus also be loosened from its close connection with the following one: καὶ ἄθεοι ἐντῷκόσμῳ.

Without God.—Ἄθεος is stronger than χωρὶς θεοὺ, corresponding to θεὸν οὐκ ἔχει (2Jn_1:9; 1Jn_2:23),=“not having God.” The essence of heathenism is Atheism (Rom_1:21 ff.); the worship of devils and εἴδωλα (1Co_10:20; 1Co_7:2) does not take the place of God; “for polytheism is atheistic,” and that philosophy is first correct, which throws this off in its thoughts respecting God. Bengel: non statuerant, nullos esse deos (Act_19:35): sed verum Deum ignorabant; tantum aberat, ut haberent (1Th_4:5). He who is ἄθεος is, not merely as respects religion, but also as respects morality, God-less, and heathen immorality is different from Jewish immorality. Hence Harless should not wish to exclude this, as if it were true enough but not pertinent here, where the distinction from the people of Israel is set forth, they being however included also under sin. Meyer, against the context, weakens the idea, by taking it as passive: God-forsaken. [Of the three senses of ἄθεος: active (opposed to God), neuter (ignorant of God, without the subordinate notion of impiety, which Braune prefers), and passive (forsaken of God, without God’s help), the latter seems most prominent here, and is accepted by Hodge, Eadie, Ellicott, Alford, mainly on the ground that the whole passage is passive in its character. This is the gloomiest view, and hence the more probable one, though the others stand so closely related to it, that it is hardly correct to term this a weakening of the idea.—R.] The connection with the preceding clause is evident, God is the God of hope (Rom_15:13; 2Th_2:16). Comp. Doctr. Note, 2.

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

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

Eph_2:13. Fundamental trait of their present condition.—But now, in Christ Jesus [νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ].—The thought of this verse is still in dependence on “remember” (Eph_2:11); the Apostle however breaks off into the independent, antithetical form. “But now” is in contrast with “once” (Eph_2:11), “at that time” (Eph_2:12). and as there the past was described by “without Christ,” so here the present by “in Christ Jesus;” the latter form being fuller than the former, because the Promised One has come, the eternal Son of God has become man.45 The Apostle does not refer to “the ‘now’ of the present ‘simply,’ but to the present in their fellowship with Christ” (Harless). Still we need not supply either ἐστε (Baumgarten-Crusius) or ὄντες (Calvin), nor connect the phrase exclusively with “now” (Harless); both belong to ἐγενήθητε below, in fact to the whole sentence.

Ye who once were far off were brought nigh in the blood of Christ, ὑμεῖς οἱ ποτὲ ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν τῷ αἴματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ.—The position of the words obliges us to regard ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ as rendered specially prominent, as a general definition of modality, and ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “in the blood of Christ,” as a special one, so that the latter is to be taken as a more precise explanation of the former; it is not then in apposition with it; both belong to the verbal notion “were brought nigh.” Then again “ye” has now another qualification than before: “who were once far off,” as corresponding to Eph_2:12 (“alienated”—“strangers”). Comp. Eph_2:17; Acts 3:39; Act_17:27 (“though He be not far from every one of us”); Mar_12:34 (“Thou art not far from the kingdom of heaven”). These words have a reference figuratively to our relation to God; the heathen are thus spoken of in prophecy (Isa_49:1; Isa_60:3-4; Isa_66:19; Isa_55:5; Isa_57:19) in their relation to both God Himself and His people. Bucer: qui hactenus non fuisti populus domini, jam estis populus domini. The distance and nearness include both the relation to God and that to His people; hence should not be referred either to the former alone (Matthies), or to the latter alone (Rueckert, Olshausen, Bleek). Bengel: procul a populo Dei et a Deo. It is not sufficient to say: longe eratis a cognitione Dei veri et a spe vitæ cœlestis (Grotius), still less: μακράν homines miserrimi, ἐγγύς, felicissimi (Koppe). The approach is something which develops (ἐγενήθητε), has a history;46 the means rest in and proceed from what is expressed by: “in the blood of Christ.” This is almost=“through his blood,” διὰ τοῦ αἴματος αὐτοῦ (Eph_1:7); the prepositions ἐν and διά are, however, both used in Col_1:16 : ἐν αὐτῷ—διʼ αὐτοῦ. The latter denotes the cause, through which any thing takes place, comes into position or existence, the former the permanent ground, on which it has its continuance.47 (Winer, p. 362. The word “Christ” here has special significance: it marks the Son of God beside the word “blood,” which marks “the form of a servant.”

Closer explanation respecting the nature and genesis of their present condition. Eph_2:14-18.

Eph_2:14. For he is our peace [αὐτὸς γάρ48 ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν],—The position is emphatic, “He,” not the unemphatic subject, but He Himself (Winer, p. 142). [He and none other; so most commentators.—B.] His Person is “our peace.” The article marks the peace as well-known, more closely defined. Bengel aptly says: pax, non modo pacificator; nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipsi vinculum est utrorumque. The allusion to passages in prophecy (Mic_5:4; Isa_9:5-6; Isa_52:7; Isa_53:5; Zec_9:10, etc.; also Psalms 72) is unmistakable. This is denied by Baumgarten-Crusius. The Messiah is indeed called שָׁלוֹם, not merely Prince of Peace, εἰρηνοποιός. The genitive ἡμῶν, “our,” merely denotes that the peace belongs to them, does not say whether the peace is among themselves or between them and God. This is determined by the context. On the nature of this peace, see Doctr. Note 3 b.

Who made both one, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν.—He is therefore “the peace” through an act (ἁ ποιήσας with αὐτός, quippe qui fecit), which is set forth here only generally: made one, ε͂ν ποιεῖν. Here we find a closer definition of the idea “peace,” not of “our,” as the neuter requires. Τὰ ἀμφότερα, like τὰ μωρά, ἀσθενῆ, κ. τ. λ., 1Co_1:27 f., designates the general: what is of two kinds, “what opposes because sundered” (Matthies). The annulling of an existent variance is thereby noted as the nature of the peace. Hence we may not say that the neuter is=τοῦς ἀμφοτέρους (Eph_2:16; Eph_2:18), τοὺς δύο (Eph_2:15), as Koppe, Meyer and others think, nor does the neuter ἕν define the neuter τὰ ἀμφότερα (Bengel). [“Both” is usually referred to “Jews and Gentiles.” This is a legitimate inference, but Braune holds that the statement here does not require any specific reference.—R.]

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

Τὸ μεσότοιχον, τοῦ φραγμοῦ (like ἕρκος ὀδόντων)=the partition wall of the fence, that is, the partition wall which is in the fence, denoting in the figure of an independent object a quality and effect of the hedge. [So Harless]. The leading idea is found in the first noun, the wall set up between the two, the Gentiles without the promise and covenant of God, and the Jews, the people of promise, which contains in itself the notion of separation; the participle applies to it. Therefore τοῦφραγμοῦ is not the genitive of apposition (Meyer) or to be resolved into τὸν φραγμὸν τὸ μεσότοιχον ὄντα (Grimm, Clavis, sub voce); in that case we would have found here τὸν φραγμὸν τοῦ μεσοτοίχου. Luther too is incorrect: and has broken down the hedge, which was between. Nor is it=μεσότοιχον διαφράσσον (Grotius and others). Unserviceable here also is the distinction of Bengel: paries disjungit domos, sepes regiones. From Mat_21:33; Isa_5:2, we are shown that φραγμός (in agreement with Eph_2:15) refers to the law, that is, to its quality or effect in separating the people of God, which permits it to be regarded as a partition wall. We may also refer it to the temple in which a type of the spiritual is presented, and to which the expressions here selected point; there was there a court of the Gentiles (Act_21:28), though only in latter times, in the last temple; a vail, which separated like a wall, rent first at the death of the Redeemer. Hence the word λύσας is aptly chosen (Joh_2:19; Mat_5:17; Gal_2:18; 1Jn_3:8; 2Pe_3:10).49—All reference to the separated residence of Jews in cities, as in Frankfort, Rome and elsewhere (Gronow and others) and the like is to be rejected.

Eph_2:15. Having abolished (done away) in his flesh the enmity, even the law of the commandments expressed in ordinances [τὴν ἔχθραν, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸννόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμα σιν καταργήσας. See Textual Note 4]. The Apostle now adds, without a connecting particle, the meaning of the figure; he construes it thus:τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καταργήσας, but during the dictation inserts after αὐτοῦ the phrase τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν, the banner of this enmity; these two objects in the accusative representing two sides of one object, hence very well allowing the dependence on κατηργήσας. To τὸ μεσότοιχον corresponds τὴνἔ χθραν, denoting simply the literal reality, the division, the hostile separation and antagonism of Jews and Gentiles, and, since there is nothing to indicate any limitation, but as the context rather points to enmity of man towards God which is active behind this hostility of the Jews and Gentiles, including this latter at the same time (Eph_2:16). [So Alford and Ellicott: “The enmity due not only to Judaical limitations and antagonisms, but also and, as the widening context shows, more especially to the alienation of both Jew and Gentile from God.”—R.] Bucer: Vera tamen inter Judæos et ethnicos inimicitia, i.e., diversitas erat, quod illi verum Deum colerent, hi minime. It is incorrect to refer it exclusively to the enmity against God (Greek Fathers, Harless and others) or to the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles (Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Bleek [Eadie, Hodge] and others), or to understand only the cause of division that is the law (Luther, Calvin and others). It is correct however to understand that the Apostle places by the side of the existing fact, τὴν ἕχθραν, the cause of the same, τον νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι.

The law has its contents in “commandments:” αἱ ἐντολαί, the injunctions to be regarded and executed, are both the purely moral and the ceremonial commandments of God (Mat_15:3; Mat_22:36; Mat_22:38; Rom_7:8-13), called also “of men” (Tit_1:14); the plural marks plurality, and points also to divisions. This is rendered prominent by the phrase ἐνδόγμασιν, joined closely without the article to ἐντολῶν, and defining its quality. Similarly: πίστις ἐν τῷ κνρίῳ (Eph_1:15), ἀγάπη ἐν πνεύματι (Col_1:8), σοφία ἐν μυστηρίῳ (1Co_2:7). Comp. Winer, pp. 129, 206. Δόγμα, used of regal orders (Luk_2:1; Act_17:7), of apostolic determinations (Act_16:4), means here as in Col_2:14 the statutes of the law; δογματίζεσθαι, in Col_2:20, is to be ordered or to order one’s self. The idea of a mandate is always contained in it. Erasmus: Ostendens legem imperiosam appellat illam τῶν ἐντολῶν(ἐντέλλουσαν)—quomodo? non persuasione et lenitate aut promissis, sed præceptis quæ vocat Dogmata. Every ἐντολή appears then in a special, mandatory precept. [This view of the phrase is now the common one. Alford: “The law of decretory commandments.” For the other interpretations, see Harless and Eadie in loco.—R.]

Of this there is predicated καταργήσας (ἀργὸν=ἀεργὸν ποιεῖν, Rom_3:31; 1Co_13:11): to make unavailing, to do away, to deprive of power. The ideal worth remains intact, so also the theocratic obligation; but in so far as the law imperiously binds the heart and will with casuistic ordinances for all cases, it is done away. In this too lies the cause of the enmity against God and men. [Eadie takes “law,” etc. to mean the ceremonial law. Hodge more correctly: “The idea probably is that the law in all its compass, and in all its forms, so far as it was a covenant prescribing the conditions of salvation, is abolished.” He extends it to all the law of God, written in the heart as well, while admitting a special reference to the Mosaic law.—R.]

