article10

§8 Christ and the Unity of Believers (Introduction to Eph. 2:11–22)

The apostle is addressing Jewish and Gentile believers in 2:1–10. He begins by showing that both groups of people were living in disobedience and sin; both stood in need of God’s mercy and love. The Good News in the passage is that a loving and gracious God acted to correct that through his Son. In union with Christ, believers become a new creation and are resurrected and exalted with their Lord. As such, they are lifted out of their former evil condition that they might share in Christ’s victory over sin and live a life of good works.

Up to this point the emphasis is on the privileges that Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy in Christ. In 2:11–22, however, the author moves from their unity in Christ to discuss their unity in the church. In this passage he shows that the church no longer is to be perceived as a body of Jewish and Gentile believers; rather, it is a completely new creation (“one new man” or “people”) in which all racial barriers and prejudices are obliterated. For the apostle, the church is a vivid example of how God is working out his plan to unite (1:10) and to complete (1:23) all things in Christ.

In some ways, this concept of a “new people” is a development of thoughts about the new creation in Christ that Paul has expressed in his epistles. In 2 Corinthians 5:16ff., he refers to the process of reconciliation and how all humanity is reconciled to God as new beings; in Galatians 6:15 he indicates that racial distinctions are insignificant to the real issue of being a new creation (“Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation”). The new thought in Ephesians is that these “new beings” in Christ now constitute a single new humanity as the body of Christ, the church.

In this section, the author describes the alienation in which the Gentiles found themselves before they became Christians (vv. 11, 12), indicates how Christ made a new people out of two distinct ethnic groups (vv. 13–18), and, by way of the imagery of the heavenly building, shows how the church grows together into a sacred temple in the Lord (vv. 19–22). The entire passage has many liturgical features, draws heavily upon the language of the OT, and is rich in baptismal theology.

Additional Notes §8

Beyond the commentaries there are some helpful studies dealing with issues in this chapter: W. Barclay, “The One, New Man,” in Unity and Diversity in New Testament Theology, ed. R. A. Guelich (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), pp. 73–81. Barclay’s main point is that “new” (kainos) means something new in quality and character; E. K. Lee, “Unity in Israel and Unity in Christ,” in Studies in Ephesians, ed. F. L. Cross, pp. 36–50; Martin, “Reconciliation and Unity in Ephesians,” in his Reconciliation, pp. 157–98. Martin offers a detailed literary and theological analysis of 2:19–21; W. Meeks, “In One Body: The Unity of Humankind in Colossians and Ephesians,” in God’s Christ and His People, ed. J. Jervell and W. Meeks (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1977), pp. 209–21.

§9 The Gentiles Apart from Christ (Eph. 2:11–12)

The apostle begins by describing the condition of the Gentiles before they became Christians. Though he already has done this to some extent, the emphasis in 2:1–3 was upon their alienation from God as individuals. In that condition, they had many things in common with the Jews, and so the author speaks about all of humanity. He goes on in 2:4–10 to emphasize God’s mercy, love, and grace and how God brought mankind into relationship with himself through Christ.

The concern in 2:11–22 is with the national and covenantal alienation between Jews and Gentiles rather than with the spiritual alienation between God and humanity in 2:1–10. Thus the emphasis here is upon those aspects of Christ’s redemption that break down divisions and lead to a new people of God characterized by peace and unity. Their past life “separate from Christ” (2:12) and their present life “in Christ Jesus” (2:13) contain some vivid contrasts.

The Gentiles in the Past:	The Gentiles in the Present:
separate from Christ (v. 12)	in himself (v. 15)
far away (vv. 13, 17)	brought near through the blood of Christ (vv. 13, 17)
excluded from citizenship in Israel (v. 12)	fellow citizens with God’s people (v. 19)
foreigners to the covenants of promise (v. 12)	no longer foreigners and aliens (v. 19)
without hope (v. 12)
without God (v. 12)

2:11 / The Greek text begins with the emphatic therefore, remember. On the basis of all that these Gentiles have experienced from God through Christ (1:3–2:10), they are summoned to remember what they were formerly. They are addressed as Gentiles by birth. The inclusion of the article (lit., “you the Gentiles”) indicates that the author is addressing a special class of people. It may be his way of giving special emphasis to the fact that the church is made up of two classes of people. Earlier (2:1, 2), he used only the second person plural (“you”) in his reference to them.

Those who were Gentiles by birth (“in the flesh”) were referred to by the Jews (the circumcision) as the uncircumcised. Circumcision is a physical rite performed on the Jewish male as a sign of the covenant (Gen. 17:11). Although circumcision is used in a spiritual sense in Scripture as something that God performs upon the human heart—thus not made with hands (Deut. 10:16; Rom. 2:28, 29; 4:11; 1 Cor. 7:19; Phil. 3:3; Col. 2:11)—the emphasis here is upon the human rite because it is that done in the body by the hands of men. Apparently, then, the Gentiles were distinguished from the Jews both by birth and by the outward physical rite of circumcision. These two facts provide the basis for the conditions listed in the next verse.

