I. Rough translation and paraphrase of Ephesians 2:11-22

11) Wherefore remember that when you Gentiles in flesh being called uncircumcised by the ones called circumcised -- in flesh made by hands, 12) that you were at that time without Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers of the covenant of the promise having no hope and without God in the world. 13) But now in Christ Jesus you being far away have been brought near in the blood of Christ. 14) For He Himself is our peace, having made both one and having destroyed the dividing wall, that is the fence, of the enmity in His flesh, 15) nullifying the law of commandments in ordinances, so that the two create in Him into one new man making peace 16) and reconcile the both in one body to God through the cross having killed the enmity in himself. 17) And having come he has preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who are near; 18) that through him we both have access in one spirit to the father. 19) So then you are no longer strangers and aliens but you are fellow citizens, holy members of the household of God, 20) being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner, 21) in whom the whole building being joined together grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22) in whom you also being built together into a dwelling place of God in spirit.

Now never forget about the time when you were called "uncircumcised" by the Jews who are circumcised, although it was only a circumcision done by human hands and not by God’s hands. Back in those days you didn’t even know who Christ was, and you were completely separate from the citizens of Israel -- having no part of the promises given to them by God Himself. You were totally hopeless due to the fact that you were without God in this world. The good news for you today is that even though you were once separate from those promises you have now been bonded together with Christ through his death by the shedding of his blood. There is now peace between you and the Jews because you are now one body in the eyes of Christ. This is due to the fact that Christ got rid of that wall, so to speak, that separated the two groups -- the wall that the Mosaic law created causing the Jews to think better of themselves than they should have. Christ did away with that wall which separated the two by dying on the cross and nullifying that law. He has now come and preached peace to you who were far away from Him and peace to those who were not so far away from Him. He did this so that we could all, in one spirit, have access to God our father. This being the case, you are no longer considered strangers and aliens but instead you are considered to be fellow citizens, brothers and sisters if you will, of the one family of God. This house is built upon the teachings of the men who walked with Christ and those to whom He gave the gift of prophecy to speak in His name -- they speak His words. Christ, since He is one who inspired these men, is the link that holds the house’s foundation together and the final stone to be placed on the top of the building once it is completed. This building is being built daily, and as it grows it becomes a holy temple giving glory to God. This is the very house you belong to as well, creating a dwelling place for God to live -- bringing glory to His name.

II. Exegetical Central Idea -- The Gentiles are counted together with the Jews as one, there is peace between the two following Christ’s death, and He is the foundation upon which they grow.

III. EXEGETICAL OUTLINE OF EPHESIANS 2:11-22

1. The Gentiles, who were uncircumcised, were at one time separated from the Jews who were circumcised; this separation from the Jews caused them wander helplessly, for they were without God (11-12).
1. The Gentiles were to remember they were once called uncircumcised by the circumcised, but only by those who were circumcised in the flesh (2:11).

1. Those circumcised "in the flesh, by human hands" are the Jews. These Jews were separate from Gentiles, and the law given to them by God was the cause of this separation (11a).
2. Being circumcised "in the flesh, by human hands" is in contrast to being circumcised in the heart by Christ (11b).

1. The Gentiles were at one time separate from Christ and the promises made to Israel; they were hopeless and without God (2:12).

1. The Gentiles are now one with the Jews because of Christ’s work on the cross; that work brought down the wall of separation between the two groups bringing their hostility to an end and bringing the Gentiles, who were once displaced, home (13-19).
1. The Gentiles, though once separated, are now united to these promises by the blood of Christ (2:13).
2. There is peace between Gentiles and Jews because of Christ’s destroying of the wall that separated the two (2:14-16a).

1. This wall was destroyed through Christ’s flesh (His death), and it took away the requirements of the Law, thus bringing together what was once two (Jews & Gentiles) into one (2:15).
2. Both groups are now reconciled as one man to God through the cross (death) of Christ (2:16a).

1. The hostility that once existed between the two groups of people has now ended (2:16b).
2. Christ has preached peace to both Jew and Gentile (2:17).

1. Peace was preached to those far away and those who were near (2:17).
2. Both groups now have access as one Spirit to God (2:18).
3. The Gentiles, who were once lost, are now found and part of God’s household (2:19).

1. The house of God is a house which encompasses both Jew and Gentile, built upon the foundation of God’s Word spoken through prophets and apostles, but held together through one main stone, or cornerstone -- Christ Jesus (20-22).
1. The household of God is built upon a firm foundation of prophets and apostles (2:20a).

1. The foundation of the prophets was a foundation of God’s spoken word from the mouth of God Himself and preached to the people through the mouths of the prophets.
2. The firm foundation of the apostles is the foundation of the testimony of Christ Himself, His life, His death, and His resurrection.

1. Christ Jesus is the main part of that foundation and structure upon which all is built (2:20b).
2. Christ Jesus holds the entire structure together and causes it (as one) to grow into a structure that brings glory to God the Father (21)
3. The Gentiles are also included in that structure and are a part of where God dwells in Spirit (22).

In the opening chapter of Ephesians Paul praises God for His choosing of the saints in Christ Jesus. He tells of God’s reason for doing so, namely, to bring glory to His name. Paul speaks of two groups of people who have been chosen in Christ: Jews and Gentiles. He speaks first from the standpoint of a Jew (which he was), and tells of how they have been redeemed, given the mystery of His will, and are to bring glory to His name. He includes in verse 13 the Gentiles and how they too have been chosen by God to bring glory to Him. They heard the word of truth, believed, and were marked with the seal of the Holy Spirit which is a deposit guaranteeing their inheritance of eternal life with Jesus Christ. Paul is thrilled with what God has done and continually thanks Him for His mercy. Paul’s desire is that God will pour out His gifts to the Gentiles so that they may know Him on a more deeper level and have greater fellowship with Him.