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

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

Stier incorrectly joins ἐν δόγμασιν to νόμον; but then the article τόν would necessarily have been prefixed (1Th_1:8) or ἐντολῶν have preceded νόμον (Col_1:8). Nor is “in his flesh” to be joined with “enmity” (Chrysostom), as though only a natural hatred among his people, among his kindred, were referred to. It is incorrect to understand νόμος τῶν ἐντολῶν as referring only to adiaphora (Grotius), to the ceremonial law (Bengel) [Eadie], or to the moral law alone (Calovius), or δόγματα as referring to philosophorum doctrinas (Grotius), since the readers are not homines triti in philosophorum Scriptis; quite as little can the doctrine of Christ be denoted thereby (Bengel and others), or nova præcepta (Fritzsche). Finally καταργήσας does not point to the removal of the theocratic obligation (Schenkel).

That he might create the two in himself into one new man [ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον].—Ἵνα introduces a final clause, giving here the purpose of καταργήσας, which defines λύσας more closely, and with this explains ποιήσας. He has done away the law in its commandments; destroyed the separating elements clinging to it, that He might κτίσῃ. Thus the ποιήσας is further defined as creating. The objects of this creation, τοὺςδύο, are the two great masses of people regarded as two individualities, as two, not a greater number of separate individuals beside each other, each of whom stands or falls for himself (Olshausen); still less is there involved a series of various specimens of the different races. The masculine denotes the persons, in distinction from the more general idea of the neuter (τὰ ἀμφότερα, Eph_2:14); the choice of words corresponds. That ἀνθρώπους is not inserted, is not to be explained by the wider scope, as Bengel thinks: eleganter omittit homines, antea enim vix humanum nomen tuiti erant. Ἐνἑαυτῷ places the Person of Christ again in the foreground: Ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem quærant (Calvin). [Hodge: “In virtue of union with Him,—union with Christ being the condition at once of their unity and of their holiness.” In His Person, at all events.—R.] The ground of the existence and permanence is in Him; He is the Author (κτίσῃ) and foundation, and at the same time the life-sphere, Creator and Second Adam, Progenitor of the new race, which stands in original peace with God. It is therefore not=δἰ ἑαυτοῦ (Greek Fathers), in order to exclude angels or other powers, as those through whom what is asserted was effected. But still less is it=per suam doctrinam(Grotius).

In this creation (κτίσῃ, Eph_2:1; Eph_2:10) there is a purpose εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. Ἐνἑαυτῷ conditions ἅνθρωπος in the singular. Comp. Gal_3:28 : πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐνΧριστῷ Ἰησοῦ; Joh_10:16. By εἷς καινὸς ἄνθρωπος is indicated: ὁρᾷς οὐχὶ τὸν Ἕλληνα γενόμενον Ἰουδαῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον κἀκεῖνον εἰς ἑτέραν κατάστασιν ἥκοντας οὐχ ἵνα τοῦτον ἕτερον ἑργάσηται, τὸν νόμον κατήργησεν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ. It is Very superficial and perverted to take “one new man” as a third, which is neither heathenism nor Judaism, without thinking of the moral renewal of persons (Baumgarten-Crusius). The preposition marks the purpose or tendency, and thus the creation as one not yet concluded; humanity, consisting of personally free individuals, is potentially renewed in Christ, but not yet actually.

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

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

Eph_2:16. And might reconcile them both [καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους].—Καί connects this clause with ἵνα, on which the verb depends; so that this too belongs to the purpose of καταργήσας. The emphasis is on the verb which comes first. This compound occurs only here and in Col_1:20-21, and is a strengthened καταλλάσσειν, as ἀπεκδέχεσθαι and ἀποκαραδοκεῖν, not merely to expect, but to await, to expect with perseverance. The preposition ἀπό has the meaning “again” in composition (see Passow sub voce), but only when the notion of the verb itself includes this in some measure, as ἀποκαθίστημι of what is healed, restored (Mat_12:13; Mar_3:5; Mar_8:25; Luk_6:10; Act_1:6); certainly the notion “again” is near at hand in that of reconciliation, because separation and enmity are not original, and the reconciliation leads away from the present status back to the original one. Hence the strengthened notion is “reconcile again.” [So Calvin, Alford, Ellicott; but Eadie and Meyer object.—R.] Qui ita deposuerunt immicitiam, ut amicitia successerit, neque quidquam reliquum sit, quin concordes vivant ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι, cujus est unum caput Christus (Tittmann, Syn. I., p. 105).50—The object of the reconciliation: τοὺς ἀμφο τέρους. [The article renders the object definite: them both or both of us.—R.] Since Paul does not say δύο, which is a mere numeral, but ἀμφότεροι, which denotes diversity, he renders prominent the difficulty and importance of the reconciliation.

In one body to God through the cross [ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ στανροῦ].—“In one body” denotes the sphere in which the reconciliation is consummated: over against “both” there is now only “one body,” in which they are; each does not need a separate one. To supply “being,” ὄντας, in thought is the simplest interpretation. The phrase refers, like ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, αὐτὸς γάρ (Eph_2:14), to His Person, as the only one in which both are redeemed, to an organism (σῶμα, not σάρξ) in its outward appearance, thus to the body of Christ, the Church. [So Hodge, Alford, Ellicott.] It is not, sicut Latinis collegia vocantur corpora, corporation=Society (Grotius).

The end of the reconciliation is τῷθεῷ. It is not God that is reconciled with men,51 but men with God. What has all along been implied, conceived of in general, left indefinite in the words “peace” (Eph_2:14-15), “the enmity” (Eph_2:15), “new man” (Eph_2:15), is now definitely expressed as the other side. The added qualification of the reconciliation: “through the [or His] cross” refers to the death on the cross, in which the ἱλασμός the atonement, is marked as the act, which is the condition of the at-onement. Comp. Doctr. Note 3.

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

Having slain the enmity on it [ἀποκτείναςτὴν ἔχθρανἐναὐτῷ].—The aorist participle defines the mode of consummating the reconciliation, explaining τοῦ σταυροῦ, on which account ἑναὐτῷ can refer only to this: the Crucified One, who was slain, the Dying One, slays and has slain “the enmity,” which includes here as in Eph_2:15 both the enmity between “both “and against God, the latter being more prominent here, the former in Eph_2:15. On the cross the chief matter was, that He who had been rejected by both Jews and Gentiles should through a propitiation in Himself reconcile both to God. It is incorrect to exclude from τὴν ἐχθραν enmity toward God (Schenkel, Meyer) or of the Jews and Gentiles against each other (Rueckert, Harless, Hofmann), for the peace of these with each other does not condition their peace with God, indeed enmity against God participates in the hate these have toward each other, which the law occasions and furthers. [Alford and Ellicott adopt this wide or complex reference. Hodge however says: “The enmity is that which subsisted between God and man.” Many doubt the propriety of predicating ἔχθραν of God, who certainly has ὀργήν. Comp. Romans, p. 165. In the passage there commented on, the active sense of the adjective must be accepted, I think, but that does not seem so bold and harsh as to say that ἔχθραν is “God’s enmity.” The wider reference is better sustained by the context, and of itself tones down the objectionable form without at all interfering with the implied truth respecting God’s anger against sin and the satisfaction rendered on the cross.—The view of Meyer is accepted by Eadie, though there seems to be a confusion in his language. But this limited meaning does not “at all satisfy the solemnity of the sentence, or of the next two verses.” Enmity here is “that between man and God, which Christ did slay on the cross, and which being brought to an end, the separation between Jew and Gentile, which was the result of it, was done away” (Alford). The fact that our participle is aorist, and in all probability denotes an antecedent act, is no objection to this view, as Eadie seems to think, since what Christ did on the cross (here spoken of) necessarily precedes what He designs doing through His cross (“reconcile them both in one body to God”), and the enmity of man against God was as fully and effectually destroyed in that act as that between Jew and Gentile. Meyer’s position takes this distinction of enmity as the basis of the “one body,” in which both are reconciled to God, but this seems to condition the latter on the former.—R.] It is a perversion to understand τὴνἔχθραν as the law (Koppe and others). Comp. on Eph_2:14. Ἐναὐτῷ cannot be referred to ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι (Bengel, Hofmann).

Eph_2:17. And he came and preached peace [καὶ ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην].—Since the verb is not dependent upon ἵνα, but independent, it cannot be joined with Eph_2:16. Καί connects rather with Eph_2:14 : He Himself is our Peace and announces that Himself (Harless). What intervenes explains the former statement, by showing its meaning and truth in His doings even unto death: He has established peace, therefore He is our Peace. This is to be regarded as pre-supposed in ἕλθών. Accordingly His coming is after His resurrection. Bengel is excellent: Veniens a morte, profectione ad inferos, resurrectione, victor lætus ipse ultro nuntiavit. To this the verb εὐηγγελίσατο, “preached,” refers, which is not a predicting of the future, but a message from one who is present, who has come. Ἐλθών is added descriptively, and is in accordance with the promise (Joh_14:18): “I come to you,” denoting there His continued presence, insigne verbum (Bengel). Chrysostom well says: οὐ διʼ ἑτέρου ἔπεμψεν, οὐδὲ διʼ ἀλλοῦ τινὸς ταῦτα ἐμήνυσεν, ἀλλʼ αὐτὸς διʼ ἑαυτοῦ. The Risen One is Himself an actual announcement of the attained victory and peace; He is present in the coming of the Holy Ghost, and also with His messengers and their gospel. So in 2Ti_1:10, where the ἐπιφάνεια of the Risen One and His gospel are spoken of.

Thus the proffering and appropriating of the established peace is emphasized, and “preaching peace” is distinguished from “being peace.” Evidently we should understand both peace with one another and with God. Accordingly it is incorrect to regard ἐλθών as redundant (Grotius and others), or to refer it to the Incarnation (Chrysostom, Anselm, Harless); the expression can by no means be referred merely to the resurrection and the salutation of peace (Bengel), or to the coming in the Holy Spirit (Olshausen, Schenkel), or in the Apostles (Ambrose, Calvin and others); nor can it be=caused to be proclaimed (Grotius), since ἐλθών is found here and is not redundant. “Peace” should not be limited to the relation to God (Chrysostom, Harless [Hodge]) or of the Jews and Gentiles toward each other (Bleek, Meyer). [The repetition and emphasis are against this.] As regards the matters here treated of, we should not compare here Joh_10:16; Joh_12:20-23; Mat_8:11; Mat_14:14, as though this were that which He “came and preached.” We should rather be reminded of the renewal of the Apostles, the conversion of Paul, and of Rom_8:9-10; Rom_8:14-17; Rom_15:18; 2Co_13:3; 2Co_13:5; Gal_2:20; Eph_1:13. [So Eadie, Alford, Ellicott (and Hodge, except as regards the comprehensive sense of “peace”).—R.] The tense of the verb εὐηγγελίσατο defines the point of time of the conversion of individuals; then Christ brought it to them.

To you who were afar off and peace to those who were nigh, ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰνκαὶ εὶρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς.—This is to be taken in accordance with Eph_2:13. The readers as originally Gentiles are those “afar off,” and on this account they come first, as indeed historically such were converted to the Church, the Jews, “those nigh,” falling into the background. The repetition of εἰρήνην before this last term marks their need of this, notwithstanding their nearness; ὑμῖν however comprises both, since both (Jews and Gentiles) were in the Church, though the latter constituted the main element.52 Comp. Act_16:23. The double εἰρήνην is derived from Isa_57:19. There שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם refers not inaptly but emphatically, like the double ναὶ ναί, οὒ ὀὒ (Mat_5:37; Jam_5:12), to Gentiles and Jews, and hence the repetition. The dative depends on the verb, not on εἰρήνη as dative commodi; the interpretation of Harless compelling him to accept this view of it: the purport of His message was a peace which respected all, Jews as well as Gentiles. [So Hodge, but the other is far simpler, and accepted by Meyer, Eadie, Alford, and most.—R.]