2:12 / In the past (at that time) the Gentiles were separate from Christ. In one sense, this was their major deprivation, for to be without Christ himself is to be deprived of any of the blessings that he gives. Hence the author mentions Christ for this very reason: As they have been blessed spiritually in Christ (2:1–10), he reminds them that it is through union with Christ that they are made one with the Jews and partake of the blessings that were theirs as God’s covenant people. To be separate from Christ stands in sharp contrast to being “in Christ Jesus” (2:13). Since the first reference is just to “Christ” (in contrast to Christ Jesus), it could be that a reference to “the Messiah” is intended.

You were … foreigners to the covenants. This means that as Gentiles they were strangers or foreigners to the covenants that God made with his people. These covenants include those made with Abraham (Gen. 15:8–21; 17:1–21) and Moses (Exod. 24:1–11) and the new and everlasting covenants about which the prophets spoke (cf. Isa. 55:3; Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 37:26).

The covenants that God made with Israel served both a present and future function in that they established Israel as God’s special people and assured them of God’s continued presence (they were covenants of the promise). The wording of the Greek text (“covenants of promise”), together with a possible reference to “the Messiah,” suggests that the author may have those particular covenants in mind that promised the Messiah. But as Gentiles they were not entitled to any of the provisions that God had made for, or any of the promises he had made to, his chosen people.

Another aspect of their former estranged condition is that they were excluded from citizenship in Israel. The Greek uses the rather strong word apallotrioō, which conveys the ideas of estrangement or alienation (cf. RSV). Not belonging to Israel (lit., “commonwealth,” “polity,” politeia) meant that they had no rights of citizenship and no participation in the national or religious life of the Israelites. And since Israel was the only nation to whom God had revealed himself in a special way, the Gentiles had no access to the true God. Their life in the world was lived without hope and without God.

Given the context in which the word hope appears, it most naturally refers to the Gentiles’ general state of hopelessness: they do not belong to God’s people and do not, therefore, share in the hope of the coming Messiah. In Christianity, people without hope are those who have no certainty in the future events that pertain to the Lord’s return and everlasting life (Acts 23:6; 1 Cor. 15:29, 32; Col. 1:5, 27; 1 Thess. 2:19; 4:13; 1 Pet. 1:3; 3:5).

J. A. Robinson makes an interesting observation about Jewish hope and Gentile hopelessness when he writes: “The Jew had a hope: the Gentile had none. The golden age of the Gentile was in the past: his poets told him of it, and how it was gone. The Jew’s golden age was in the future; his prophets told him to look forward to its coming” (p. 57). For a short period of time the Greek mystery religions, with their doctrines of purification, immortality, brotherhood, and so forth, offered a ray of hope to the Greeks and Romans. This, however, never approximated the Jewish belief in the coming kingdom of God or the certainty of Christianity, which based its hope on the verities of Christ’s life and resurrection.

The Gentile’s life in this world was also without God. This appears as a rather strange characterization of a people who were noted for their idolatry and polytheism (many gods). When Paul visited Athens, for example, “he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16). The irony is that, though there were “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’ ” (1 Cor. 8:5), they were, in effect, “no gods” (Acts 19:26; cf. 17:22–31; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; Gal. 4:8). By believing in idols or self-conceived deities, the Gentiles really had nothing—they were without God. The Greek word atheos, from which the word “atheist” comes, occurs only here in the NT. In Greek literature, it was used to describe people who either were without God’s help, lived in a godless manner, or did not believe in God at all (see Abbott, p. 59).

§10 The Gentiles in Christ (Eph. 2:13–18)

2:13 / The Good News of the gospel is that Christ came into an alienated and hopeless world to reverse the misfortunes of the Gentiles: But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ. There is nothing in the previous two verses that corresponds with the ideas of far away and near other than the obvious distance between the privileged Jew and the deprived Gentile. The imagery here comes from Isaiah 57:19, where the prophet says: “ ‘Peace, peace to those far and near,’ says the Lord. ‘And I will heal them.’ ” These are the same words that Peter uses in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, when he is addressing a mixed audience (Acts 2:39; cf. also Rom. 10:15). According to Ephesians, nearness to God has been made possible through the blood of Christ.

2:14–15 / Since the author returns to the concepts of “far away” and “near” in 2:17, it appears that 2:14–16 is a rather long parenthesis on how Christ’s death brought a divided humanity together. He already has given a number of reasons why the Jews and the Gentiles differed from each other (2:11, 12). These racial, social, and religious distinctions resulted in various expressions of hostility and enmity.

The apostle refers to the Jewish law with its commandments and regulations as the cause of the divisions that existed between Jews and Gentiles. The effect of that “law,” he states, was like a wall that separated both races and kept them apart as enemies. However, through Christ’s death the wall was broken down, a new humanity was created. Gentiles and Jews were reconciled to each other, and both were reconciled to God.