In the first part of chapter two Paul reminds the Gentiles of how they used to live and who used to rule over them, namely, the prince of the power of the air (Satan). They were at one time living according to the desires of their flesh and were God’s object of wrath. God took what was dead and made it alive in Christ -- all for His own glory -- and He did so for the purpose of the Gentiles doing good works (2:10). Paul’s point in this opening section is to show the Gentiles all that they have and to show them that it is only by God’s grace that they (and him too) even exist at all. He then goes into a section in Scripture which is meant to enlighten and remind all readers of their place in the body of Christ and the unity which is to be found in Christ Jesus who is the head over all things.

11 The verse begins with the inferential conjunction Dio; which is used to give a deduction, conclusion, or summary to the preceding discussion (Wallace, p. 673). A careful observation of the context here shows that Paul is making a point that grace is what has saved the Gentiles, and they should never forget where they came from lest they too create a wall around themselves. He continues by using the imperative mnhmoneuvete (remember) which calls for the readers to reflect back on where they came from and who they were before Christ saved them.

Those circumcised "in the flesh, by human hands" are the Jews. These Jews were separate from Gentiles, and the Law given to them by God was the cause of this separation. It is important to note that the law itself was not the problem -- it was what the law created that became the problem. It had created a metaphorical wall around the Jews, thus, separating them from the Gentiles (see appendix 4a). They saw themselves as God’s chosen people and instead of being a beacon of light to the Gentiles with what God had given them they instead "hid their light under a bushel" so to speak, and withdrew unto themselves.

Being circumcised "in the flesh, by human hands" is in contrast to being circumcised in the heart by Christ. The Jews were merely a race of people who associated themselves with the Almighty God through the act of circumcision. This act, as was Paul’s point, was something which was only xeiropoihvtou ("made by hands"; see appendix 3a). The contrast is clearly seen in Colossians 2:11 where a circumcision "made without hands" is the act of God and not mere human hands.

12 The o{ti here, acting as a conjunction of result, picks up the train of thought in the previous verse that had been interrupted in the description of the readers. What Paul is trying to do here is to cause the Gentile Christians to see how pathetic they once were before they trusted Christ. By telling them they were "apart from Christ" Paul tells them how hopeless and destitute they once were. This admonishment by Paul is designed to enlighten them once again to the joy of their salvation. No doubt he expected them to come to the true realization of what they had been given when Christ saved them.

"At that time" reflects back to the description of the Gentiles before they knew Christ. xwris xristou is to be taken predicatively, not adverbially, in which case it would be in connection with "at that time" causing the translation of the passage to say, "remember that you were at that time when you were apart from Christ separated..." As Lincoln has said, "It would be a striking thought for Gentile Christians to have to entertain that having been apart from Christ can be set in parallel to having been separated from Israel" (Lincoln, p. 136). A national hope is not what is to be recognized with the new association with Christ but rather a personal relationship with the risen Lord.

The Gentiles were also ajphllotriwmevnoi th`" politeiva tou` jIsrahl. They were spiritually separated from the Jews. There were no moral differences between the two races, but there were differences in the way God dealt with them. The Gentiles had no messianic hope and no share in the commonwealth of Israel, which is to say they could not be true citizens (see appendix 3b). The nation of Israel had been set up as a theocracy where God was the one true King and Lord, and He gave that nation His special blessing and love. Furthermore, the Gentiles experienced separation due to the fact that there was no covenant between them and God like the Israelites had (Abrahamic, Davidic, etc.); they were hopeless and Godless. This is strong language used by Paul in order to remind the Gentiles how blessed they now are. No wonder Paul made such strong statements about salvation not coming through works (Eph. 2:8-10). The world itself for the Gentiles, though transient, had no order and no interpreter; it was an unsolved enigma (Westcott, p. 35-36).

13 This verse begins with the contrastive conjunction dej which suggests a contrast of opposing thought to the idea to which it is connected (Wallace, p. 671); "But now" as opposed to "at one time" is now the thought. After telling the Gentiles how far away they once were, Paul predictably changes directions in order that he might tell them how they are now united to Christ regardless of how godless they once were. The desperate need of the Gentiles has now been met -- not in a messianic hope, but in the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ. All the promises to Israel are fulfilled in Christ and in Him made available to all men (Mitton, p. 104). They ejgenhvqhte ejggus ("have been brought near") which is to say they are now in the family of God, adopted as sons and daughters who have no say; chosen by grace. They are reconciled to God and to all others who share in the same reconciliation (Mitton, p. 104), but are not one and the same people. They are still distinct but are now all a part of the same family. Their mutual faith with the Jewish Christians (true Jews) binds them together. The way in which they are bound is ejn tw`/ ai{mati tou` xristou ("in the blood of Christ"). Christ’s sacrificial death is the means by which the two groups have come together. The blood He shed on the cross makes atonement for sin thereby bringing that which was separated into a perfect union.

14 Paul begins this verse with an explanatory conjunction (gavr) which is used to give additional information about what is being described (Wallace, p. 673). What he is attempting to describe is how Christ actually brought both groups together and made them one. What Jesus is is peace (eijrhvnh), but how He made peace was not through a peaceful treaty. He died a horrific and violent death on a cross in order to bring about peace. This one act made both groups (ta ajmfovtera) into one. There were only two groups, and they represent the only two groups of people on the earth today: Jews and Gentiles. What did His death accomplish? Jesus to mesovtoicon tou` fragmou` luvsa ("destroyed the wall of separation") that the God-given law had built up (see appendix 4a). There was strife between both groups, but the wall that separated the two came down when Christ died, taking on that enmity in His flesh (thn ecqran ejn th`/ sarki aujtou).

