11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man so making peace;
16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enemy thereby:
I 7. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
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, verses 11, 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, verses 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, verses 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
V. 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 e}qnh ejn sarki>, 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 God’s 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, oiJ lego>menoi ajkrobusti>a, 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 kata< sa>rka, 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, Philemon 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 Romans 2:25-29; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Philemon 3:3-6; Colossians 2:11.
V. 12. The sentence begun in verse 11 is here resumed. Remember, o[ti h+te tw|~ kairw|~ ejkei>nw| cwri<v Cristou~, that at that time ye were without Christ. This means more than that they were as heathen, destitute of the knowledge and expectation of the Messiah. As Christ is the only redeemer of men, and the only mediator between God and man, to be without Christ, was to be without redemption and without access to God. To possess Christ, to be in Him, is the sum of all blessedness; to be without Christ includes all evil.
What follows is a confirmation of what precedes. They were without Christ because aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. The idea of separation and estrangement is strongly expressed by the word
ajphllotriwme>noi. They stood as ajlloi, as others, distinguished as a separate class from the people of God. The word politei>a means — l. Citizenship.
2. The order or constitution of the state.
3. The community or state itself.
The last signification best suits the connection. ’Israh<l means the theocratical people; and politei>av tou~ ’Israh<l is that community or commonwealth which was Israel. This includes the other senses, for in being aliens from the community of God’s people, they were of course destitute of citizenship among them, and outside of the theocratical constitution.
And strangers from the covenants of promise, kai< xe>noi tw~n diaqhkw~n th~v ejpaggeli>av. The word covenant is in the plural because God entered repeatedly into covenant with his people. It is called a covenant of
promises, or rather of the promise, because the promise of redemption was connected therewith.
That the promise meant is that great promise of a redeemer made to Abraham, and so often afterwards repeated, is plain not only from the context, but from other passages of Scripture. “The promise made to the fathers,” says the apostle, in Acts 13:32, “hath God fulfilled in that he hath raised up Jesus.” Compare Romans 4:14-16; Galatians 3:16. As the heathen were not included in the covenant God made with his people, they had no interest in the promise, the execution of which that covenant
secured. Their condition was therefore most deplorable. They were without hope — ejlpi>da mh< e]contev kai<, not having hope. They had nothing to hope, because shut out of the covenant of promise. The promise of God is the only foundation of hope, and therefore those to whom there is no promise, have no hope. And having no hope of redemption, the great blessing promised, they were, in the widest sense of the word, hopeless.
They were moreover without God, a]qeoi. This may mean that they were atheists, in so far that they were destitute of the knowledge of the true God, and served those who by nature were no gods. Jehovah was not their God; they had no interest in him, they were without him. This includes the idea that they were forsaken of him — he had left them in the world. They stood outside of that community which belonged to God, who knew and worshipped him, to whom his promises were made, and in the midst of whom he dwelt. In every point, therefore, their condition as heathen afforded a melancholy contrast to that of the true people of God, and to that into which they had been introduced by the Gospel. Their alienation from the theocracy or church involved in it, or implied, a like alienation from God and his covenant.
V. 13. But now in Christ Jesus, i.e. in virtue of union with Christ; ujmei~v oi[
pote o]ntev makra<n ejgenh>qhte ejggu<v, ye who sometime were afar off, are made nigh. As under the old dispensation God dwelt in the temple, those living near his abode and having access to him, were his people.
Israel was near; the Gentiles were afar off. They lived at a distance, and had no liberty of access to the place where God revealed his prophets, as in Isaiah 49:1; 57:19, by those near are meant the Jews, and by those afar off the Gentiles. This form of expression passed over to the New
Testament writers. Acts 2:39, “The promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are far off;” Ephesians 2:17, “Preached peace to you that were far off and to them that were nigh.” Among the later Jews the act of receiving a proselyte, was called “making him nigh.”7 As being far from God included both separation from his people, and spiritual distance or alienation from himself; so to be brought nigh includes both introduction into the church and reconciliation with God. And these two ideas are clearly presented and intended by the apostle in this whole context. This twofold reconciliation is effected, ejn tw|~ ai[mati tou~
Cristou~, by the blood of Christ. This clause is explanatory of the words at the beginning of the verse. ‘In Christ Jesus, i.e. by the blood of Christ, ye are made nigh.’ Without shedding of blood there is no remission and no reconciliation of sinners with God. When Moses ratified the covenant between God and his people, “He took the blood of calves and of goats and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined unto you. It was necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Hebrews 9:19-23. As under the typical and ritual economy of the Old Testament the people were brought externally nigh to God, by the blood of calves and goats, through which temporal redemption was effected and the
theocratical covenant was ratified; so we are brought spiritually nigh to God by the blood of Christ who has obtained eternal redemption for us, being once offered to bear the sins of many, and to ratify by his death the covenant of God with all his people, whether Jews or Gentiles.