The phrase for he himself is our peace is much more emphatic than it appears in English. Though it is true that he is the source of peace and brings peace through his life, he is peace—he gives peace because he himself is peace. This peace came about because Jews and Gentiles were made one people. The concept is reminiscent of Galatians 3:28, where Paul states that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, … for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Once again, the author turns to the role that Christ played in effecting this peace. In verse 13 he refers to the blood (i.e., death) of Christ; now he states that in his flesh he abolished the law with its commandments and regulations (the author may consciously be using flesh [sarx] in this context to refer to the Incarnation—cf. Rom. 8:3; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14). The practical effect of this, however, was to abolish the barriers that separated Jews and Gentiles.

The image of the dividing wall that Christ destroyed must be understood in connection with the reference to the law that follows in 2:15. Basically, the dividing wall is a symbol of the divisions that the Mosaic law (“the law of the commandments in ordinances,” KJV) created and that kept the two races from having social and religious intercourse.

There has been considerable speculation with respect to the wall that is mentioned. Most scholars tend to believe that the author is referring to the wall that separated the Gentiles and the Jews in the temple area. Josephus, a Jewish historian in the first century, describes this wall as a stone barrier about five feet high (Antiquities 15.11). Gentiles may have wanted to approach the temple out of curiosity or to offer gifts and sacrifices to the God of the Jews. Hence, warnings were posted at appropriate places to remind them of their limits and the severity of punishment that would follow if the barrier were crossed. One such warning, now in the Museum of Constantinople, was discovered by archaeologists in 1871. Translated from the Greek, it reads:

NO MAN OF ANOTHER NATION TO ENTER WITHIN THE FENCE AND ENCLOSURE ROUND THE TEMPLE. AND WHOEVER IS CAUGHT WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME THAT HIS DEATH ENSUES (quoted in Robinson, p. 60).

The seriousness of this is portrayed in Acts 21:27ff., where Paul is accused of bringing Greeks (“Trophimus the Ephesian,” no less) into the temple area and thus defiling “this holy place.”

This wall, which so dramatically symbolized Jewish separatism, was broken down along with the temple when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman general Titus in A.D. 70. But the destruction of that physical wall hardly eliminated the internal barriers that the Jewish law had erected: That took place through the death of Christ when he abolished the law with its commandments and regulations. This meant the abolition of all distinctions that separated Jew and Gentile.

Other, but less common, views of the meaning of wall include (a) the curtain in the temple that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies; (b) a rabbinic statement about building “a fence around the law”; (c) sin, which is a separation between God and humanity; or (d) a Gnostic concept of some kind of wall that divided the spheres of heaven and earth (see Barth, Eph. 1–3, pp. 283–87).

The commandments and regulations are a reference to the ceremonial laws, including dietary regulations, circumcision, rites of purification, sabbath and festival observances, sacrifices, and so forth. Colossians 2:8–23, which likewise mentions the abolition of rules and regulations, expands the list beyond Jewish ceremonial law because it is dealing with a number of man-made proscriptions that the false teachers had added (“Do not handle … taste … touch!”). There the emphasis is on the believers in Colossae not becoming enslaved to such legalism, because in Christ they have been freed from these powers. In Ephesians, the point is that the abolition of the law unites two previously alienated and hostile groups.

The breaking down of this ceremonial law, however, did not mean that all moral standards were abolished. The early Christians adopted many of the moral teachings of Judaism into their theology as long as they conformed to the standard that Christ taught or that he fulfilled in his life (cf. the Sermon on the Mount, esp., Matt. 5:17–48). Stott mentions that although Jesus did not abolish the moral law “as a standard of behavior,” he did abolish it “as a way of salvation” (p. 101).

It took the early church considerable time to realize the implications of this truth and to effect what was true in principle. Theologically, it is a process begun by Stephen in Acts (chap. 7) and worked out by Paul in Romans and Galatians. Practically, some of the divisions never were abolished completely, because the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and Palestine remained more Jewish in theology and practice than their brethren outside Palestine (the Diaspora).

The largest percentage of early Christians were Jewish believers (Acts 1–12) who never fully separated themselves from Judaism. When the Gentile mission was inaugurated, some of these Jewish Christians, represented by the Jerusalem and Palestinian churches, felt that the Gentiles should either become Jews before they became Christians—that is, submit to circumcision and the law (the extreme view)—or at least be sensitive to Jewish food laws in cases of social fellowship. The account of Peter’s vision at the home of Simon the Tanner recounts how God declared that all foods are clean (Acts 10:1–43). The details of this and their implications for the Gentile mission are discussed at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:1–35) as well as in Galatians 2.

The Good News in Ephesians is that Christ’s death abolished the legal distinctions that separated Jews and Gentiles: The former divisive effect of the law is annulled and has lost its power (cf. Col. 2:15). Instead of enmity between the two races there is peace; in place of two separate entities there is one new man (people).

The effect of Christ’s work in breaking down the barrier is twofold: First, it resulted in the creation of a new humanity (his purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two). There is more here than simply the union or the mixture of two groups. This is not a case of the Greeks conquering the Jews or the Jews converting the Greeks to their faith and way of life. Rather, it is a completely new creation (one new man) that Christ has effected in union with himself (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). To a certain extent, the church is the sum total of individuals who have become “new creatures” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Col. 3:10); but the author is thinking of something more profound—namely, the church as a corporate entity.