15 This wall was destroyed through Christ’s flesh (His death), and it took away the requirements of the Mosaic law, thus bringing together what was once two into one. This verse indicates that the ordinances given by Christ might supersede the OT law and commandments. The problem here is that in none of Paul’s other letters does he promote this. The context does not allow for this because 2:15 reveals that for Paul the death of Christ rather than the promulgation of new decrees stood behind the abolition of the divisive statutes (Barth, p. 1:264-65). Jesus brought the old Mosaic law to an end by fulfilling it. In this sense he "abolished" the law (see appendix 3c). The obedience to the law was not something that brought a man into perfect fellowship with God as indicated by the Pharisees in the NT (Mitton, p. 107). Jesus provided the means by which a person could have perfect fellowship with God by living, dying, and being resurrected from the dead. He showed the old law to be inadequate, and he provided a substitute for it.

16 Both groups are now reconciled as one man to God through the cross (death) of Christ (2:16a). The coordinating conjunction, or connective conjunction kai (and, even, also), simply connects an additional element to a discussion, or adds an additional idea to the train of thought (Wallace, p. 671). The kai; in this case is quite pivotal because Paul introduces a new thought. Up to this point he has been speaking of the peace between Jew and Gentile, but now he is speaking of the peace that exists between both groups and God. He even says that there was thn exqran (enmity), between them and God, something most, if not all, had not considered. In God’s mind this enmity was hostility; in the minds of those who were separate from Him they just did not know Him. The phrase ajpokteivna thn exqran ejn aujtw ("having put the hostility to death in Himself") stands as a parallel to "having abolished the hostility in his fleash" in verse 15. So Paul is enlightening the readers by once again reminding them of their former state when they knew not Christ.

The phrase ejn eJni swvmati ("in one body") emphasizes their corporate obedience to God and their sense of oneness with one another in God’s purpose (Mitton, p. 108). Furthermore, it was dia; tou` staurou ("through the cross") and not just through any other means, that their peace was attained. No other form of reconciliation could have made peace and brought both groups to God. Paul writes of this often in the NT associating reconciliation to the cross (Romans 5:6-11; 2 Cor. 5:17-21; Col. 1:21-22). The cross causes one to become aware of the evil that separates man from God. In turn he mourns over his sin and what he has done causing him to repent and become eager to be forgiven (cf. Matthew 5:4).

17 The kai here links this verse with verse 14 as it works as a connective conjunction. There is a textual problem, however, in this passage with the second occurance of "peace" in that it has been omitted from some late manuscripts (see appendix 1a). The addition of the word is part of the original, however, as it adds significantly to the force of the argument.

The proclaimed peace preached by Christ is the overwhelming alternative to the hostile name-calling back in verse 11. Christ preached peace publically which is essential to the peace process because it makes it real (Barth, p. 1:266). Those who were far, in this case, were the Gentiles, but this reference as it is used in Isaiah 57:19 concerning those far and near dealt with the Jews who were in their own land as opposed to those who remained in exile. The issue here is that Christ did not preach to Gentiles predominately, rather, He preached to Jews. The preaching of this peace must refer to the apostles and prophets rather than Christ Himself (Matthew 10:5-6; 15:24-27). The peace that was actually preached was on the basis of Christ’s death as opposed to during His life on the earth, hence, "through the cross" in verse 16. Christ’s work on the cross was at the end of His life even though He came back from the dead. Consequently, it was the apostles and prophets who preached this peace and laid the foundation (v. 20) upon which Christ is building.

18 Both groups now have access as one Spirit to God. "For" introduces this statement as one which provides the grounds for the assertion of the previous verse that Christ has proclaimed peace to the far off and to the near (Lincoln, p. 149). The good news that was preached to the Jews is the same good news now being preached to the Gentiles. Consequently neither group is any more enlightened than the other. They both have thn prosagwghn ("access"). This word is used later in Ephesians in 3:12, and in all three instances of its usage in the NT "it is best taken with the intransitive sense of "access" rather than with the transitive sense of "introduction" (Lincoln, p. 149). To have access is to, as the writer of Hebrews proclaims in 4:16, be able to come boldly before the very throne of God and to come at any time. To do so ejn eJni pneuvmati ("in one spirit") is to be of one community with the common goal of spreading the good news and asking for anything in the name of Christ. The community is now one body, and it is activated by one Spirit. They are children, so to speak, and God is the Father; they all have access to their Father as one person.

19 The Gentiles, who were once lost, are now found and part of God’s household (2:19). Ara ou\n ("so then") is the phrase used by Paul in order to sum up his main point. The Gentiles, when they accept the faith, become sumpoli`tai tw`n aJgivwn, fellow-citizens of the saints who, as Christians, are citizens of the Kingdom of God (BAGD). They were foreigners living outside the community, and if they were able to live among the Jews, which some did, they were unable to attain citizenship with all the rights and privileges which that afforded. Now however, they are not only fellow citizens but also members of God’s household. They not only live among God’s chosen they are now part of them forming one body with Christ as the head (1:22).

It is important to note, as Hoehner has suggested, that this verse does not suggest that the church inherits the blessings belonging to Israel. First, Paul’s point is that Gentiles are incorporated into the one new "humanity," not that the Gentiles are incorporated into Israel. Second, Paul specifically stated that Gentiles are incorporated "with God’s people" and are "in God’s household"; he did not use the word "Israel." If he meant this he would have named both groups as he did in verse 11. Third, Paul explained that this new humanity was built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets in verse 20, and this began on the Day of Pentecost, not in the Old Testament (Bible Knowledge Commentary, p. 627).

20 The foundation of the apostles and prophets was a foundation of God’s spoken word from the mouth of God Himself and preached to the people through the mouths of the prophets. These apostles and prophets are NT apostles and prophets (see appendix 4b). This verse pictures the church as a structure built upon a foundation. Just as a literal building is constructed so the church of Jesus Christ is built, but in a metaphorical sense. Paul is showing that these people had the divine authority to found and instruct the Church. Furthermore, it was the apostles who were inspired in their writings, the products of which we call Scripture today.