Eph_2:18. For through him [ὅ τιδιʼ αὐτοῦ].—Ὅτι is here evidently=quia; it is probatio ab effectu (Calvin).53 The purport of the εὐηγγελίσατο cannot be thus introduced (Koppe); this is set forth in “peace,” and it cannot be preached, that (ὅτι) we have, but only: because we have, or: that we may have. The nature of the “peace” is not to be explained by this clause (Rueckert); this has been already defined. The truth of the assertion: “came and preached” is shown in a reality (ἔχομεν), the reality of the result of this preaching (τὴν προσαγωγήν); because the preaching of Christ is spoken of, διʼ αὐτοῦ stands first. Were the proclamation the main matter, then ἔχομεν would have taken the first place. “Through Him” denotes the mediation by means of the entire Divine-human Person; it is not=“through his blood” (Olshausen). [Hodge suggests this, but not to the exclusion of other thoughts.—R.]

We both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father [ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πάτερα].—Προσαγωγή here, Eph_3:12 and Rom_5:2 (εἰς χάριν) is the presupposition to the entrance into the holiest (Heb_10:19) and “into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord” (2Pe_1:11) and the occasion of the drawing near (Heb_10:22); it is not merely the right and permission to do so, but a fact in which we rejoice as a reality (1Pe_3:18) that has become ours (ἔχομεν); the drawing near should not be wanting; ἐσχήκαμεν (Rom_5:2) gives prominence to the appropriation as a continuing fact, ἕχομεν denotes only the present possession, the acceptance which has taken place. The underlying figure is according to Heb_10:19-22 the entrance into the most holy place. In προσαγωγή Stier finds indicated a free approach and an ever closer approach. [The active, transitive sense: admission, introduction, is preferred by Ellicott, Eadie, and Hodge apparently, following Tholuck (Rom_5:2), while Alford prefers the intransitive sense, access, which does not differ greatly from the other, certainly does mean merely liberty of approach, and leave the actual enjoyment of the privilege out of view. “Introduction” certainly does not bring out the idea of “repetition, present liberty of approach,” as “access” does.—Meyer and Eadie remark that it means more than “door,” Joh_10:9. Comp. Romans, pp. 160, 161.—R.] We need not with Chrysostom (οὐκ εἶπεν πρόσοδον· οὐ γὰρ ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ προσήλθομεν, ἀλλʼ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ προσήχθημεν) and Meyer think of a προσαγωγεύς to the king. [This thought need not be peremptorily rejected, however, though the other is on the whole preferable (Ellicott, Eadie, Alford).—R.]. The notion of “leading into” [Meyer] does not suit the other passages, Eph_3:12; Rom_5:2.

The words: οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι placed in juxtaposition, mark strongly the removed division, the unity, that too in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. They are not merely within the body of Christ, members of the Church, but are animated and impelled by the Spirit ruling there, which He has sent. “In one Spirit” refers to “in one body;” the two expressions being parallel. It is certainly not=unanimis voluntate,ὁμοθυμαδόν (Anselm). [The reference to the Holy Spirit scarcely admits of a reasonable doubt. But the preposition is not instrumental. To take as such destroys the parallelism with “in one body,” and confuses the relations of this clause. It is greatly to be regretted that this verse, so explicit and discriminating in its designations of the work of the Trinity in our salvation, should be thus confused. Dr. Hodge, whose notes on this verse are otherwise so excellent, does not bring out fully the correct interpretation of this preposition. “The Holy Spirit is, as it were, the vital sphere or element in which both parties have their common πρωσαγωγή to the Father” (Ellicott).—R.] “Unto the Father,” ad Patrem ut ad Patrem. Hoc versu fit mentio Christi, Spiritus, Patris, eodem ordine, quo Eph_2:12, 1Co_1:3; 1Co_1:5; aliter Act_1:4-5 (Bengel). The choice of prepositions is remarkably apt:πρὸς τὸν πατέρα διὰ Χριστοῦ εν πνεύματι, Unto the Father through Christ in the Spirit.

Sketch of their present condition. Eph_2:19-22.

Eph_2:19. So then ye are no longer [ἄρα οὖν οὐκέτι ἑστέ].—Ἄραοὖν is very often used by Paul (Rom_5:18; Rom_7:3; Rom_8:12, etc. Winer, pp. 414, 519); it is=hinc ergo [accordingly then, comp. on Gal_6:10.—R.]; ἄρα draws a conclusion from Eph_2:14-18; οὖν continues the discourse. Οὐκέτι, “no longer,” is placed immediately after ἄραοὖν, for the sake of emphasis.

Strangers and sojourners, ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι.—Luther’s rendering: Gäste und Freundlinge, unnecessarily transposes the words. The expression proceeds from the more remote, ξένοι, to the less remote, πάροικοι. The former is the antithesis of ἐπιχώριος, and thus of the following συνπολῖται. So “brethren” are termed (3 John 554) “strangers;” it is=נֵּר. The latter word, πάροικοι=תּוֹשָׁב, which is often joined with the former (Lev_25:35; Lev_25:40). Lev_22:10-11, where the LXX oppose πάροικος ἱερέως and οἰκογενεῖς αὐτου, forbidding the former and permitting the latter to eat of the holy things, seems to have been in the Apostle’s mind. Πάροικοι is then here the opposite of οικεῖοι, and means inquilini (from incolo, incolinus), qui domicilium in aliquo loco habent sine jure civitatis, hospites in urbe aliqua (Grotius). The frequent figurative descriptions of the kingdom of God as the city or house of God (1Ti_3:15; Gal_4:26 and Heb_3:6; Heb_12:22) here evidently pass over into each other (συνπολῖται—οἰκεῖοι); there is not however a union or a mixing of these figures, but the πολιτεία is regarded as a more extended household. It inheres in the matter itself, that the citizens of the kingdom of God, have now filial and household privileges with Him, His whole people become themselves the holy house, the temple in which His Spirit dwells (Harless, Stier). The figure of the house and building predominates (Eph_2:20-22). We should not think of proselytes (Stier), nor take ξένοι καὶ πάροικοι as the antithesis to συνπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων, which is enhanced in meaning by οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ (Meyer). [The plausible parallelism of Harless and Bengel, adopted by Braune, is doubted by Alford and Ellicott, but accepted by Eadie.—R.]

But ye are.—The repetition of ἐστέ, in accordance with the best authorities (see Textual Note 9), is emphatic, like Rom_8:15; 1Co_2:6-7; Heb_12:18; Heb_12:22.

Fellow-citizens with the saints [συνπο λὶται55 τῶν ἁγίων].—Among “the saints” we can include only those who have been thus termed from the beginning of the Epistle, Christians. Bengel (Israelis cfr. iii. 18), Stier, Bleek, and others, have taken occasion from Eph_2:12 to refer it to the spiritual Israel; but this word being without closer qualification scarcely admits of this. Rueckert understands the Jewish Christians alone under the term. Still less are we to think of the patriarchs (Chrysostom), or the angels (Calvin, and others), or to include them here. Still the notion should be extended as it has been by Zanchius: omnium vere sanctorum, qui unquam fuerunt futurive sunt. [So Eadie. Alford: “Not angels, nor Jews, nor Christians then alive merely, but the saints of God in the widest sense, all the members of the mystical body of Christ, the commonwealth of the spiritual Israel.” Ellicott: “The members of that spiritual community in which Jew and Gentile Christians were now united and incorporated, and to which the external theocracy formed a typical and preparatory institution.” This view, which is that of Meyer, Hodge and many others, is preferable, notwithstanding the objection of Braune, since Eph_2:13 could not fail to remain in the Apostle’s mind.—R.]

And of the household of God, οἰκεῖοιτοῦθεοῦ.—This means those who belong to the house, to the family, whose Head and Father is God. To the right of citizen is added that of the house, of the child, of the heir, ye are not merely menials, servants, but members of the family, children. They have a relation of fellowship not merely to “the saints,” but to “God” also. Οἰκεῖος by itself would mean only domesticus, one who dwelt in the same house, as 1Ti_5:8, and as οἰκιακός, Mat_10:36, so that it would remain undecided in what precise relation he stood. The genitive τοῦθεοῦ, “of God,” in accordance with συνπολῖται τῶν ἀγίων, obliges us to apply it to the most intimate relation, that of a child. It is incorrect to understand, according to Gal_6:10 : οἰκείους τῆς πίστεως, religionis socii (Winer, who compares οἰκεὶοιφιλοσοφίας, philosophiæ addicti), here familiares, intimate friends (Theodoret: προσοικειωθέντες, relatives); quite as little should we take the family here as the stones of the house in which God dwells (Harless), even though the next verse passes to that figure.

Eph_2:20. Built up upon the foundation, ἐποικοδομηθέντες ὲπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ.—The participle characterizes the οἰκεῖοι as members, who are themselves first wrought, and inserted in the whole as “living stones” (1Pe_2:5), and that too upon the foundation which is laid. Vulgate and Bengel: superædificate. [We have the noun super-structure, but not a corresponding verb. The phrase “built up” is the nearest equivalent. “Having been built up” has perhaps too strict a reference to the past act.—R.] The aorist denotes the act of being built upon, and the context refers only to what has already been attained, not to the further building, which is emphasized in 1Co_3:10, but first mentioned here in Eph_2:22. Hence we have here ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ not: ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον (Rom_15:20), nor yet: ἐπὶ τοῦ θεμελίου (=from the foundation, over the foundation; see Winer, p. 350), which would point to the further building. The dative here is not then “accidental” (Meyer). [Ellicott remarks on the assertion of Meyer, that the dative of rest, instead of the genitive of rest, is accidental: “the former denotes absolute and less separable, the latter partial and more separable super-position.” The apparent exception (Eph_1:10 : ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) is a reading of doubtful authority.—R.)

There is here no leap from one figure (that of the family) to another (that of a building); it is only on the other side of the same figure, which has in the temple its deeper or higher unity. Comp. Num_12:7; Heb_3:2-6; 1Ti_3:15; 2Ti_2:19-21 :1Co_3:9-10; Col_2:7; Judges 20; Act_20:32. [If there be a transition it is quite easy and natural, “the employment of a term in a double meaning. ‘House’ has a similar twofold signification with us, as the ‘house of Bourbon,” or ‘house of Stuart,’—phrases in which the word is employed in a secondary and emphatic signification. We speak too of such houses being ‘built up’ by the wisdom or valor of their founders. In such cases, as Alford says, there is a transition from a political and social to a material image” (Eadie).—R] Whether θεμέλιος is masculine, as in 1Co_3:10-12; 2Ti_2:19; Heb_11:10; Act_21:14; Act_21:19, or neuter, as in Act_16:26, can be determined as little from the text as Rom_15:20; 1Ti_6:19; nor can it be decided on the ground that the neuter is used only metaphorically, which would be inadmissible here (Harless), but rather from the fact that the masculine seems to be the prevalent usage with Paul.

Of the apostles and prophets, τῶνἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν.—These genitives set forth who has laid the foundation; 1Co_3:10 : θεμέλιον ἔθηκα; Rom_15:20 : έπʼ ἀλλότριον θεμέλιον οἰκοδομω. For: testimonium apostolorum et prophetarum substrictum est fidei credentium omnium; per illos jactum est fundamentum (Bengel). Comp. Eph_3:5-7. It is not then a genitive of apposition, which would designate the Apostles and Prophets as the foundation (Chrysostom, A-Lapide, Estius, [Baumgarten-Crusius, Olshausen, De Wette, Hodge], and others), for Christ is not primus inter pares (1Co_1:12-13; 1Co_3:11) and Rev_21:14 is a vision, in which the name of Christ is not mentioned, and the names of the Apostles are only inscribed on the foundations. Nor is it a possessive, genitive (Anselm, Beza, [Bucer, Cocceius, Alford], and others), for Christ can at least not be the foundation, where He is represented as the corner-stone.