2:16 / Second, there is the aspect of reconciliation, which, for the apostle, has two foci: On the one side, the church effected a reconciliation between Jew and Gentile. The broken barrier—accomplished through the cross—and the creation of the church (“one new people”) meant that the enmity between these two races was replaced by peace. Here the author uses the phrase “having slain (apokteinas) the enmity.” The imagery of the cross suggests that he who himself was slain (Heb. 2:14) is now the one who slays (destroys) the enmity. Peace is illustrated by the metaphor of the body, the church. Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to each other because they are united into one body by means of the cross. Thus the church is presented as a living organism, composed of diverse parts, but existing peacefully as one body (cf. 4:4; 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:13; Col. 3:15).

The other side of Christ’s work is that he brought about reconciliation between humanity and God (to reconcile both of them—i.e., the two who have been united in one body—to God). Here there is no question of Jewish privilege or Greek ignorance, since both are equally represented as objects of reconciliation: Through Christ’s work on the cross, God “reconciled us to himself” (2 Cor. 5:18; cf. also Rom. 5:10).

2:17 / Before the author develops this concept of access, he turns from Christ the reconciler to Christ the proclaimer: He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. The idea of peace may be taken from Isaiah 57:19, which he used earlier (2:13), or he may be utilizing Isaiah 52:7, which announces: “How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace.”

Most scholars take Christ’s preaching as an act related to his death-resurrection-exaltation and not to his earthly pre-resurrection ministry. The context appears to favor the idea that the peace that he effected on the cross is itself a proclamation and his way of announcing to the world that peace has been made. This verse could be in reference to Christ’s post-resurrection appearances, in which his first followers are told not to fear (Matt. 28:5, 10), or to his benediction of peace in John 14:27 (“Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you”). However, there is much to be said for the view that takes it as the preaching of the earthly Jesus himself or, at least, as the preaching of his disciples.

Jesus does adopt the words of Isaiah 61:1, 2, as his life’s mission (“the Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor,” Luke 4:18, 19), and he does become involved with a segment of society that could be considered “far away” (cf. Mitton, pp. 109–10). But regardless of what view one may take, the important point is that in the Christ event (life-death-resurrection-exaltation), peace was achieved and access to God was made possible. Thus the author reminds his readers that it is through Christ that Jews and Gentiles “both have access to the Father by one Spirit” (2:18).

2:18 / Perhaps there is an allusion here to the curtain in the inner-temple that separated the people from God and through which only the high priest had access on the Day of Atonement (Heb. 9:1–14). The Good News of the gospel, however, is that Christ opened up a way of access to God by removing the curtain through his death (Heb. 10:19ff.). The imagery suggested by the idea of “access” (prosagōgē) is that of an Oriental court where subjects were presented to their monarch by a prosagōgos.

In the church, it is Christ who has made the way into God’s presence possible (“in him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence,” Eph. 3:12). Access to God is through the one Spirit because all Christians are united by one Spirit in their baptism into Christ (1 Cor. 12:12, 13; Eph. 4:1–6). And as a church (the body of Christ), they now are a fellowship of the Holy Spirit. In addition to this verse, the role of the Spirit in worship is mentioned in 3:18–20 and in a similar passage in Colossians (3:16, 17).

There are a number of things that suggest that the author may have baptism in mind throughout this entire discussion (2:11–18). First, baptism provides the best answer as to where and when all this took place for the Jew and the Gentile—that is, when the “far away” were brought near and, together with the “near,” united with Christ and made members of one another in the body of Christ. To be sure, Christ accomplished that at the time of his death on the cross, but the believer makes that his or her own through faith and baptism in Christ.

Second, there are many close parallels in this passage to the two baptismal passages in Colossians: Ephesians 2:11 is remarkably similar to Colossians 2:11–13; and 2:11–18 may be an adaptation of the Christ hymn in Colossians 1:15–20, which has considerable support as a baptismal hymn (see disc. on Col. 1:15–20).

Third, and perhaps most convincing, are those baptismal passages that specifically mention baptism into Christ as the means of breaking down all barriers, including racial distinctions. Thus Paul writes to the Galatians, “You … were baptized into Christ.… There is neither Jew nor Greek” (3:27, 28). And in Colossians the baptismal imagery of “putting off” and “putting on” is utilized, with the result that baptism eliminates the differences between Gentiles and Jews (3:9–11). It could be said that the author turns to baptismal language in Ephesians 2:11–18 to support his theological assertion of the unity between Jew and Gentile as one new people in Christ. Furthermore, since baptism is mentioned in his famous section on unity (4:1–6), one could infer that he understood baptism as the sacrament of unity (1 Cor. 12:13).

Additional Notes §10

2:14–15 / M. S. Moore presents a detailed analysis of these verses in his “Ephesians 2:15–16: A History of Recent Interpretation,” EQ 54 (1982), pp. 163–69. For understanding the nature of Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the early church, see L. Goppelt, Apostolic and Post-Apostolic History (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1970), esp. chap. 3, pp. 61–107.