The firm foundation of the apostles is the foundation of the testimony of Christ Himself, His life, His death, and His resurrection. Though there are at least two possible translations for this word ajkrogwniaivou ("at an extreme angle"), those being "capstone" or "cornerstone," the best way in which to render this phrase is to take both meanings (see appendix 4c). Christ is the foundation stone on which the entire church is built, but he is also the capstone which is the stone laid at the top of an arch. He is the head of the church, and He is the foundation of the church. He is the beginning and the end, alpha and omega.

21 There is a textual difficulty here regarding pa`sa oijkodomh as opposed to pa`sa h oijkodomh (see appendix 1b), but this does not mean that the writer now has in view every building in the sense of every local congregation (Lincoln, p. 156). The insertion of the definite article, though it brings clarity to what Dibelius believes was a careless mistake by the scribe, is not necessary, and the earliest most reliable witnesses do not contain it (Barth, p. 1:115). When taken literally pa`sa oijkodomh, meaning "every structure," must be taken in context of buildings and brick and mortar. In other words, it means "every separate part of the building." Today that would equate to every local congregation of believing churches which are part of the universal church of Christ. This universal church is composed of many congregations which are based upon the teachings of the apostles and prophets and aligned in all they do and stand for to Jesus Christ who was the starting point from whom it all began (Minton, p. 115). The goal of this church is to become a naon a{gion ejn kurivw ("holy temple in the Lord"). For the Jew that temple was the Temple in Jerusalem where he went to make atonement for his sins and worship God in His holiness. For the Christian, however, the holy Temple is the church, which is the body of Christ. This is not a building xeiropoihvtou ("made by hands"), rather, it is what God has made, and it is the community of Christians that has replaced the Temple in Jerusalem.

22 Up to this point Paul has been using the metaphor of a building using bricks and mortar to describe the body of believers. This ceases in verse 21 when he says "you also are built into it." This could have a twofold meaning. According to Minton either this means that each individual becomes an integral part of this structure or else each separate congregation is an intrinsic element in the Church as a whole. Wherever this spiritual temple is to be found there is a dwelling place of God (katoikhthvrion tou` qeou). He dwells there ejn pneuvmati ("in Spirit"), for that is how men know of His presence in their own lives. First Corinthians 3:16 says that the Holy Spirit is "God with us," and here the word "Spirit" may indicate something of the unrestricted freedom of God’s presence in His Church as compared with the localization of God in the Temple at Jerusalem (Minton, p. 117).

In sum, Ephesians 2:11-22 is aboout Paul telling the Gentiles about their new life in Christ. He reminds them of where they once were and where they now are due to the work of Christ. That new life means that they are now one with the Jews with regard to being citizens and inheriting the promises and blessings of God. In addition they are built upon a firm foundation of teaching that comes directly from Christ Himself. They, along with the Jewish Christians, are one in Christ and live in the house of God -- their bodies being the spiritual temples of God in which He dwells.

1. As believers in Jesus Christ today we are all too often smug about the salvation we have received in Christ. This passage should remind us that we too were separate from Christ, and His grace upon us is no less than it was to the Ephesians. We must always remember where we were without Christ (regardless of when we trusted Him) and not forget that His saving power was not something we did, rather, it is by grace. That grace, if taken properly, is not something to be taken for granted or something that we should be smug about.
1. Since we are part of the many bricks that make up the metaphorical building of Christ we must remain strong. Our place within the body, if it breaks down, causes the entire structure to suffer. We are one in Christ, and if our brothers and sisters, whom we are one with, are acting according to God’s promises then we too must act properly in order that our "oneness" is not jeopardized. We must all look the same and work together as one if we in fact are one.

Ephesians 2:17 in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, fourth edition (UBSGNT4), reads, "kai\ e)lqw\n eu)hggeli/sato ei)rh/nhn u(min toi$ makra\n kai\ ei)rh/nhn toi$ e)ggu/$..."). The problem here is the omission of the second ei)rh/nhn (peace) which does not appear in some manuscripts (MSS) but is included in UBSGNT4.

The major witness for the omission is the Byzantine text (9th-16th century). In support of the text itself is the Alexandrian text, all Latin MSS, P46 (2nd century), and A & B (4th century). As for the Western text-type D, F, and G (6th-9th centuries) support the UBSGNT4. These MSS are of sound quality and reliability. As for geographical distribution there is a great deal of evidence supporting the text in that it is found in a more widespread area than the omission. Regarding genealogical solidarity, the most solid readings, such as P46 & Aleph/B, and their agreement with each other and the Western text-type, attest to the solidarity of the text. Given the evidence for the inclusion of "peace" the certainty rating in this instance would be a "B."

The likelihood of an unintentional error by a scribe creeping into the text is quite strong. In this instance the omission could have occurred through a short mental lapse while listening to the chief scribe read the manuscript out loud (phonetic confusion). It would be easy to do so in this instance because peace would have already been the issue, and the scribe might not have heard it the second time. As for an intentional error by the scribe this does seem likely. It is possible that the scribe was falling behind during the public reading and was making an effort to cut a corner in order to catch up. The intrinsic probability of the additional "peace" in the text is high in this instance. For Paul to use "peace" twice in the same sentence here would make his point much more strong. However, the intrinsic probability of Paul not actually using the second "peace" is also high. Since he did not actually say "Jew" or "Gentile" in this instance but rather used "those who are near" and "those who are far" he might not have felt the need to stress a second "peace." The overall internal evidence receives a rating of "C."

Based on both external and internal evidences, I would choose the reading which includes the second "peace." I think that though the internal evidence is strong for such a reading, the external evidence is clear. Overall, this choice for the UBSGNT4 insertion of the second "peace" receives a "B" rating.

 APPENDIX 1b -- A TEXTUAL PROBLEM IN EPHESIANS 2:21

Ephesians 2:21 in the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, fourth edition, (UBSGNT4), reads, "e)n w!| pa=sa oi)kodomh\ sunarmologoume/nh au&cei ei)$ nao\n a%gion e)n kuri/w|. In later manuscripts the definite article (h{) is inserted in front of oi)kodomh, and this is found in the apparatus of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, twenty-seventh edition.