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

The context, which admits only of the preaching of the Christ already come, the order of the words and the omission of the article before προφητῶν, thus denoting a single category, compel us to think chiefly of the Apostles alone (Harless, Stier, Hofmann, II. 2, p. 103),—who are prophets also (Eph_3:11): the first term referring more to their personal testimony respecting what they have seen and heard, the latter more to the testimony communicated through the Spirit,—and not to the Old Testament prophets (Greek Fathers, Jerome, Erasmus, Calvin, Calovius, Rueckert, [Barnes], and others), or to the New Testament prophets, subordinate to the Apostles (Pelagius, Bengel: qui apostolis sunt proximi, Koppe, Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek). [The reasons for a reference to New Testament prophets seem far more decisive than those which support the identity of Apostles and prophets in this passage. The absence of the article is not conclusive. So Eadie, Hodge, Alford, Ellicott. The reference to the Old Testament prophets is untenable; comp. Eadie and Alford in loco.—R.] Of Montanism with its continuation of the Apostolate by means of prophets, Zeller and his teacher Baur alone can think. On the significance of the view here set forth, see Doctr. Note 6.

Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone [ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. See Textual Note10].—Participium ὄντος initio commatis hujus, valde demonstrat in præsenti tempore (Bengel), and marks the being so. Ἀκρογωνιαίον to which some codices add λίθον, occurs only here and 1Pe_2:6 : λίθον ἀκρογωνιαῖον, from Isa_28:16; comp. Mat_21:42 : λίθος—ἐγενήθη εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας. Lapis angularis, ut duos parietes ipse medius contineret (Jerome) καὶ τοὺς τοίχους συνέχει καὶ τοῦς θεμελίους (Chrysostom), is the stone, which upholds the connection of the single ones with the whole, gives support to the whole edifice, is the most important stone, designating here the importance and indispensableness of Christ above the Apostles, just as in 1Co_3:11 Christ is termed the foundation, and the Apostles those who have in preaching laid this foundation and built others upon it. The foundation on which the Ephesians have been built is the preaching of the Apostles, but Christ is the corner-stone, who gives support to the whole and to the parts, Christ Himself, the living historical Christ. It must not be supposed that the Apostles personally are a foundation; they themselves need the corner-stone and are also built upon it. The various readings (see Textual Note10) do not alter the sense, only αὐτοῦ marks somewhat more strongly the Person of Christ, and τοῦ in א., or Ἰησοῦ in the others the historical Christ. Αὐτοῦ is not to be referred to θεμελίῳ (Bengel and others). The article is naturally wanting after αὐτοῦ, since no reference to what precedes is intended; the “cornerstone” is not for the “foundation;” that would be the support of the foundation; the support of the edifice is spoken of. A reference to the union of Jewish and Gentile Christians (Theodoret, Estius and others) is too remote according to the context, Eph_2:19 : “ye no longer are.”

Eph_2:21. In whom, ἐνᾤ.—This is to be referred then to the Person of Christ, not to “corner-stone” (Estius, Koppe and others), or “foundation” (Holzhausen), ἐφʼ ᾦ or ἐφʼ οὗ the building might be raised. It is not then: above which (Beza: Super), nor: on which (Luther), nor yet: through whom (Flatt: per), but like Eph_1:10 : ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, who is the point of union and support of the framing together and growing, without which the building falls, dissolves, and does not grow (Rueckert, Harless, Stier), [Alford, Hodge, Eadie and most.—R.]

All the building, πᾶσαοἰκοδομή.—Although πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή is the least sustained reading, and the article should be rejected, and the use of πᾶς with and without the article according to Rom_3:9 (πᾶν στόμα—πᾶς ὁ κόσμος) is such that the former would mean; the whole building and the latter: every building, yet here we must in accordance with the context interpret: the whole building, as πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραηλ (Act_2:36), which however can be regarded as a proper name not requiring the article, see Winer, p. 106. Œkumenius reads πᾶσα οἰκοδομή and explains: ἡ καθόλου ἐκκλησια. Ignatius uses πᾶσα ἐπιστολή, πᾶσα ἐκκλησία in the sense of the whole letter, the whole church. The later Greek usage justifies this explanation and the omission of the article.

[Those commentators who are unwilling to accept the poorly supported reading of the Rec., as a rule take refuge from the incongruous interpretation; every building, which usage favors, in some such explanation as Braune gives. Meyer, whose grammatical accuracy rarely leads him astray, in this case insists on a strict interpretation. Alford: “Are we then to render ungrammatically, and force words to that which they cannot mean? Certainly not”—“the account to be given of such later usages is, that gradually other words besides proper names became regarded as able to dispense with the article after πᾶς, so that as they said first πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα (Mat_2:23), and then πᾶς οἶκος Ἰσραήλ (Act_2:36), so they came at length to say πᾶσα κτίσις (as we ourselves, ‘all creation’ for ‘all the creation’) and πᾶσαοἰκοδομή, when speaking of one universal and notorious building.” Ellicott accepts this view, but doubts the existence of another distinct instance in the New Testament. Eadie thinks the passages cited above and Luk_4:13; Act_7:22; Col_1:15, at least show a transition to a larger usage. Meyer’s grammatical haste leads him into an unwarranted exegesis, for what warrant is there for calling separate congregations οἰκοδομη.—R.]

Οἰκοδομή is like 1Co_3:9, building, the edifice in the process of erection, which grows into a temple, especially as Eph_2:22 : συνοικοδομεῖσθε εἰς κατοικητήριον, marks decidedly the process, requiring the substantive idea of this verse to be that of a building going up. [Hence our word is chosen, not οἶκος.—R.] Our verse then contains an entirely general thought, which Eph_2:22 applies to the Ephesian church, in the figure of a temple, of the Church as one whole on one foundation; the view that every Christian is a temple of the Holy Ghost (2Co_6:16), and every congregation also such an one, being quite remote. Hence it does not mean: every building (Meyer), nor “every part of the building,” walls, roof, etc. (Chrysostom), since it is not these parts, but the building as a whole that grows into a temple. [Comp. however Eadie in loco.—R.]

Fitly framed together is growing [συναρμολογουμένη αὔξει].—The present αὔξει, instead of αὐξάνεται, like αὔξῃ (Col_2:19), is rare but classical, denoting together with the present participle the process, which the Apostle considers merely as a spectator; the participle sets forth the form of the growth. Συναρμολογεῖν from ἀρμός, groove, joint, member (armus, artus), as Heb_4:12, occurs only here and in Eph_4:16, and according to this and the parallel passage Col_2:19 is=framed together, incorporated together. The figure is derived from the organism of the body.—Αὐξάνειν (sometimes transitive=augere, as in 1Co_3:6-7; 2Co_9:10, but usually intransitive) is used most exactly of plants (Mat_6:28; Mat_13:32), but of men also (Luk_1:80; Luk_2:40; 1Pe_2:2), of a nation (Act_7:17), of the word of God (Act_6:7; Act_19:20), of faith (2Co_10:15), of growth in grace (2Pe_3:18; comp. Col_1:10); John the Baptist uses it in a purely external sense of Christ (Joh_3:30 : δεῖ αὐξάνειν). The growth is not then merely an outward extension, but respects the number of the called and their progress toward perfection (Nitzsch). Hence Grotius is incorrect: quorum jam mœnia surgunt; the citizens themselves are largely involved. Bengel: crescit coagmentata, Vulgate: constructa, but these renderings are insufficient.

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

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

In the Lord, ἐνκυρίῳ.—This phrase is to be joined with “holy,” characterizing the sacredness of their temple as inward, vital, proceeding from, effected and nourished by Him.—[So Harless, Usteri, De Wette, Hofmann, Bleek.—R.] Unquestionably Christ is meant, as the Apostolic usus loquendi (Winer, p. 118) and the context which refers back to ἐνὧ, demand; He is the Mediator, in whom the members become οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ. Hence ἐν κυρίῳ is not to be taken as the simple dative (Beza, Koppe [Macknight] and others), or joined with ναόν=κνρίου i.e., Dei (Bengel). Others rightly refer it to Christ, but incorrectly join it with ναὸν ἅγιον as one notion (Stier), or with αὔξει (Meyer), in spite of ἐν ῳ. [The construction last named is rendered still more objectionable by taking ὲν=“through” (Grotius, Wolf, and Schenkel, who has a fondness for this instrumental sense of the proposition). Hodge suggests the same view, but prefers that of Meyer, which is tautological. Ellicott objects to the connection with ἅγιον, that it “gives perhaps a greater prominence to the special nature of the holiness than the context requires.” He therefore prefers the view of Stier, taking the phrase as a kind of tertiary predicate, almost=“and it is a holy temple in the Lord, and in Him alone.” Alford thinks this more in accordance with the Apostle’s style, and it is favored by ἐν πνεύματι, Eph_2:22. So Eadie.—R.]

Eph_2:22. In whom ye also [ἐνᾦ καὶ ὑμεῖς].—Per anaphoram iteratur ἐν ᾦ (Bengel), which is to be joined to “Christ Jesus Himself,” as Eph_1:13. It is not to be connected with κυρίῳ (Harless, Meyer, Schenkel) because the whole clause is parallel to the preceding one; still less however to “holy temple” (Calixtus, Matthies [Eadie] and others), since they are not built in a temple for a habitation. “Ye also” places the readers as being Christians, without any reference to their coming out of heathenism, as Baumgarten Crusius and Bleek suppose, in connection with the whole (“the whole building”). This is in accordance with the parallelism of the application in Eph_2:22, which is not tautological, but marks a dialectic advance. [Most commentators take “in the Lord” as the antecedent of the relative. “You also,” not “even you,” “καί with its ascensive and slightly contrasting force marking the exalted nature of the association in which the Ephesians shared” (Ellicott).—R.]

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

For an habitation of God, εἰς κατοικητήριον τοῦ θεοῦ.—This sets forth the goal, as in Eph_2:21. The word here chosen in the stead of ναόν occurs only here and in Rev_18:2, marking the place of dwelling (Luther: Behausung), while ναόν marks the place of worship. In this there is implied a significant advance, which explains the idea of the church. Comp. Doct. Note 5. The genitive τοῦθεοῦ designates the Master of the house, who goes in and out, doing, regulating, taking care of everything, even to the smallest and most external matters. Hence this is not the same idea as in the previous verse with only a change of expression (Meter, Schenkel), though it is not to be referred to individual Christians (Harless) and quite as little to be taken as dependent on αὔξει, ἐν ᾦ καὶ ὑμεῖς συνοικοδομεῖσαε being regarded as a parenthesis (Griesbach, Knapp), so that the sense would be: that a dwelling of God might arise (Koppe, Rueckert).