2:17 / A thorough discussion of the expressions near and far is given by D. C. Smith, “The Ephesian Heresy and the Origin of the Epistle to the Ephesians,” Ohio Journal of Religious Studies 5 (1977), pp. 78–103. Smith’s investigation leads him to conclude that it is not that Gentile Christianity was threatening to lose its connection with Jewish Christianity, but “rather the issue is that certain Gentile-‘Jewish’-Christians, on the basis of traditions derived in large part from Hellenistic Judaism, are displaying contempt toward natural Jews who have become Christians. These opponents of the author of Ephesians, then, represent a fascinating synthesis of esoteric elements drawn from Judaism, Christianity, and Hellenistic religion in general” (p. 103).

§11 The New Unity (Eph. 2:19–22)

These verses concerning the incorporation of the Gentiles into a sacred temple in the Lord conclude the section on Christian unity (2:11–22). Consequently has the effect of pointing back to what was said in the previous verses and linking it to what follows. The main thought is that, because the Gentiles are now in Christ and have access in one Spirit to the Father, they are no longer “foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household.” By virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ, the “cornerstone,” they are like an edifice that is built upon the foundation of “apostles and prophets” and that “rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.”

2:19 / Now that the apostle has discussed the effects that Christ’s death had upon Jews and Gentiles (2:14–18), he returns to his discussion of the Gentiles to complete the contrasts that he began earlier. At one time they were foreigners who did not belong to God’s people (2:12), but now they are no longer foreigners (xenos) or aliens (paroikos). Foreigners are people outside a country or community, with no special rights or privileges. The word for aliens (paroikos) often is translated as “sojourners,” a term that accentuates the transient nature of the Gentiles. In that condition they were like aliens with an “immigrant visa,” which granted them limited rights and privileges, but not full citizenship or permanent residency.

But the status of the Gentiles has changed remarkably: First, the author uses a political expression and affirms that they are now fellow citizens (sympolitai) with God’s people, that is, they are on equal standing with the historic people of God. Second, he uses the imagery of a building (oikos) to affirm that they are members of God’s household.

2:20 / From the concept of the household or “family” (oikos) of God, the author turns to discuss the building (oikodomē) of this family, utilizing an architectural metaphor. The language reemphasizes that the Gentiles are part of an ongoing process: You, too, are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

If the Gentiles had been guilty of forgetting or even scorning their relationship to God’s redemptive work in history, these words would serve as a significant reminder that they are not the first or only people in God’s eternal plan. Rather, they have been built (the Greek aorist tense refers to something that has happened) upon a foundation that already had been laid.

Apostles and prophets form the foundation of the church. Though some commentators take prophets to mean those in the OT, the word order—apostles and prophets—makes it more likely that the author has the NT prophets in mind (cf. Acts 11:27ff.; 1 Cor. 12:28, 29; 14:1–5, 24ff.). Both offices are used again in Ephesians (3:5; 4:11) with a clear reference to the NT period. They are considered the foundation of the church because of their importance as messengers and interpreters of the gospel.

The thoughts that the author is developing differ slightly from the picture that Paul gives in Corinthians. In Corinth, he is dealing with a divided church—a church that has polarized around Paul, Peter, Christ, and Apollos. Paul seeks to dispel party strife by showing that the ministry is the cooperative effort of a number of individuals, all of whom are servants of God and partners with each other (1 Cor. 1:10–13; 3:5–9). To anyone seeking to be the foundation of God’s building, Paul warns that “no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). In Ephesians, the apostles and prophets are the foundation and Jesus becomes the chief cornerstone (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4–8—quoting Isa. 28:16 and Ps. 118:22—where Christ is interpreted as the cornerstone).

The reasons for this apparent shift are not easy to discern. One author suggests that, by the time Ephesians was written, Christ’s centrality in the church was guaranteed, but because of the heresies that threatened the church, it became necessary to establish an authentic line of tradition through the apostles and prophets (Houlden, p. 292). T. K. Abbott reasons that the cornerstone was more important to Orientals because of its function in connecting and bearing the weight of the building (p. 71). This view does have some appeal, because in the context of the passage the emphasis is upon the function of Christ in keeping this growing structure unified. The cornerstone would have provided the key around which the foundation and the superstructure were built (Stott, pp. 107–8).

Though it is natural to think of the cornerstone as being on the foundational level of a building, there is an attractive alternative to this concept that takes the phrase not as a foundation stone but as a “keystone” to be placed at the summit of a building to crown its completion. Some believe that this is a more fitting explanation of the thought in Ephesians, where Christ is the head of the body (1:22) and the church grows into him who is the head (4:15).

The variety of interpretations of the difficult imagery and syntax should not distract the reader from the central message of this passage. The apostle is showing that the church consists of three significant elements: (a) the Gentiles, who are now part of God’s people, and the Jews; (b) the apostles and prophets; and (c) Jesus Christ. But this is more than just a random combination of parts: They are joined together by the principle of unity and growth.