The witnesses for each reading are as follows: for pa=sa h{ oi)kodomh – A C P 6. 81. 326. 1739. 1881. pc. For pa=sa oi)kodomh – a B D F G y 33. 1739. M. Though the former readings lie generally in the Alexandrian text-type their dates are much later than the most reliable witnesses of the same Alexandrian text-type. In addition, some very important Western text-type MSS dating back to the sixth and ninth centuries also support the earlier rendering of the passage.

As for geographical distribution the earlier reading has a wide distribution of early witnesses in MSS such as Aleph and B (4th century), three very important Western MSS, D, F, G (6th-9th century). Also in favor of the reading in the text is the Byzantine text-type (4th century?). As for genealogical solidarity, the early Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine texts support the omission of h{. In sum, the external evidence is convincing enough to rate this rendering a "B."

All letters of sight and hearing are frequent with one letter changes, and it is quite possible that an unintentional change may have occurred through the process of copying the MS. The scribe might have been writing late at night or he may have been working all day up to this point and lost his place without ever having known it. As for the scribe making an intentional change in the text, it has been suggested that adding h{ might have been a tactic in order to bring about clarification. Contextually the article does not appear to be needed given that the "oneness" of Jews and Gentiles has already been established at this point in the reading. The overall internal evidence in this instance receives a "C" rating.

In conclusion, the evidence, both internal and external, seems to favor the earlier reading. The h{ is not found in the earliest and most reliable – and widespread MSS. In this case the reading of the text (UBSGNT4) must receive a "B" rating because the evidence, both internal and external, appears to be quite strong. There is no theological problem with either reading.

In Ephesians 2:11-12 Paul says, "Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision,’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands (Xeiropoihtos) – remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." The word "Xeiropoihtos" is the word under study here. It is actually a compound word comprised of two different words – xeir, which means "hand" and poiew, which means "to do or make." Put together this word means "made by hand," and all English translations render it this way. In this context found in Ephesians 2:11 the word is describing the way all Jews were circumcised – by hand. This is pitted against the circumcision of the heart which is done by God alone.

Apart from the biblical text the word is used in the travel letter of P Lond (Greek Papyri in British Museum) 854:4 (i/ii century AD), and it denotes people visiting works of art "made by human hands" on the banks of the Nile. In the LXX the word denotes idols and/or gods which are not divine but are rather made by human hands. The implication being how can idols/gods made with human hands have any divinity at all given that they were crafted by man who is sinful and errant? That which is made by human hands is obviously not made by God’s hands.

The word is used five times in the NT apart from Paul (Mark 14:58; Acts 7:48; 17:24; Hebrews 9:11; 9:24). All uses of the word in these contexts deals with the physical act of making something (in these cases temples) by hand. As opposed to the extrabiblical usage, which predominately denotes gods made by hands, these usages deal with temples and a synagogue made by hands. The biblical passages use the term as if to use the stark contrast of something which was divine -- created by God -- not just mere human hands.

Apart from Ephesians 2:11 Paul never uses this word. Paul uses this word only one time in his writings (unless the epistle to the Hebrews can be attributed to Paul). He uses in 2:11 to denote the act of circumcision -- the circumcision of the Jews as opposed to the Gentiles who are not circumcised. He makes his point by using the word, very much like the other NT writers who used the word, to show how the Jews’ circumcision is nothing more than an act made by human hands. The implication being that God Himself did not do it. Only the true circumcision of the heart, which only God can perform, appears to be in view here as opposed to the physical act that men perform.

Xeiropoihtos means "made by hand." Each use for Xeiropoihtos refers to a temple, or more basically, to a house which would be made by a carpenter, hence, made by hands. The word is used exclusively in the New Testament this way and in five out of the six references always refers to God or Christ. The single exception is found in Ephesians 2:11, but even here the implication is that instead of something being made by God’s hands and ordained by Him it was made with human hands – Xeiropoihtos.

In Ephesians 2:12 Paul says, "remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth [politei/a$]of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world." The word under study here is politei/a$, translated "commonwealth" in the NASB and KJV and "citizenship" in the NIV. Strong defines this word as citizenship or a community while Vine defines it as "the relation in which a citizen stands to the state, or the condition of a citizen" (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words). In the ablative case this is an old word, meaning "to be a citizen" (Phil. 1:27). Only twice in the New Testament, here as commonwealth (the spiritual Israel or Kingdom of God) and Acts 22:28 as citizenship. In this instance the word could mean, as it means in Acts 22:28 "the right of citizenship," but it is more likely that it is referring to a government or state. In this instance Israel is being viewed as a theocratic nation. Politei/a$ then is a term used to describe the relationship of the Gentile to the Jewish nation. The Jews had God’s covenants (Abrahamic, etc.) while the Gentiles did not. This term either designates the Gentiles as people who are just members of the Jewish community, or more likely, people who are a part of God’s promises to His chosen nation Israel.

Outside of the Bible politei/a$ is used in the context of protest with regard to certain privileges enjoyed by the Antinoites which included immunity of public burdens outside of their city (Grenfell & Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri I-XVII, 1898-1927). Wilcken cites the following from Egypt: upedecameqa para sou uper ths shs politeias ["we have received from you...citizenship"] (Chrest.I. i. Page 78). In addition, Gnomen 47 (circa A.D. 150) quotes from an Egyptian source concerning a woman who is a citizen who marries a man not a citizen; this goes on to say that their children will be considered citizens. The religious sense which the word acquired is well seen in the Christian letter P Heid 6:8 (4th century A.D.). Josephus uses the term liberally, and for him the reference is to such things as pertain to constitution and civil rights. Philo, on the other hand goes back and forth with his usage of the term; sometimes literal but mostly spiritualization. He has no concept of the dignity of the state or of political action, and he would like to see philosophers as rulers (TDNT, p. 908).