In the Spirit, ἐνπνεύματι.—This, being parallel to “in the Lord,” which qualifies “holy,” defines more closely the phrase, “of God,” His relation to the “habitation”: It is God, who dwells in you, in His church, in the Spirit as the element of His presence, hence in the Holy Spirit. The comparison with χαρὰ ἐν πνεύατι ἁγίῳ (Rom_14:17), ἀγάπη ἐν πνεύατι (Col_1:8) should not be so decidedly rejected as inappropriate by Meter, as though this were possible only with abstract terms. Eph_4:1 : δέσμιος ἐν Χριστῷ or κυρίῳ, 1Th_4:16 : νεκροὶ ἐν Χριστῷ are by no means abstract. Comp. on the idea of this verse, 1Co_3:16 : ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν to 2Co_6:16; Rom_8:11. As the Church is a temple, which is holy not merely outwardly, but “in the Lord,” so it is also a dwelling of God, where He does not dwell as the Shekinah in the temple, but in the Spirit, in His, the Holy Spirit, who is the Regent in this edifice, as He is efficient in its growth and occupation. So Rieger, Harless, Stier. It is not then=πνευματικόν (Greek Fathers, Rueckert and others), in accordance with 1Pe_2:5 : οἶκος πνευματικός; nor is ἐν = διά (Theophylact [E. V.] and others), nor is the connection with the verb admissible: by virtue of, by means of the Holy Ghost ye are built together (Meyer, Schenkel, Bleek). [Hodge also prefers this view, which disturbs the parallelism, giving the phrase an unwarranted emphasis. The view of Rueckert is against the whole sense of the passage (Alford). Against Meyer’s objection to the interpretation of Braune, see Ellicott in loco, Comp. Eadie, and Gal_5:5, against the distinction of Harless respecting the use of the article with πνεῡμα The reference to the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly the correct one and thus the verse brings the Trinity into view.—R.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Trinity. Eph_2:18 points to the Trinity: To the Father through Christ in the Spirit. But the allusion in Eph_2:22 is more obscure. [Yet Alford correctly says of the latter part of this section: “Thus we have the true temple of the Father, built in the Son, inhabited in the Spirit; the offices of the three blessed Persons being distinctly pointed out; God the Father, in all His fulness, dwells in, fills the church: that church is constituted an holy temple to Him in The Son,—is inhabited by Him in the ever-present indwelling of the Holy Spirit.”—R.]

2. The anthropology of this section.

a. Heathenism in distinction from Judaism. The heathen are termed those “afar off” the Jews those “nigh.” The latter had the theocracy and a covenant of God with them, repeated in many ways, and containing a glorious promise; the former were without hope and without God. For neither in the idol deities of the people, nor in the fancied deities of the philosophers and the educated, did they have the living God; neither nature (Rom_1:19-20; Act_14:17; Act_17:27), nor conscience could reveal to them the mercy, and the holy and sanctifying love of God, as this had become evident to the Jews in theocratic training and guidance. The heathen with their natural gifts wallowed ever more deeply in the creature, the Jews with their gracious gifts relied more and more on God’s election, proudly exalting themselves, as did the former. Such distinctions, defining the relation of God to the nations and of the nations to God, define at the same time differences in the moral conduct of the Gentiles and the Jews. The former, left to themselves, did not see the arm of God shown to be so strong in nature, or the finger of God warning in the conscience, but fell into the mire, into the starless night of vile immorality; heathenism becomes ever worse and worse (Rom_1:18-32); modern heathenism, which not only struggles to be free from the arm of God’s power, but tears itself away from the heart of God with its thoughts of peace, is even more loathsome. Judaism falls away into externality (“the so-called circumcision in the flesh,” Eph_2:11; Rom_2:14-29) throwing the theocratic feature into the background and out of practice, but giving prominence and power to the national element; modern Judaism has lapsed into the most frivolous emptiness.

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

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

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

3. Christology.

a. Without Christ the distance from God in the case of the Gentiles is not overcome, nor does the nearness to God in the case of the Jews become fellowship with God. Without Him a man or a people is either “stranger” or “sojourner,” and the advance from “stranger” to “of the household of God” is not through the “sojourner.” As little as sonship of itself develops itself from slavery, so little avail circumcision, Mosaic law, theocracy, promise; only creative renewal (Eph_2:15) is of avail among Jews as well as Gentiles, and this is accomplished only through Him and in Him.

b. He is our Peace, He, in His Person; and this peace is here defined by its antithesis, “enmity” (Eph_2:15), by the hostility of Gentiles and Jews (Eph_2:11), 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; Eph_2:18) and the externality of the Jews (Eph_2:11)—as concord, as unity concluded and secured in agreement, in friendly intercourse. This peace is not a sensation, but a possession. Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, II. 1, pp. 374) refers to the etymology, deriving the word from εἴρη and ἶρις, the circle, the place of assembly, or it may be traced to εἴρω, to speak, quiet, friendly, independent intercourse in speech. Stier (Reden Jesu, V., p. 224 on Joh_14:27) compares it with שָׁלוֹם, and reaches thus the notion of prosperity, welfare. In this concord with its intercourse is found welfare, complete and symmetrical development. Hence the possession of this peace is at the same time a status. The first and main thing is peace with God; on this is based and depends necessarily the peace with our neighbor. Where the latter appears, the former is certainly efficient; hence Paul can here give special prominence to it in accordance with the context. He who has Christ, can speak of His peace (Joh_14:27), has peace.56

c. The work of Christ culminates in the death of the cross (Eph_2:13 : “made nigh in the blood of Christ;” Eph_2:16 : “might reconcile them both to God through the cross”), having for its end the reconciliation with God and among each other (Eph_2:14 : “who made both one;” Eph_2:16 : “having slain the enmity;” Eph_2:17 : “came and preached peace:” Eph_2:18; “we both have our access in one Spirit unto the Father”), comp. Col_1:20-22; Rom_5:10; 2Co_5:18-20. Enmity is to be overcome only on the side of man, on the part of God “wrath” (Eph_2:3). We have only the popular expression: ἱλάσθητί μοι (Luk_18:13) and 2Ma_1:5; 2Ma_7:33; 2Ma_8:29 : καταλάσσεσθαι ὑμῖν.—Non Deus inimicus erat hominibus, sed homines inimici erant Deo. Non cœpit homines amare, qui cum eo reconciliati essent, sed quia ab æterno homines amavit, idcirco decrevit homines sibi inimicos per Chrisliani secum reconciliare. Reconciliatio, morte Christi effecta, non est duplex seu mutua, sed simplex, h. e., Christus morte sua non Deum, hominum amantissimum, cum hominibus, sed homines, Deo inimicos, cum Deo reconciliavit (Weber). The enmity against God was extirpated by, through and in Christ; the attracting power of His Person, especially of His cross is so great, that man is won by Him for God. Thus the Father of Christ becomes the Father of men and the contending nations and creatures become peaceful children in one church and one Spirit. This is the reconciliation. It rests upon the propitiation, removing the wrath of God, which is however only the energy of His holy love for sinners against sin. But this is not treated of in this section. By this reconciliation of men resting on the atonement their relation not merely to God but also to the law is changed. In that He fulfilled the law in deed and in truth, performed God’s will and suffered in obedience, He rendered it powerless in its single ordinances, dissolving its separative features; it thus gained through Him internal validity and importance, so that it no longer burdens men, but they stand and walk in and on the same as a common soil within salutary bounds. Here too all depends on His Person and our relation to Him (Eph_2:15 : “in His flesh;” Eph_2:16 : “in Him;” Eph_2:18 : “through Him;” Eph_2:21 : “in whom”—“in the Lord”); in Him and through Him that takes place which ought to take place both for us and in us. Ipsa natura suscipienda erat, quæ liberanda (Augustine). Neque Christo imputari potuissent peccata nostra, nisi tum naturæ ejusdem vinculo tum voluntaria sponsione nobiscum unitus esset, neque justitia Christi nobis imputaretur; nisi in unum cum Ipso corpus coaluissemus (Turretine).—He guards against that humanitarianism, which is only the glory of the flesh, as well as against a godless cosmopolitism [“without God, in the world”]; He creates new, real men, who as the children become the possessors and rulers of the world.

4. The law here is the Mosaic law. This follows from the description: τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν (Eph_2:15), from the figure: τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ (Eph_2:14), and also from the statement that Christ has abolished this “in His flesh;” for it was precisely to this law that He was subject in the flesh; this was the “hedge” of the vineyard of God, the people of Israel; it was this which split the will of God into ordinances difficult to be grasped, and multiplied by casuistry most enormously. But here where the subject is not merely the enmity of the Jews against the Gentiles and against God, an enmity denoted by and connected with the law, but quite as much the enmity of the Gentiles against the Jews and against God, this too being joined with the law, we must admit a secondary reference to the law in the conscience. Rom_2:14-15 permits such a reference, the connection requires it and the nature of the case explains it: the bad conscience is the still active conscience, so far as it is still good. The bad conscience is the justly judging conscience, is enmity, not as it should be with sin and the sinful subject, but with God, before whom it puts to shame, with our neighbor, from whom it divides us; the sinner against the law excuses himself and accuses God and men, by always finding the circumstances, relations, surroundings more to blame than himself. The voices of a bad conscience became for the heathen Furies, but not so easily Eumenides. Nitimur in vetitum. He too, who holds to the law and to conscience, is an object of enmity for the frivolous world; where the law appears powerful, there is in the world discord, opposition—within the heart, in individuals and in the whole, and externally also. Thus enmity toward God and men clings to the law. We do not wish to have the will of God about us, above us, before us, and to know and feel ourselves under the law with its single decrees; it is impossible for us to have the law in us and peace at the same time, unless we have God Himself. Only fellowship of life with God in Christ removes the enmity which attaches to the law, as it appears in its commandments and ordinances over against the natural man.

5. The church is essentially a fellowship, closely united and organic. Her support is in Christ, her beginning in the pure and powerful Word of God, in His Apostles and prophets, her design respects every man and every nation, her task is not merely the worship of God, but abiding fellowship with God, and accordingly each individual must be prepared in the work of the Holy Ghost, freed from his singularity and framed into the whole (Eph_2:19-22). She is “the assured residence and abiding working-place” of God, from which He will and does work further into His world. In the world He indeed already has His real, immanent, continued presence, but in the church He is present in an extraordinary manner; she is His palace, His immediate surroundings, His family, while the world is His broad kingdom on which He operates from this, and which is subservient to it. Certain as the permanence of the church is, she is still in process of growth, not yet complete. But she is real, not merely ideal.

6. The Holy Scriptures are referred to in the expression: “the foundation of the Apostles and prophets” (Eph_2:20). There is here evidently a reminiscence of the words of Christ (Mat_16:18 : “Thou art Peter,” etc.), in which He promises to build His church, not upon the person of Peter, but upon Peter’s confession of the Person of Christ. The foundation of the church, the beginning of this building is not the persons of the Apostles, but their witness of Him, the preaching of the Apostles. Scripture is not the producer, but the product, not before the church, but within and for her. The word of God springing up in the Apostles, as prophets of God, as men to whom revelation was imparted by the Holy Ghost, and preached by them, is the foundation, but what is given in fixed form in the Scriptures is the norm for the church. She has her support and deepest ground in Christ, her beginning in the preaching of the Apostles, but her rule in the standard of truth contained in the Apostolic and prophetical Scriptures, the sufficiency of which is such, that no tradition is needed in addition. [“And no other foundation can suffice. When philosophical speculation or critical erudition, political affinity or human enactment supplants it, the structure topples and is about to fall. The opinions of Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Wesley, Knox, or Erskine (and these were all “pillars”), are not the foundation; nor are the edicts and creeds of Trent, Augsburg, Dort, or Westminster. Such writings may originate sectional distinctions, and give peculiar shape to column or portico, shaft or capital, on the great edifice, but they can never be substituted for the one foundation” (Eadie).—R.]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Ponder this: What thou wast and wouldst have been without Him? what thou wast and hast become through Him? what thou wast and shouldst and shalt become, if thou abide with Him?—God is near thee, nearest of all, yet hast thou at first not noticed or known this at all, and still dost thou forget it and fail to feel it; many a one does not learn it and perishes, but he who learns it gains what is most glorious, the everlasting salvation of the soul, God’s gifts, God Himself, as joint-heir with Christ. The moon is by no means so valuable to thee as the sun; it is nearer to the earth with its powerful influence notwithstanding its distance, than the near moon with its borrowed light. So is Christ nearer than Luther; He makes for thee spring with fruit abiding eternally.—See now, what it has cost Him, to bring thee near to God, who is so nigh, to win thee for Him! He must die, that thou mightest live in God and God in thee.—Do not deny it, underneath all hast thou enmity to God; in order not to be obliged to acknowledge His wrath, thou feignest friendship and love to Him, and still wilt not allow Him to rule in thee.—The foundation of religion is not a doctrine but a life, not the Apostles’ life, but Christ and He alone, in His Person and in His life and death, His work and suffering. He disturbs the peace, the false one, in order to establish one which is real and eternal.