2:21 / The construction of this verse in the Greek is ambiguous and has led to a variety of translations and interpretations. Literally, it reads, “in whom every structure (pasa oikodomē) is joined together” (synarmologeō). The big question is whether pasa oikodomē should be translated as “every structure” or “the whole structure” and whether the thoughts should be taken literally or metaphorically.

Those opting for the former believe that this “sacred temple in the Lord” is like the Jewish temple, in which many buildings, rooms, and parts (see Moule, p. 85; Westcott, p. 41) made up the “whole temple.” Mitton accepts “every structure” as preferred grammatically but gives it a metaphorical rather than literal meaning. Hence, he follows a line of interpretation that takes the “parts” as the local congregations that make up the one universal or catholic church (p. 115).

From the context of the passage, however, one seriously wonders whether the apostle has local congregations in mind, because he has been so concerned about the unity of the entire body. Robinson, for one, admits that the words are ambiguous but, within the context of the passage, emphasizes the process of building and takes the phrase to mean “all that is builded,” that is, whatever building is being done (pp. 70, 165). What is in the author’s mind, therefore, is the entire operation of the building rather than single structures that make up the whole (cf. also Abbott, pp. 74, 75. Barth, Eph. 1–3, p. 272; Foulkes, p. 87). The NIV follows this line of interpretation in its translation, in him the whole building is joined together.

The concept of a building process is continued in the following phrase: Christ is the one in whom it rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. Though the imagery is that of a building, the next verse (2:22) makes it clear that the author has a spiritual “house” in mind where God’s presence is manifested. The holy temple is the translation of naon hagion—naos being the inner part of the temple where God was believed to reside and meet his people. In early Christian theology, believers are referred to as God’s sacred temple, not in a material sense, but as a “spiritual building” where God dwells and manifests himself. Christians are that holy (or “sacred”) temple by virtue of being in the Lord.

2:22 / Once again, the apostle emphasizes that the Gentiles have a part in all of this: In him you too are being (present tense) built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. This concept is reminiscent of Paul’s ideas in his Corinthian letters, where he reminds the congregation that they are God’s building—temple—in whom the Spirit of God dwells (1 Cor. 3:9, 16ff.; 2 Cor. 6:16). To the Gentiles, all of this stands as a vivid contrast to the beginning of their lives, which was “in the body” (2:11).

This passage (2:19–22) contains a number of striking linguistic and conceptual parallels with the liturgical hymn in 1 Peter 2:4–10. Both epistles, for example, refer to Christ as the cornerstone and emphasize that Christians are part of a building process that is growing into a spiritual temple. First Peter speaks of the “stone” rejected by the builders but that has become the elected cornerstone in Zion to the believing Gentiles.

In Ephesians, there is confirmation that the Gentiles, who were at one time far off, distant from the commonwealth of Israel, have been brought near and have become one with the people of God. In 1 Peter 2:9, 10, those who have been called out of darkness into light have now become the people of God; in Ephesians, this idea of the Gentiles becoming God’s people is emphasized throughout 2:11–22, although the imagery of darkness and light is not used until 5:8–14 (cf. Col. 1:12, 13).

Additional Notes §11

2:20 / This idea of a “keystone” apparently was first initiated by J. Jeremias in his article “akrogōnias,” TDNT, vol. 1, p. 792, and is championed by Barth in Eph. 1–3, pp. 317–19. Mitton lists a number of objections to this theory and sticks with the traditional view, which sees Jesus as the cornerstone of the building “from which the future building will be gauged” (p. 115). This view is also supported by R. J. McKelvey, “Christ the Cornerstone: Eph. 2.11–22,” NTS 8 (1962), pp. 352–59. McKelvey concludes that “the interpretation which explains akrogōniaios of Eph. 2:20 as a topstone is to be abandoned in favor of the traditional understanding of akrogōniaios as a stone connected to the foundation of the building, which was located at one of the corners (probably the determinative corner) and bound together the walls and the foundation” (p. 359). For further comments, see F. F. Bruce, “New Wine in Old Wine Skins: III. The Corner Stone,” ExpT 84 (1973), pp. 231–35.

§12 Paul and the Mission to the Gentiles (Introduction to Eph. 3:1–21)

When the apostle completed his section on the spiritual blessings in Christ (1:3–14), he proceeded to offer a prayer of thanksgiving and petition (1:15–23). After this theological discussion in 2:1–22, it appears that he is once again ready to turn to prayer because the statement, “For this reason” (3:1), refers to what he has just said; furthermore, the actual prayer in 3:14ff. appears to relate to this section and would be a fitting climax to the thoughts that he has developed. But instead of a prayer, the apostle’s thought is diverted to another topic of discussion—one that is related to Paul’s call and mission as a proclaimer of God’s secret. After a rather lengthy presentation of this subject (3:2–13), he returns to his initial intention to pray and subsequently offers one of the most beautiful and comprehensive prayers in the NT.