Overall this word in extrabiblical papyri means citizen’s rights, life of a citizen, his part in the life of the state, the condition or way of life of citizenship, and also civil policy, constitution, and the state (NIDNTT, pp. 801-2).

The word politei/a$ is used only one other time in the New Testament apart from Paul. In Acts 22:28 it is used with regard to citizenship: "And the commander answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship with a large sum of money.’ And Paul said, ‘But I was actually born a citizen.’" Here Paul is appealing to his Roman citizenship to avoid examination by scourging.

Paul uses politei/a$ only one time in his writings (Ephesians 2:12). In this instance it means the privileged position of Israel in salvation history, to which Gentile Christians now have access by faith in Jesus Christ. Once excluded, believers now belong, not to the Jewish state, but to the people of God. Having access to God, they share spiritual citizenship with the saints as members of God’s household (2:19) (TDNT, p. 909).

The Gentiles were spiritually alienated because they were excluded from the commonwealth of Israel. The chosen nation of Israel was made by God into a theocracy complete with His covenants. He was King over this nation. He have this nation His special blessing, protection and love; He gave them His law, His priesthood, His promises, and His guidance. Now the Gentiles were included in "the commonwealth" of Israel and were one with the Jewish people.

All the way from ancient extrabiblical papyri to its usage in the New Testament politei/a$ basically means "citizenship." At times it denotes individual citizenship, and at other times as part of a state or body of politic. It also denotes a way of life (BAGD, p. 686). To paraphrase the passage at hand, "Be sure to remember that at one time you were not a part of God’s chosen people in Israel, but now you have become so, being one with God’s chosen and citizens along with the Jews."

In Ephesians 2:15 Paul speaks of the wall that has been broken down which once separated the Jews from the Gentiles when he says, "by abolishing (katargh/sa$) in His flesh the enmity, {which is} the Law of commandments {contained} in ordinances, that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, {thus} establishing peace,..." Katargh/sa$ in this instance is acting as an aorist adverbial participle of means showing the Ephesians how Jesus tore down that wall. Its meaning according to Strong is to render useless, literally or figuratively; according to Robertson it means to make null and void (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament); and according to Vine it means "to reduce to inactivity" (kata, "down," argos, "inactive"). It is translated "abolish" in Ephesians 2:15 and in 2 Timothy 1:10; in the RV the only time it is "abolish" is in 1 Corinthians 15:24,26. It is rendered "is abolished" in the KJV of 2 Corinthians 3:13, the RV corrects to "was passing away" (marg., "was being done away"). In this and similar words not loss of being is implied, but loss of well being (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words).

In a first century manuscript (A.D. 49-50) this word is found meaning "to hinder" ("hinders me in my handicraft") (Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri I-XVII, 1898-1927). Somewhat frequently the word means to "render idle or inactive" (Gvitelli and Dcomparetti, Papyri Fiorentini I-III, 1906-15 -- A.D. 256). W.H.D. Rouse writes in April of 1908 that it means to "darken" which modifies "late," concluding that the word might have gotten its sense of association with night -- when no man can work. The word only appears in the LXX in 2 Esdras 4:21,23; 5:5; 6:8 where it signifies hindering or interrupting the rebuilding of the temple. In sum this word, outside of the NT, means to render inactive, put out of use, cancel, bring to nothing, do away with.

Used 27 times in the NT, and assuming that Paul did not write Hebrews, it is only used twice outside of Pauline writings. One instance is in a parable, and all other instances are theological. The two instances outside of Paul are found in Luke 13:7 and Hebrews 2:14. In Luke 13:7 it means "to condemn to inactivity." In Hebrews 2:14 the KJV and NIV render this word "destroy," but the NAS "render powerless." In either case the writer gives the distinct impression that destroying is the underlying theme whether it be the devil, as in Hebrews or a worthless fig tree in Luke.

Paul uses the word primarily to express, 1) God’s putting out of action through the cross and the coming of Christ the destructive powers which threaten man’s spiritual well-being,

2) God’s removing and displacing what is transient to make way for better and abiding things,

3) Man’s attempts, witting or unwitting, to contradict and cancel those principles and powers of divine working which bring salvation (NIDNTT, p. 73). Compared with other authors within the Bible and outside the Bible Paul uses the term quite similarly. The KJV translates katargh/sa$ seventeen different ways and the RV 13. The basic meaning behind these uses is to render something inoperative.

In Ephesians 2:15 Paul is using katargh/sa$ to mean "to nullify the things that actually exist." In this instance it is to make the Law invalid. Paul is making the case that Christ died on the cross and by doing so He abolished the Law "in His flesh" and made it null and void. This verse is a clear indicator of nullification when one cross-references Romans 3:31 when Paul asks, "Do we then nullify [katargh/sa$] the Law?" The context further confirms this usage because Christ would have had to abolish the Law in order to bring down the wall that existed (literally and figuratively) between the Jews and Gentiles.

All the New Testament writers used the term katargh/sa$ in much the same way -- to nullify. In addition, its usage in extrabiblical papyri support the fact that its basic meaning is to nullify, abolish, and destroy. Even the usage, though rare, in the LXX supports this same usage. In sum, katargh/sa$ means exactly what the evidence has shown it to mean, namely, to nullify or abolish.

In Ephesians 2:14 there is an interpretation problem with Au)to\$ ga/r e)stin h( ei)rh/nh h(mw=n, o( poih/sa$ ta\ a)mfo/tera e^n kai\ to\ meso/toixon tou= fragmou= lu/sa$, ("For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation,…"). The question here is what is the fence between the Jews and the Gentiles? The issues here are both theological and exegetical. Is it the literal wall inside the Temple where no Gentile could cross or is it the metaphorical wall that the Mosaic law had built around the Jews? The removal of the "wall" apparently removes the enmity that existed between Jews and Gentiles. The exegetical issues deal with the placement of the participles and whether or not the Law itself is the enmity or did it just cause the enmity.