The Church of Christ is God’s house and our own home, in which we should be children and become heirs. Here we are not only instructed, as in a school, but educated, in order to go out into the world and do what is good and useful; here not only is religion protected from the world, but we ourselves from irreligion.—In the church each one should feel, that the might of the whole is at his command, to be used for himself, to be efficient in him, quite as much as that he must serve with assiduity the whole: thus he himself will grow and thrive. The temple becomes a home: First worship Him, then live with Him. Is the home but a hovel at first, a hovel is still home. Do not take offence at the outward appearance of the church, but look at the internal loveliness!—Builded together on the one cornerstone, Christ, so that we are changed from servants or slaves into children and heirs. We are to become free! God hates the slavery of the world, or hireling service no less than we do tyranny. See to it that with thy hatred of tyrants and raving about freedom thou dost not still remain a slave.—In the Church of Christ we first really become men, the grace of God in Christ leads us directly to nature and to true humanity.

Starke:—Where a soul will have hope toward God, it must have a testament or promise of God as its foundation.—Our life must properly be nothing else than a continued going out of ourselves and going to God. The great glory of Christians as citizens of the city of God and members of His I household. What was Roman citizenship in comparison? Act_22:28. Thus we are assured of all possessions, liberties, privileges and protection. Psa_84:5.—What glorious and wonderful thing does not attach to the Church of God? Nothing is more majestic, because it is His temple; nothing more worthy of veneration, for He dwells therein; nothing more ancient, for the patriarchs and prophets labored thereon, nothing more solid, for Jesus Christ is its foundation, nothing firmer and stronger, for He is its corner-stone, nothing more exalted, for it reaches into eternity and the bosom of God, nothing more well-ordered and arranged, for the Holy Ghost is the architect; nothing more beautiful and agreeable in its variety, for stones come from all quarters, Jews and Gentiles, from every age, land, race and condition, nothing more roomy, for all the elect and righteous of all generations have a place therein, nothing more sacred, for it is consecrated to the Lord, nothing more divine, for it is a living edifice animated by the Holy Spirit.

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

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

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

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

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

[Eadie:

Eph_2:11. The exercise of memory would deepen their humility, elevate their ideas of Divine grace, and incite them to ardent and continued thankfulness.

Eph_2:12. The Jewish nation—had the Messiah—not Jesus indeed—but the Christ in promise. He was the great subject—the one, glowing, pervading promise of their inspired oracles. But the Gentiles were “without Christ.”—“The commonwealth of Israel” is that government framed by God, in which religion and polity were so conjoined, that piety and loyalty were synonymous, to fear God and honor the king were the same obligation.—They had hope of nothing a sinner should hope for; their future was a night without a star. They were godless, having no one to cry to, to trust in, to love, praise, and serve. “In the world,” dark, hostile and under Satan’s dominion.

Eph_2:15. Deep hostility lay in their bosoms; the Jew looked down with supercilious contempt upon the Gentile, and the Gentile reciprocated and scowled upon the Jew as a haughty and heathenish bigot.—One new man—the Gentile is not elevated to the position of the Jew; but Jew and Gentile together are both raised to a higher platform than the circumcision ever enjoyed, Spiritual blessing in itself, and not merely pictured in type, is possessed by the Jew as well as the Gentile.

Eph_2:16. Jesus reconciles us to God by turning away the Divine anger from us. God has shown infinite love to the sinner, and infinite hatred to his sin, in the sufferings of the cross, so that we tremble at His severity, while we are in the arms of His mercy.

Eph_2:18. Christians do not approach some dark and spectral phantom, nor a grim and terrible avenger. It is not Jehovah in the awful attitude of Judge and governor, but Jehovah as a Father.

Eph_2:20. That man, “Jesus,” who was the “Christ,” the Divinely appointed, qualified, and accepted Saviour, unites and sustains the Church. Is He not in His truth, His blood, His power, His legislation, and His presence to His Church, Himself “the chief corner-stone?”

Eph_2:21. Every stone is in its place, and fits its place. One’s ingenuity devises what another’s activity works out. As Fergusson says—“By taking bond with Christ the foundation, they are fastened one to another.”—Jehovah dwelt in His temple: 1. To instruct His people; 2. To accept the services of His people. God inhabits this spiritual fane for spiritual ends—spiritual sacrifices are still laid on the altar to God.—The Church is one, holy and Divine; it rests on Christ—is possessed by God—filled with the Spirit—and is ever increasing.—R.]

[The so-called Circumcision occasionally finds a parallel in the externalness of a so-called church.—Hand-wrought ordinances are a fruitful source of pride.—In discovering the condition of men out of Christ we must reverse the order of the Apostle: we see that they are “in the world,” learn that they are “without God,” and despite their stout denials conclude with certainty that they have “no hope.”—Near the cross, near each other.—Christ came to destroy the works of the devil; He destroys partition-walls, which we are slow to class with these works. Christ came to abolish Jewish casuistry and hair-splitting distinctions and ordinances, but how much of this remains in His church. Such things have not tended to make peace.—The peace Christ preaches is no armed neutrality. As disbanded armies give laborers for a country’s prosperity, so the activities once employed in hostility against God and man, are turned to edification.—We have our access, do we really enjoy it?—Let men sneer at the “saints”—it is a term of privilege, not of presumption, implying here the highest citizenship, the most exalted adoption, while in itself it means that God is making us sinful ones holy like Himself, that we may the more enjoy the blessings of His household.—Let us hold to that church, whose foundation and corner-stone are here set forth, and then despite all the mistakes of the past and imperfection of the present, we shall see in her the reality described in the figures of Eph_2:21, and find in our own experience that we, together with this corner-stone, “are being builded together for a habitation in the Spirit.”—R.]

Footnotes:

[29] Eph_2:11.—[א.3 D.3 K. L., and a number of versions and fathers support the order of the Rec. (ὑμεῖς ποτέ), which Braune seems to prefer, but Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer and English editors accept the reading of א.1 A. B. D.1 (ποτὲ ὑμεῖς). The former arose from a regard for euphony in all probability. The pointing adopted above accepts τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί as in simple apposition to ὑμεῖς, a view strengthened by the correct reading (see Ellicott).—The usage respecting the article in English differs from that in Greek, as the alterations in this verse indicate.—R.]

[30] Eph_2:12.—[The Rec. inserts ἐν before τῷ καιρῷ, with D.3 K. L., and some versions, but it is omitted in א. A. B. D.1F., by most fathers; rejected by nearly all modern editors (Hodge retains it without remark) as an explanatory gloss, the preposition being more usual and perhaps more correct in such cases.—The same gloss occurs in the Rec. again (Eph_3:5).—R,]

[31] Eph_2:13. [The Rec. reads ἐγγὺς ἐγενήθητε, on the authority of D. K. L., Greek fathers; accepted by Meyer, Ellicott and others, on the ground of the contrast with μακράν. Lachmann, Alford, Braune. and others accept the order of א. A. B., versions, which is quite as well supported.—On the emendations see Exeg. Notes.—R.]

[32] Eph_2:15.—[As Braune adopts the construction favored by the E. V., only verbal changes have been made in the first half of this verse. But it is doubtful whether this is correct. The other prominent opinions require the following renderings: “Broke down the middle wall of the partition—to wit, the enmity—in His flesh, having made void the law of the commandments expressed in decrees” (Ellicott). This joins ἔχθραν in apposition to μεσότοιχον. and ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ to λύσας. The other view, that of Meyer, De Wette, Hodge (and preferred in the additional notes), accepts the apposition, but joins “in His flesh” to “abolished:” “Broke down the middle wall of partition, to wit, the enmity, having in His flesh done away the law,” etc. In any case we ought to put a comma instead of a colon at the close of Eph_2:14—R.]

[33] Eph_2:15.—[The Rec., א.3 D. K. L., most cursives and fathers read: ἑαυτῷ, accepted by Meyer, and most commentators. א.1 A. B. F., 10 mss.: αὐτῷ, accepted by Lachmann, Alford. The authorities are about equally divided, the latter being the more difficult reading, too difficult in fact, since the pronoun must be referred to Christ, and that would be intolerably harsh with this reading. Besides the Greek ε might easily be dropped, either from the interchange of forms, or after ἐν, as Meyer suggests.—The E. V. is very unfortunate in the structure of its clauses here, making two co-ordinate final clauses differ as widely as possible in form.—R.]

[34] Eph_2:16.—[We may render here: both of us with equal correctness.—Reconcile again may be the true meaning, but I hesitate in adopting it.—In one body is to be closely connected with both. To instead of unto (E. V.) for the simple dative.—Through best expresses the sense of διά.—On it is more exact than thereby, the reference being to the cross.—We might put a period at the close of this verse, but the insertion of the subject in Eph_2:17, indicates the want of close connection.—R.]

[35] Eph_2:17.—א. A. B. D. E. F. G. and others: εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς. The emphatic repetition is well attested, and an omission by the transcribers is more probable than an insertion. [So all modern editors and commentators, even the most conservative as regards the Recepta.—R.]

[36] Eph_2:18.—[The article here is almost equivalent to the possessive.—The E. V. again renders ἐν, by.—R.]

[37] Eph_2:19.—[The Rec. omits ἐστέ, with D.3 K. L., versions and fathers; but it was probably deemed superfluous, instead of emphatic it is found in א. B. (both ἀλλά ἐστε), A. C. D.1 F., accepted by modern editors.—R.]

[38] Eph_2:20.—[The Rec. reads Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ on the authority of C. D. E. F. G. K. L. several versions and a number of fathers; accepted by Scholz, De Wette, Meyer, Ellicott. א.2 A. B., the Vulgate and other versions, some fathers, support the order: Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ; adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Alford and others. א1 has only τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which Braune seems to favor. On the whole the order of the Rec. should be given up.—R.]

[39] Eph_2:21.—[The Rec. inserts ἡ between πᾶσα and οἰκοδομή (א.2 A. C., some cursives), but it is omitted in א.3 B. D. E. F. G. K. L. most cursives, and is rejected by nearly all modern editors. The briefer reading is difficult, and the change was an easy way of avoiding it, just as following the Rec. now-a-days saves a little trouble to the commentator.—R.]

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

Eph_2:11-12.—II. The means by which this alienation from God and the church has been removed, viz., by the blood of Christ. 1. Satisfying the demands of justice it secured reconciliation with God. 2. Abolishing the law in the form of Mosaic institution it removed the wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles—both are united in one body and reconciled to God

Eph_2:13-18.—III. The Ephesians are therefore united with God and His people. 1. They are represented as fellow-citizens of the saints. 2. They are members of the family of God. 3. They are constituent portions of that temple in which God dwells by His spirit

Eph_2:19-22.—R.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[51] [Inasmuch as “the cross” is here spoken of, we must admit a secondary reference to the propitiary sacrifice of Christ as the condition or ground of the reconciliation. If then we ask respecting the nexus between this ground and the result, there must enter a thought of God’s wrath (Eph_2:3) against sin. One thing remains clear—whatever was objectively necessary that men might be at peace with God and with each other was effected by the death of Christ, and what is necessary in the subject is, to take hold of Christ by faith, as to be “in Him” (Eph_2:15) a member of the “one body” (Eph_2:16).—R.]