At first glance, Ephesians 3:2–13 appears to be a rather lengthy parenthesis vindicating Paul’s apostleship to the Gentiles. The author has been discussing the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ and how the Gentiles are legitimate heirs of God’s salvation (2:11–22); but for some reason he finds it necessary to define more precisely God’s secret and the human agent through whom it was revealed. His definition of the secret (3:6) also extends previous imagery. In 2:19–22 the Gentiles were considered fellow citizens who are joined and built together into a sacred temple. The theme of unity is reemphasized in 3:6 by a number of similar expressions: “Through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus.”

There are many close similarities between Ephesians 3:1–13 and Colossians 1:23–2:2:

Ephesians	Colossians
3:1—I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus	1:23—I, Paul, have become a servant
3:2—God’s grace that was given to me for you	1:25—the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God
3:3—the mystery made known to me by revelation	1:27—God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles … this mystery
3:4—you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ	2:2—in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ
3:6—through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus	1:27—this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory
3:8—Although I am … least … this grace was given to me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ	1:27—God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery
3:9—to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery	1:26—the mystery … but … now disclosed to the saints
3:10—through the church the manifold wisdom of God should be made known	1:26—the mystery … hidden for ages and generations, but … now disclosed
3:13—[do not] be discouraged because of my sufferings for you	1:24—I rejoice in what was suffered for you

In both epistles, the author is in prison and is suffering; he is considered the minister to the Gentiles; the “mystery” has been hidden but is now revealed; this secret is identified as the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s plan of salvation; it is the message that Paul has been commissioned to preach.

There are, however, some notable differences between these two epistles as well. In Colossians, the call of Paul as a missionary to the Gentiles (1:25, 26) is not as specific as in Ephesians (3:8), where he definitely is identified as a prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of the Gentiles, to whom his preaching is directed (cf. Acts 21:17–34; 22:21–24; 26:12–23).

The goal of Paul’s preaching varies slightly also: In Colossians, the proclamation is given “so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ” (1:28); in Ephesians, it is oriented specifically toward the revelation of the “mystery” (“to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery”). Ephesians does not touch upon the aspect of Christian maturity until 4:13.

But the main difference centers upon the nature of this “mystery” that Paul has been called to preach. The brief mention of this in Colossians 1:27 almost goes unnoticed and hardly gives any indication of what the secret is all about. Ephesians, however, definitely is concerned about defining the “mystery” (3:6) and presenting Paul as its chief exponent.

In 3:14–19, the author begins his prayer for spiritual growth and unity. The specific requests include strengthening of the readers’ inner selves by God’s Spirit (3:16), the indwelling of Christ in their hearts through faith (3:17a), a strong grounding in love (3:17b), comprehending the love of Christ (3:18–19a), and being filled with the perfect fullness of God (3:19b). In some ways, these requests are not unlike his earlier mention of wisdom (1:17), knowledge (1:17), and enlightenment for the readers (1:18).

There is no specific reference to the problem of the unity of the church. Mention of the Fatherhood of God (3:14) and the comprehension of Christ’s love by all God’s people (3:18) does, nevertheless, remind the readers that their unity in Christ is to result in a unified Christian fellowship. The writer uses the expression “the saints” (hoi hagioi) on a number of occasions in the sense of belonging or togetherness (1:1, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:18; 6:18).

The concluding benediction (3:20, 21) points out that God is able to do far more than is requested, because the power of Christ is at work within the believer. The mention of the church is significant, for it is the sphere of the outworking of God’s purpose on earth as well as in heaven (3:10). In stating this, Ephesians extends the mission of the church beyond that taught in Colossians.

The new features of this chapter center around the clarification of God’s “mystery,” the prominence of Paul as an exponent of that secret, and the cosmic mission of the church. Beyond that, there is a definite repetition of the ideas used earlier in the epistle, for example:

the mystery as made known by revelation	3:3	= 1:9
the role of apostles and prophets	3:5	= 2:20
the inheritance of the saints	3:6	= 1:14
the grace and power of God	3:7, 20	= 1:19
God’s eternal plan	3:9	= 1:10; 2:7
the cosmic scope	3:10	= 1:3, 10
God’s eternal purpose	3:11	= 1:4
access to God	3:12	= 2:12
God the Father	3:14, 15	= 1:17
the Son	3:11, 17	= 1:3, etc.
the Spirit	3:5, 16	= 1:13, 14; 2:22
the fullness of God	3:19	= 1:23

§13 Presenting the Mystery of the Gospel (Eph. 3:1–13)

3:1 / As indicated in the introduction, the phrase for this reason points back to the theological ideas that have been developed in the preceding section and that lead the apostle to prayer. I, Paul, is an emphatic expression designed to draw attention to the apostle and what he has to say (cf. 2 Cor. 10:1; Gal. 5:2; Col. 1:23; 1 Thess. 2:18). What is emphasized is that Paul is the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of the Gentiles. The NIV rightly translates the article before prisoner as the rather than “a” prisoner (RSV). Thus Paul is represented, not as one prisoner among many, but as the prisoner of Christ Jesus, because of the significance of his ministry to the Gentiles (Acts 21:17–34; 22:21–24; 26:12–23). Gentiles is an inclusive term and, as in 2:11, refers not to any one specific congregation but to all Gentiles (Gentiles also is preceded by an article and should read you the Gentiles). Other references to Paul’s imprisonment are found in 6:20, Philippians 1:7, Colossians 4:10, and Philemon 1 and 9.