The dividing wall was the stone wall set up in the Temple where the Gentiles were forbidden to go (Josephus in Antiquities 8, 3, 2). A.T. Robertson says, " In the temple courts a partition wall divided the court of the Gentiles from the court of Israel with an inscription forbidding a Gentile from going further. Thus, this view says that the wall was literal, and Christ came to destroy that wall. The problem here is that Christ was not around when the actual wall was destroyed in AD 70 by Titus. If it is literal then the wall would have had to have been torn down following his resurrection – and there is no evidence that it was.

The dividing wall, or fence, is a reference to the Law (Lincoln, p. 141). Lincoln says, "If ‘having broken down the dividing wall, the fence’ is paralleled by ‘having abolished…the hostility, the law…,’ then it seems more likely that the fence is a reference to the law." Furthermore, the inscription for the word "fence" in Ephesians 2:14 is different from the word used by Josephus – giving credence to the metaphorical use of the word. Christ came to bring that barrier down that the Law had created. Mitton (Ephesians, pp. 105-109) says that the word here is used metaphorically of an attitude of mind, and is interpreted as "hostility" which holds apart whole communities of people in suspicion and hatred of one another.

In sum, interpreting "dividing wall" metaphorically is the best rendering of the text. Though a literal wall did exist, the word used to describe that wall is different than the one Paul uses (fragmou vs. drufaktos). The fact that Christ destroyed the barrier "in his flesh" also gives credence to the fact that this barrier is less than literal. The underlying theme here is what the Law had done to the Jews and Gentiles. Jesus broke down that barrier by abolishing the law, making the two races one in His name. The dividing wall was abolished "in his flesh."

This view is supported by Lincoln and Mitton, among others. Though Robertson makes reference to the literal wall and its existence, he does not seem to go either way. Josephus also helps to make the case here, though indirectly, by using two separate words for "wall" here. Only through dying could he make the two one. Though there remains a distinction between Jew and Gentile today we are one in Christ Jesus.

In Ephesians 2:20 there is a potential interpretive problem. Paul says, "e)poikodomhqe/nte$ e)pi\ tw=| qemeli/w| tw=n a)posto/lwn kai\ profhtw=n, o&nto$ a)krogwniai/ou au)tou= Xristou=  )Ihsou=,..." ("...having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone). At issue here is what and who the apostles and prophets are and what is this foundation they built upon. Are the apostles and prophets leaders of the early Christian community or are they apostles and prophets who date back to the Old Testament, thus creating the foundation for the church? The issues here are lexical, theological, and syntactical. Lexical in the sense of determining whether or not an "apostle" is any different than a "prophet"; syntactically an issue in determining the importance (or lack thereof) of the fact that the definite article only precedes "apostle" and not "prophet"; theological in the sense of determining whether or not Paul means to say that the church is built upon what OT prophets said and what NT prophets said. This would make both the OT and the NT the church’s foundation making the church an extension of Israel.

The various facets of this issue are lexical, syntactical, and theological. Lexically and syntactically the issue here regarding who the apostles and prophets were, Mitton (p. 112) suggests that apostles were ones whom Christ had insisted that they memorize His teaching so as to be accurate in what they would later write. Paul appears to regard the apostles in this way, that they provided the link for later generations and were the "church fathers." Prophets, according to Mitton, refer to the other group of leaders within the early church -- possibly those with the gift of prophecy. These men spoke the mind of Christ by teaching what He had called for in the developing circumstances of the Christian mission (Mitton, p. 112). The characteristic ability of the prophet was not to foretell the future but to interpret the mind of Christ in his own time period. Scholars supporting this view of "apostles and prophets" being NT saints are Mitton, Lincoln, and Westcott. Westcott (p. 40) and Lincoln (p. 153) assert that the word order, with apostles preceding prophets, indicates that these were NT prophets. Barth suggests that "apostles" is a narrow term that is limited to those sent by Christ, while "prophets" is far wider in meaning and may very well include OT prophets as well (p. 314-15) due to the fact that the definite article only precedes "apostles" and not "prophets." Matthew Henry says, "The apostles and prophets are the foundation of that building. They may be so called in a secondary sense, Christ himself being the primary foundation; but we are rather to understand it of the doctrine delivered by the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New."

Making the distinction between OT prophets and NT prophets is important because it was the NT prophets who were given special authority from their commissioning by the risen Lord. They were granted special gifts as well in order to validate their proclamations. Together with the apostles the prophets gave foundational interpretation of what God had done in Christ. This foundation of the apostles and prophets is vital to the Gentiles because it gives them identity in Christ and points them to their roots. However, if the OT prophets are in view here along with the NT prophets then the church’s foundation does not begin with Christ’s resurrection but goes back all the way to the OT along with the Law and its teachings (which had been abolished in verse 15).

The views presented are sound, and each one makes a good case. The weakness of the view regarding the OT prophets being in view here is in the word order and the lack of a definite article preceding "prophets." If the prophets are in view then why are they second behind the apostolic office created after the resurrection of Christ? It would appear that given the importance of the OT prophetic office that word would have preceded "apostles" as laying the foundation. Theologically this is a weak view in light of the fact that though the Gentiles and the Jews are one "in Christ" they are still a separate people (cf. Romans 11:25). The adopted view is that these apostles and prophets are NT apostles and prophets. The weakness of this view however, is the fact that Paul calls the OT prophets the ones who had promised the coming Messiah (Romans 1:1-3). This verse connects the NT apostolate with the OT prophets. In this the church’s foundation is found in the OT; that is where the coming Messiah, who is the head of the church, was first prophesied. If this is where He was first prophesied then it stands to reason that the foundation is found there and not in the NT. In addition, Ephesians makes extensive use of the OT and emphasizes a close tie between Israel and the church.