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

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

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

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

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

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. The Mystery Made Known

CHAPTERS 2:11-3:21

1. The condition of the Gentiles (Eph 2:11-12)

2. But now in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:13-19)

3. The new and great relationship (Eph 2:19-22)

4. The Mystery made known and Paul’s ministry (Eph 3:1-13)

5. The prayer (Eph 3:14-19)

6. The doxology (Eph 3:20-21)

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).

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.

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 God’s 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.”

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.

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 God’s grace are made known. Now, after Israel rejected the King and the Savior, now, when He is upon the Father’s 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

“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.

Solomon’s 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 man’s 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.

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.)

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.”

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).

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.

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. Israel’s 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.

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.

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 God’s 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 God’s 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.

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 God’s face was hidden from Him. Shall we ever know the depths of His love?

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!

“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.

The blessed doxology ends this wonderful section of God’s 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.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Section 1. (Eph 2:11-22.)

One new man and one habitation of God.

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.

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.

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.

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 9

THE FAR AND NEAR

Eph_2:11-13

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!"

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.

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.

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, -

"Shaping to truth the forward will Along His narrow way,"

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"On that hard Pagan world disgust

And secret loathing fell;

Deep weariness and sated lust

Made human life a hell."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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!

"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.

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.

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."

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:11-22 Paul now focuses on the grace that God has given particularly to Gentiles (non-Jews), bringing them into his family and uniting them with Jews in a new, unified, multiethnic community—the body of Christ, the church. Paul’s emphasis on the inclusion of Gentiles might suggest they were experiencing discrimination from Jewish Christians.

2:11 Traditionally, Jews disdained Gentiles, considering them “uncircumcised heathens” who were excluded from God’s people (see Gen 17:9-14). Paul argues that judging people by their bodies and not their hearts is superficial—in Christ, physical circumcision means nothing (see Rom 2:28-29).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Eph 2:11. Μνημονεύετε, remember) Such remembrance sharpens gratitude and strengthens faith, Eph 2:19.—τὰ ἔθνη) הגוים, the Gentiles. ἐν σαρκὶ, 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.—οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία, who are called uncircumcision) intended as a great insult to you. The word called, masc. and neut. (λεγόμενοι, λεγομένης), applied to the uncircumcision and the circumcision, shows that these words are no longer in use, since the distinction is taken away.—λεγομένης, 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.

[26] i.e. λεγομένης does not apply to these last words.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_2:11. Διό] Therefore, because such exalted and unmerited benefits have been imparted to us (Eph_2:4-10). These benefits should move the reader to remember his former miserable heathen state (ποτέ, Eph_5:8; Col_1:21), in order the more gratefully to appreciate, by contrast with the past, the value of his present state.

ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί] Neither ἦτε nor ὄντες is to be supplied, but (observe the order critically vouched for: ποτὲ ὑμεῖς) ὅτι is taken up again by the ὅτι of Eph_2:12, and ποτέ by τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ, Eph_2:12; while τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί is a descriptive definition to ὑμεῖς, to which it is related by way of apposition, and οἱ λεγόμενοι κ.τ.λ. is attributive definition to ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί: that at one time ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, ye who (quippe qui) were named Foreskin … that ye at that time, etc.

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

The τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σ., with the article, designates the readers as to their category. The contempt, however, incurred in their pre-Christian state lies not in τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σ. (for this they still remained), but in the following οἱ λεγόμενοι κ.τ.λ.; although we may not, by mentally supplying (with Chrysostom and his successors) the contrast οὐκ ἐν πνεύματι, make ἐν σαρκί into an element of recommendation.

οἱ λεγόμενοι … χειροπ.] 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 ἔθνη τῇ σαρκί, they were those designated by the name Foreskin! And, then, the delineation of this despised relation is brought to a yet higher climax when it is specified by whom they were thus reproachfully designated, namely, by the so-called Circumcision, which is made in the flesh with the hand. 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 f.; Php_3:3; Col_2:11; Act_7:51), 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! ἐν σαρκὶ χειροπ. does not pertain to λεγομ., but is an addition of the apostle himself to περιτ., describing how the matter stands. The abstracta ἀκροβ. and περιτ. do not here stand pro concretis, but are stated names, by which the concretes were in accordance with their peculiar character designated. Comp. 2Th_2:4 : ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον Θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα. The circumstance that Paul, instead of ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης, has not again employed the plural expression ὑπὸ τῶν λεγομένων, is to be explained by the fact that he wishes to indicate the περιτομή as a name, which is not adequate to the idea of it in the case of the subjects so termed: by the so-called circumcision. The expression is depreciatory (comp. 1Co_8:5) as concerns the people who bore the name περιτομή; whereas οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία would indicate not the conception of so-called, but, in a purely objective manner, the mentioned fact: those called Foreskin (Heb_9:3).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 2:11-22 . 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.

Eph 2:11 . Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ὑμεῖς ποτὲ : Wherefore remember that aforetime ye . The order of the TR, ὑμεῖς ποτέ , is supported by such authorities as [141] 3 [142] 3 [143] (with οἱ before ποτέ ), Syr.-Harcl., etc. Some authorities place the ποτέ after the ἔθνη (Syr.-P., Boh.). But ποτὲ ὑμεῖς is the order of the best and oldest MSS. ( [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] *), the Vulg., etc., and is adopted by most (LTTrWHRV). As διὸ 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 ὅτι and the words τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ are introduced, resuming the ὅτι and the ποτέ of Eph 2:11 . There is no need, therefore, to supply either ὄντες or ἦτε at this point. τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί : Gentiles in the flesh . The article is given to the ἔθνη , the class to which the readers belong being in view (Win.-Moult., pp. 132, 217). It is not repeated before the σαρκί , as the ἐν σαρκί makes one idea with the τὰ ἔθνη (Win.-Moult., p. 169). The term σάρξ 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 to which circumcision is applicable. They are reminded that they belonged to the class of the Gentiles, their bodies proclaiming their heathen character. οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία : who are called Uncircumcision . A further definition of what they were as ἔθνη , suggestive of the low regard in which they were held as members of that class. The name Uncircumcision! a name of contempt, was flung at them. The term ἀκροβυστία , which is unknown to profane Greek but is used in the LXX, is taken to be an Alexandrian corruption of ἀκροποσθία . ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου : by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hand . 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 οἱ λεγόμενοι to τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς . 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 , meant all the more as it was fastened on them by those to whom, while proudly calling themselves the Circumcision , 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 ). 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.

[141] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[142] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[143] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( δ ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.

[144] Autograph of the original scribe of א .

[145] Autograph of the original scribe of א .

[146] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[147] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[148] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 2:15. καταργήσας אAB &c. καταρτίσας D*.

Eph 2:21. πᾶσα οἰκοδομὴ א*BDG al Clem Orig Chrys. πᾶσα ἡ οἰκ. א*ACP al mult.

Eph 3:5. τ. ἁγίοις ἀποστόλοις αὐτοῦ κ. προφήταις אAC &c. Orig. τ. ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ ἀποστόλοις κ. προφήταις DG 115 go Theophct Hil Victorin. τ. ἁγίοις αὐτοῦ κ. προφήταις B Ambrst. The text and comment of Ambrst. is as follows: Quod in aliis saeculis non fuit notum filiis hominum, sicut nunc revelatum est sanctis ejus et prophetis in spiritu, &c. Hoc asserit ostensum a Deo tempore Christi, quod latebat, quia gentes participes futurae essent gratiae promissae in Lege. Quod ostensum dicit praedicatoribus sanctis et prophetis, id est, apostolis et Legis explanatoribus, non prophetis veteribus. (Migne xvii.)

Eph 3:9. φωτίσαι without πάντας א*A 424** (= 67**) Orig Cyr ½ Hil Ambrst ½ Aug. φωτίσαι πάντας אcBCDG al verss omn Adamant Cyr ½ Tert Victorin Ambrst ½.

Eph 3:12. πεποιθήσει אAB &c. τῷ ἐλευθερωθῆναι D*.

Eph 3:14. πατέρα sine add א*ABCP 33 (= 17) 424** (= 67**) syr pal boh aeth. πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χρ. אcDG al latt syr vg hel arm.

Eph 3:18. ὕψος καὶ βάθος BCDGP 33 (= 17) al verss pler. βάθος καὶ ὕψος אA al syr hcl.

Eph 3:19. πληρωθῆτε εἰς אACD &c. πληρωθῇ B 33 (= 17) 442 (= 73) 462 (= 116).

Eph 3:20. ὑπὲρ om DG latt Ambrst al.

Eph 2:11-22. THE UNION OF JEW AND GENTILE IN CHRIST

In the last paragraph Eph 1:15 to Eph 2:10 St Paul has been recalling the spiritual forces set at work by the Resurrection and Ascension of the Christ to raise Christians out of the death of sin. His last words referred to the appropriate activities in which their newly created energies were to be employed. These activities are primarily corporate. He passes on therefore to consider the constitution of the new body in which they found themselves and its appointed function. He begins with a sketch of the spiritual isolation of the Gentile position before the Gospel.

11. Διὸ with reference to the whole preceding paragraph.

μνημονεύετε. There is a striking parallel (noticed by G. H. Whitaker) between this appeal and the appeal to Israel in Deu 5:15, &c. (cf. also Isa 44:21) to remember the condition out of which they had been delivered at the Exodus.

ἐν σαρκί. ‘By nature,’ without any evil connotation. Cf. Gal 2:20 Rom 2:28.

οἱ λεγόμενοι … τῆς λεγομένης. ‘Bearing the name’ with a suggestion that the reality did not correspond to the name. Cf. 1Co 8:5, and perhaps 2Th 2:4.

περιτομῆς. For the contrast between the material and spiritual circumcision cf. Jer 9:26; Act 7:51; Rom 2:26 ff. In this group of Epistles St Paul has advanced beyond the standpoint of Gal. and Rom. It is no longer a question of enforcing circumcision on Gentile Christians. He boldly claims that the reality is with the Christian (Php 3:3; Col 2:11).

χειροποιήτου. This word is uniformly used of the material Temple or Tabernacle (Mar 14:58; Act 7:48; Act 17:24; Heb 9:11; Heb 9:24). It is difficult not to believe that it is introduced here in intentional contrast to the Spiritual Temple which is the main subject of this section. The links with St Stephen’s speech throughout this section are remarkable (cf. 1Th 2:15).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11-22.] Hortatory expansion of the foregoing into detail: reminding them, what they once were (vv. 11, 12); what they were now in Christ (vv. 13-22).

11.] Wherefore (since so many and great blessings are given by God to His people, among whom ye are) remember, that once ye, the (i.e. who belonged to the category of the) Gentiles in the flesh (i.e. in their corporeal condition of uncircumcision: ‘præputium 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 (this last addition ἐν σαρκὶ χειρ. seems made by the Apostle, not to throw discredit on circumcision, but as a reserve, περιτομή 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 the ἀκροβυστία: the Jews were called, but were not truly the περιτομή.” See Col 2:11),

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11-22. Ye Gentiles were formerly aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and had no share in the covenants of promise; but Christ by His death has cast down the barrier which separated you from the City of God, and has reconciled you both to God. Now, therefore, all alike have access to Him, the Father, and all alike form part of the holy temple which He inhabits

11. Διὸ μνημονεύετε. These blessings should move them to think more of their former state, so that they should be the more thankful. “Talis recordatio gratum animum acuit, et fidem roborat.” Διό is best taken as referring to the whole section, vv. 1 to 10.

ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς in this order א* A B D* Vulg., Rec. has ὑμεῖς ποτέ, with אc Dc G (prefixes οἱ to ποτέ), Syr-Harcl. But Syr-Pesh, Boh. and some other versions have ποτε after ἔθνη. ὄτι is resumed by ὅτι, ver. 12, and ποτέ by τῷ καιρῷ ἐκ. Hence we need not supply either ὄντες or ἦτε, but τὰ ἔθνη is in simple apposition to ὑμεῖς.