Vs. 14. 15. These verses contain a confirmation and illustration of what precedes. ‘Ye who were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For
he is our peace. He has effected the twofold reconciliation above referred to.’ This he has accomplished by abolishing the law. The law, however, is viewed in a twofold aspect in this connection. First, it was that original covenant of works, demanding perfect obedience, whose conditions must be satisfied in order to the reconciliation of men with God. Christ by being made under the law, Galatians 4:4, and fulfilling all righteousness, has redeemed those who were under the law. He delivered them from the obligation of fulfilling its demands as the condition of their justification before God. In this sense they are not under the law. Compare Romans 6:14; 7:4, 6; Galatians 5:18; Colossians 2:14. But secondly, as Christ abolished the law as a covenant of works by fulfilling its conditions, so he abolished the Mosaic law by fulfilling all its types and shadows. He was the end of the law in both these aspects and therefore, it ceased to bind the people of God in either of these forms. Of this doctrine the whole of the New Testament is full. The epistles especially are in large measure devoted to proving that believers are not under the law in either of these senses, but under grace. Thus it is that Christ is our peace. The abolition of the law as a covenant of works reconciles us to God; the abolition of the Mosaic law removes the wall between the Jews and Gentiles. This is what is here taught. By abolishing the law of commandments, i.e. the law in both its forms, the apostle says, Christ has, first, of the twain made one new man, verse 15; and secondly, he has reconciled both unto God in one body by the cross, verse 16.
Though the general sense of this passage is plain, there is no little diversity as to the details of the interpretation. The Greek is printed for the
convenience of the reader. Aujto<v ga>r ejstin hj eijrh>nh hjmw~n, oJ poih>sav ta< ajmfo>tera e{n kai< to< meso>toicon tou~ fragmou~ lu>sav, th<n
e]cqran ejn th|~ sarki< aujtou~, to<n no>mon tw~n ejntolw~n ejn do>gmasin katargh>sav Our translators, by assuming that e]cqran depends on katargh>sav and of course that no> moi. is in apposition with it, have in a great measure determined thereby the interpretation of the whole passage.
The words meso>toicon, e]cqran, and no>mon must all refer to the same thing. The sense would then be, ‘For he is our peace, having made the two one by having destroyed the middle wall of partition, that is, by having destroyed, by his flesh, the enmity, viz., the law of commandments with ordinances.’ The preferable construction is to make e]cqran dependent on
lu>sav. It is then in apposition with meso>toicon but not with no>mon; and katargh>sav to<n no>mon, instead of being a mere repetition of lu>sav to<
meso>toicon, is an independent clause explaining the manner in which the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles had been effected. The passage then means, ‘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.’ The reconciliation itself is expressed by saying, ‘He made the two one, having removed the wall or enmity between them.’ The mode in which this was done, is expressed by saying, ‘He abolished the law.’
In the phrase, meso>toicon tou~ fragmou~, middle wall of partition, the latter noun is explanatory of the former, i.e. fragmou~ is the genitive of apposition. The middle wall which consisted in the hedge, which separated the two parties. What that hedge was is immediately expressed by the word e]cqran. It was the enmity subsisting between them. ‘Having removed the middle wall, i.e. the enmity, or their mutual hatred.’ By enmity, therefore, is not to be understood the law, as the cause of this alienation, but the alienation itself; because in what follows the removal of the enmity and the abolition of the law are distinguished from each other, the latter being the means of accomplishing the former.
That e]cqran is to be connected with lu>sav and not, as our translation assumes, with katargh>sav, is argued first from the position of the words, which favors this construction; secondly, because the expression lu>ein e]cqran is common, and katargei~n e]cqran never occurs; and thirdly, because the sense demands this construction, inasmuch as the ambiguous phrase middle wall of partition thus receives its needed explanation. The apostle first states, what it was that divided the Jews and Gentiles, viz., their mutual hatred, and then how that hatred had been removed.
The words ejn th|~ sarki< aujtou~, are not to be connected with lu>sav.
That is, the apostle does not mean to say that Christ has removed the enmity between the Jews and Gentiles by his flesh. They are to be connected with the following participle (katargh>sav). “Having by his flesh, i.e. by his death, abolished the law.” This is the great truth which Paul had to teach. Christ by his death has freed us from the law. We are no