As already stated, the preferred view in this case is that the apostles are the ones who have been sent out by Christ for the purpose of spreading the Gospel and writing it down. The prophets are NT prophets, and this is concluded by the word order, the theological implications, and the references to apostles and prophets in 3:5 and 4:11. It would be difficult to understand why the word prophets would occur after apostles if the prophets are actually OT prophets. Furthermore, they are part of the building of the church of Jesus Christ which is explicitly stated here -- not an unnamed expected messiah as the OT had predicted. The fact that they are identified with the foundation reveals that they were limited to that formation period (MacArthur, p. 82).

In Ephesians 2:20 there is an interpretive problem with what the word "a)krogwniai/ou" means and what the implications of that meaning are. Paul says, "e)poikodomhqe/nte$ e)pi\ tw=| qemeli/w| tw=n a)posto/lwn kai\ profhtw=n, o&nto$ a)krogwniai/ou au)tou= Xristou=  )Ihsou=,..." ("...having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the chief corner). Is Christ the final stone on the building (capstone) or is he the foundation stone of the building (cornerstone)? As Christ is the Kefalh of the swma, (head of the church) is he also the ajkrogwviaios of the oijkodomh (capstone of the foundation)? The implications here are both lexical and theological. Lexical in the sense of determining what a)krogwniai/ou means; theological in the sense of determining where Jesus Christ stands in regard to the foundation of the apostles and prophets

Lincoln says that this clause, with its present participle in the genitive absolute and its emphatic aujtou, "himself," in reference to Jesus Christ, sets Jesus apart from the apostles and prophets as well as from those who have placed the foundation (Lincoln, p. 154). He translates "corner" as "keystone" and says that this represents His present function and status. Jeremias has proposed that the stone in question is in fact the "keystone" -- the stone used to top an arch (pp. 65-70). Supporting this view is Psalm 118:22 and the LXX 2 Kings 25:17 where the stone is used as the head of the pillar. Lincoln states that the exalted position ascribed to Christ elsewhere in Ephesians and the special emphasis placed upon Christ’s position over and against the rest of the structure support this interpretation. He cannot be just one stone within the foundation along with the apostles and prophets -- he is the sole capstone. Mitton says that ajkrogwviaios has its determined meaning directly from Isaiah 28:16, in which case it means the cornerstone in the foundation; it means a very important stone in the foundation (p. 114). Masson accepts this interpretation, and describes the stone as the most important stone of a building placed first at the junction where two walls meet (p. 170).

Lexically, according to BAGD, ajkrogwviaios means "lying at the extreme corner." It comes from two words, "ajkros," meaning "highest, extreme," "gonia," meaning "a corner, angle."

Jesus had spoken of himself as the stone, rejected by the Jewish builders (experts), but chosen of God as the head of the corner in Matthew 21:42. The ajkrogwviaios then appears to be the primary foundation-stone at the angle of the structure by which the architect fixes a standard for the bearings of the walls and cross-walls throughout (Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament).

Theologically the notion of a finished structure with Christ as its head is not at all compatible with the dynamic imagery of growth (Lincoln, p. 154). Furthermore, as Barth has laid out, the notion that Christ supports and rules the church primarily from the past, as it were by things historical and laid beneath the ground, has to be complemented by an equally strong eschatological element (p. 319). If He is already the capstone then all is finished, and there is no second coming. However, if Christ is the cornerstone, then the capstone might yet be future. As Jerome has proposed, "Christ is both the keystone and the cornerstone." In this case He is the beginning and the end (cf. Rev. 21:6; 22:13).

The views presented are solid, and each one contains reasons for acceptance. The weaknesses for interpreting ajkrogwviaios as "keystone," however, are clear. First, it contradicts what Paul says about Christ being the foundation on which the whole building sits. Second, verse 21 says that the building is still growing, and if Christ is the capstone then all is finished, and there is no more growth. Third, Christ cannot be in such a position that puts Him after the apostles and prophets. Finally, Isaiah 28:16, which is clearly in view here, speaks of the cornerstone as being the foundation. There are weaknesses in interpreting ajkrogwviaios as "cornerstone." For instance, apart from this in every other known case the word means "the stone which crowns the building." In the patristic Greek lexicon its meaning is given as "the stone at the topmost angle or point of pyramid, obelisk, etc., which being cut before being set in position and being the last laid, would not fit if the construction were not true." Furthermore, Jeremias gives the German equivalent to ajkrogwviaios as the stone at the summit of an arch locking the whole structure together.

The views presented are not only lexically accurate but theologically sound as well. That is why I support the "both/and" view of interpreting this passage. Christ is the keystone which is the head of the foundation. As he is head of the church, he is also head over the foundation. The lexical use of the word supports this view. Christ is also the cornerstone -- the main stone in the foundation upon which all is built and supported. Without this cornerstone all will crumble; without Christ as the foundation of all that we believe everything is useless. Paul himself stated in

1 Corinthians 15:14 that if Christ be not raised from the dead then our faith is worthless. Furthermore, as revelation progressed in the Bible and as the church grew, it is evident that Christ is the Alpha and Omega -- the beginning and end. He is the beginning of the church (cornerstone), and He is the end (keystone/capstone) of everything. The keystone is yet future, and although Ephesians 2:20 may not teach this eschatological truth it does allow for it, and it does not teach against it.

This problem in Ephesians is significant because who Christ is is what is at stake; what His position is with regard to the church, the OT and our faith. My view of "both/and" places Christ at the beginning and the end of the church. Of course He is the beginning of everything, but in context this ajkrogwviaios allows for Christ to be all that the rest of Scripture teaches that He is.

Barth, Marcus. Ephesians. AB. 2 vols. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1974.

Hoehner, Harold. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Victor Books: USA, Canada,

Lincoln, Andrew T. Ephesians. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1990.

Mitton, C. Leslie. Ephesians. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words.

Wallace, D., 1996. An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan: Grand Rapids.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. London: MacMillan, 1906;