τὰ ἔθνη, with the article as indicating a class. Since ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί expresses one single idea, the article does not require repetition before ἐν. ἐν σαρκί must have the same sense here as in the following clause, since the former is explained by οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία, and this has its antithesis in τῆς λεγ. περιτομῆς. It therefore refers to their uncircumcision, not to their former carnal state, nor to their descent. Chrysostom and other Fathers take ἐν σαρκί as opposed to ἐν πνεύματι. Thus Jerome: “Ephesios in carne vocans ostendit in spiritu esse non gentes.” This contradicts ποτέ and ver. 12. The apostle is not exalting them, but calling attention to their previous inferiority to the Jews.

“Remember that formerly ye Gentiles in the flesh called (in contempt) Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision in the flesh, a circumcision merely physical, made with hands.” He reminds them of the ignominy which in the mind of the Jews attached to the name of heathen and of the uncircumcised. This contempt is already predicated in the words οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκρ.; and the lowness of their condition is further shown by the following description of those who so despised them, those, namely, who prided themselves on a mere fleshly distinction made with hands. Why, in fact, does he say λεγομένης περιτομῆς, and why χειροποιήτου? There was no need to give the readers information on the name or the fact. The latter word is clearly depreciatory, “a merely external and artificial thing-” But he is far from depreciating circumcision, in its true significance, as the sign of membership of the commonwealth of the people of God. Hence the use of λεγομένης, which by its adjectival connexion with περιτομῆς gets the signification “so called.” This is readily explained from the apostle’s use of περιτομή elsewhere in a spiritual, as contrasted with a merely physical sense, as in Rom 2:28, Rom 2:29, “Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh … circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter.” Php 2:2, he calls the physical circumcision κατατομή, a term more contemptuous than χειροποιήτου here: adding in ver. 3, “We are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh”; and in Col 2:11, which is strikingly illustrative of the present passage, “in whom ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.” Soden thinks that χειροποιήτου here is superfluous, because there is no reference (as in Col.) to a spiritual circumcision, and ἐν σαρκί sufficiently emphasises the merely external character of the sign; and hence he thinks the word introduced out of imitation of Col 2:11. But it seems, on the contrary, to give emphasis and completeness to the thought, and would naturally occur to the writer who about the same time wrote ἀχειροποιήτου in Col.

Although “circumcision” is not used figuratively in the O.T., “uncircumcision” is. Even in Lev 26:41 we have “their uncircumcised heart.” Jeremiah speaks of the uncircumcised ear of those who will not hearken (6:10), and calls the house of Israel “uncircumcised in heart” (9:26). Comp. Eze 44:7, “uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh,” and Act 7:51.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_2:11-22

Analysis

In the preceding paragraph the apostle had set forth

l. The moral and spiritual condition of the Ephesians by nature.

2. The spiritual renovation and exaltation which they had experienced.

3. The design of God in this dispensation. In this paragraph he exhibits the corresponding change in their relations. In doing this he sets forth:

I. Their former relation

1st. To the church as foreigners and aliens.

2nd. To God as those who were far off, without any saving knowledge of him, or interest in his promises, Eph_2:11, Eph_2:12.

II. The means by which this alienation from God and the church had been removed, viz. by the blood of Christ. His death had a twofold effect.

1. By satisfying the demands of justice, it secured reconciliation with God.

2. By abolishing the law in the form of the Mosaic institutions, it removed the wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles. A twofold reconciliation was thus effected; the Jews and Gentiles are united in one body, and both are reconciled to God, Eph_2:13-18.

III. In consequence of this twofold reconciliation, the Ephesians were intimately united with God and his people. This idea is set forth under a threefold figure.

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, Eph_2:19-22.

The idea of the church which underlies this paragraph, is that which is every where presented in the New Testament. The church is the body of Christ. It consists of those in whom he dwells by his Spirit. To be alien from the church, therefore, is to be an alien from God. It is to be without Christ and without hope. The church of which this is said is not the nominal, external, visible church as such,. but the true people of God. As, however, the Scriptures always speak of men according to their profession, calling those who profess faith, believers, and those who confess Christ, Christians; so they speak of the visible church as the true church, and predicate of the former what is true only of the latter. The Gentiles while aliens from the church were without Christ, without God, and without hope; when amalgamated with the church they became the habitation of God through the Spirit. Such many of them truly were, such they all professed to be, and they are therefore addressed in that character. But union with the visible church no more made them real partakers of the Spirit of Christ, than the profession of faith made them living believers.

Commentary

Eph_2:11

Wherefore remember, i.e. since God has done such great things for you, call to mind your former condition, as a motive both for humility and gratitude. That ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, i.e. uncircumcised heathen. This gives in a word the description of their former state. All that follows, in this and the succeeding verse, is but amplification of this idea. The words in the flesh, do not mean origine carnali, natalibus, by birth; nor as to external condition, which would imply that spiritually, or as to their internal state, they were not heathen. The context shows that it refers to circumcision, which being a sign in the flesh, is designated with sufficient clearness by the expression in the text. As circumcision was a rite of divine appointment, and the seal of Gods covenant with his people, to be uncircumcised was a great misfortune. It showed that those in that condition were without God and without hope. The apostle therefore adds, as explanatory of the preceding phrase, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία, who are called Uncircumcision. This implied that they did not belong to the covenant people of God; and in the lips of the Jews it was expressive of a self-righteous abhorrence of the Gentiles as unclean and profane. This feeling on their part arose from their supposing that the mere outward rite of circumcision conveyed holiness and secured the favor of God. As the apostle knew that the circumcision of the flesh was in itself of no avail, and as he was far from sympathizing in the contemptuous feeling which the Jews entertained for the Gentiles, he tacitly reproves this spirit by designating the former as the so called circumcision in the flesh, made with hands. This is a description of the Israel κατὰ σάρκα, the external people of God, who were Jews outwardly, but who were destitute of the true circumcision which was of the heart. They were the concision, as the apostle elsewhere says, we are the circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, Phi_3:3. 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 subjective 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 with unholiness of heart and life. This doctrine the apostle everywhere repudiates and denounces as fatal. And therefore in this connection, while speaking of the real advantage of circumcision, and of the covenant union with God of which it was the seal, he was careful to indicate clearly that it was not the circumcision in the flesh, made with hands, which secured the blessings of which he speaks. Compare Rom_2:25-29; 1Co_7:19; Phi_3:3-6; Col_2:11.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Applying the former doctrine to the Gentiles, he showeth that they were not only as the Jews, by nature, but also after an especial sort, strangers and without God: and therefore they ought so much the rather remember that same so great a benefit of God.

Of the Jews which were known from you by the mark of circumcision, the mark of the covenant.

You were called no otherwise than Gentiles, that all the world might witness of your uncleanness.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 11. Wherefore remember] That ye may ever see and feel your obligations to live a pure and holy life, and be unfeignedly thankful to God for your salvation, remember that ye were once heathens in the flesh-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, to be in covenant with God) were called uncircumcision; i.e. persons out of the Divine covenant, and having no right or title to any blessing of God.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Wherefore remember, that ye be in time past Gentiles in the flesh,.... 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:

who are called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 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.

(u) Maimon. Hilchot Milah, c. 2. sect. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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;

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

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore remember - 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.

That ye being in time past - Formerly - (ποτε pote.)

Gentiles in the flesh - You were Gentiles “in the flesh,” i. e., under the dominion of the flesh, subject to the control of carnal appetites and pleasures.

Who are called Uncircumcision - 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; Jdg 15:18; 1Sa 14:6; 1Sa 17:26; 1Sa 31:4; Eze 31:18.

By that which is called the Circumcision - By those who are circumcised, i. e., by the Jews.

In the flesh made by hands - In contradistinction from the circumcision of the heart; see the notes at Rom 2:28-29. 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Be mindful that as for you, who are Gentiles, who were called an uncircumcised people by the circumcised Jews, that you were without Christ, without the hopes or expectation of the Messias, alienated from the conversation of those who were God’s elect people, and from the promises particularly made to them, that the Messias should be of their race: without God in this world, i.e. without the knowledge and the worship of God. But now by Christ, by believing in him, you who seemed to be far off, are made near by his blood, (ver. 13) by him who died for all; for he hath brought peace to all men, breaking down by his incarnation and death that wall of partition, that enmity betwixt the Jews and Gentiles, making them but one; abolishing that former law, of so many ordinances,[1] precepts, and ceremonies, by decrees, (which may signify by his divine decrees; or rather, as St. Jerome expounds it by the Greek, abolishing the old law and its precepts by the precepts and doctrine of the new law) that he might reconcile to God both the Jews and Gentiles, that now they might be one mystical body, to wit, the Church of Christ, of which he is the head. Remember then that you are no longer strangers and foreigners, as you wer when the Jews were the only elect people of God: now, by faith and hope, you are fellow-citizens with the saints and with all the elect people of God: you are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, (ver. 20) who, by their prophecies concerning the Messias, and by their teaching and preaching of the gospel, are as it were subordinate foundation-stones under Christ, the chief founder and the chief corner-stone of his Church; in whom you also (Christians, at Ephesus, and all the faithful) are built up together, (ver. 22) as parts of a spiritual edifice or temple, where God inhabits. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Legem mandatorum decretis evacuans, Greek: ton nomon ton entolon dogmasi (dogmatibus) katargesas; i.e. says St. Jerome, (p. 344) præcepta legalia Evangelicis dogmatibus commutavit. See St. John Chrysostom, p. 879. Lat. edit. in Savil. p. 787.

====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Wherefore remember - Such a remembrance strengthens faith, and increases gratitude. That ye being formerly gentiles in the flesh - Neither circumcised in body nor in spirit. Who were accordingly called the 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 which is performed by hands in the flesh.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

A special reminder to the Gentile Christians:

v. 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,

v. 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;

v. 13. but now in Christ Jesus ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

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.

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; Gen 15:18; Gen 17:8. 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.

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; Mat 4:17; Mat 10:7; Mar 1:15; Luk 10:9-11. 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.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our apostle doth two things in these two verses, namely,

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.

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

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.

2. To inflame our love to Jesus Christ: Mary loved much, when she remembered that much was forgiven her.

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.

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.

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.

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.

When they were unconverted Gentiles,

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

11–13. Wherefore remember. Remembrance of all that God had done would awake gratitude. The Uncircumcision. Gentiles were so called by the Jews, who were the Circumcision. In the flesh. There was a circumcision not in the flesh, not made with hands, but of the Spirit, and in the heart (Rom. 2:28, 29).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul reminds these believers that God has now made Gentiles and Jews into one body through Christ and his cross.

Gentiles in the flesh

This refers to people who were not born Jewish. (See: Metaphor)

uncircumcision

Non-Jewish people were not circumcised as babies and thus the Jews considered them people who do not follow any of God's laws. AT: "uncircumcised pagans" (See: Metonymy)

circumcision

This was another term for Jewish people because all male infants were circumcised. AT: "circumcised people" (See: Metonymy)

separated from Christ

"unbelievers"

what is called the "circumcision" in the flesh made by human hands

Possible meanings are 1) "Jews, who are circumcised by humans" or 2) "Jews, who circumcise the physical body."

by what is called

This can be translated with an active form. AT: "by what people call" or "by those whom people call" (See: Active or Passive)

strangers to the covenants of the promise

Paul speaks to the Gentile believers as if they had been foreigners, kept out of the land of God's covenant and promise. (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

Gentile

flesh

circumcise

circumcise

Christ

Israel

covenant

God

world

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

Uncircumcision - circumcision. Abstract for concrete terms, the uncircumcised and circumcised.

Which is called. Notice the irony, giving back the called of the circumcised.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.