3:2 / The NIV (and GNB) surely you have heard is a better translation than the RSV “assuming that you have heard,” which implies some kind of doubt rather than verification (cf. 4:21; Col. 1:23). The phrase does raise a question about the Ephesian destination of the epistle, but fits the “circular letter theory,” which would include a number of Gentile congregations.

In the process of developing Paul’s role as the missionary to the Gentiles, the author mentions several important things: First, God gave Paul a commission (the administration [oikonomia] of God’s grace that was given to me for you); second, God gave him grace. Though Paul does connect God’s grace with his mission (3:7, 8; 4:7; Rom. 1:5; 12:3; 15:15–16), it is God’s grace and not the work that is given in this context. This is slightly different from Colossians 1:25, where it is the office (oikonomia) that was given (cf. Mitton, pp. 125, 126).

3:3–4 / In the next ten verses the author concentrates upon the mystery and how God used Paul to reveal that plan to the Gentiles. He begins by referring to the mystery made known to me by revelation. This follows the connection between revelation and the mystery that was alluded to in 1:9 and 10, but affirms that this revelation is from God and not something that Paul concluded from his studies or received from tradition (cf. Gal. 1:12, 16; 2:2).

Before the meaning of this mystery is developed, the author reminds his readers that he already has written briefly about this. Though a few commentators see an allusion in this phrase to an earlier epistle(s) to a Gentile audience, most take it as a reference to the brief mention of the “mystery” in 1:9–10 and to the outworking of it through the Jews and the Gentiles in 2:11ff. With that as background material, they can go on and understand the apostle’s insight into the mystery of Christ. The author is confident that as they read—probably in a public worship service and then in private meditation—they will be able to appreciate the significance of Paul as a servant of Christ with respect to the mystery. It is unlikely that it refers to a reading of the OT (see Foulkes, P. 92).

Concerning the use of mystery, a number of items should be noted: In Colossians (1:27) the mystery is the rather mystical concept of the indwelling Christ (“Christ in you, the hope of glory”); in Colossians 4:3, the “mystery of Christ” alludes to the fact that the Gentiles are recipients of the gospel (cf. Rom. 16:25, 26); in Ephesians 1:9, the mystery is God’s plan to unite all creation through the agency of Christ; in Ephesians 3:4, along with 3:6, the mystery is the unity between Jew and Gentile. This has partially been explained in 1:9–10 and 2:11–22, but now is made more explicit. Ephesians takes the concept of “the mystery” from a revelation of a gospel that included the Gentiles (Colossians) and develops it into a doctrine on the unity between Jew and Gentile in the church (3:6).

3:5 / This verse closely resembles Colossians 1:26, which talks about the mystery that was hidden through all past ages from all humankind but that God has now revealed to his people. There are, however, notable differences: First, there is the nature of the mystery itself. In Colossians, it is the message of the gospel to the Gentiles; in Ephesians, it is the unity between Jews and Gentiles. Second, the revelation is by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets rather than to “all people.” This change is significant in Ephesians because it confirms the emphasis given in the epistle to church leaders and ecclesiastical authorities rather than to all the people. Initially (3:3) the author stated that Paul alone was the recipient of this revelation; now he broadens it to include other inspired leaders in the church (2:20; 4:11).

The opening phrase in this verse ([the mystery] was not made known to men in other generations) raises a question about how much of God’s plan for the Gentiles was revealed before Paul came along. There are some glimpses of this in the OT where references to all the nations who come to the “light” or join the Lord surely includes the Gentiles (Gen. 12:1–3; Isa. 11:10; 42:6; 60:3; Jer. 16:19; Mic. 4:2; Zeph. 2:11). Paul himself uses Isaiah 49:6 to justify his call to the Gentiles when he disputes with the Jews (Acts 13:47). And in Romans 15:9–12, he enlists a series of OT passages to demonstrate that the Gentiles always had a future in God’s plan.

Thus, in a broad sense, one could say that God’s purpose for the Gentiles was made known. But this is far short of the development in Ephesians, which envisions a universal community in which Jew and Gentile have equal share in what is to become known as the church, the body of Christ (cf. Stott, p. 118). The new revelation was made possible by the Spirit, that is, he is the agent who brought the mystery to light.

3:6 / Up to this point the author has alluded to the mystery a number of times: now, however, he becomes specific and defines it in a way that will remove any doubt about its content. This mystery is that through the gospel, that is, by way of the proclamation of the word of truth that was believed and accepted (1:13), the Gentiles have been given a completely new status with all of the privileges pertaining thereto. The author describes this with a number of picturesque words prefixed with the preposition syn.

First, the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel. The Greek word synklēronoma is the same one Paul uses on occasions when he talks about believers becoming “heirs” of salvation and of the blessings of God (Rom. 8:17; Gal. 3:29; 4:7). Here the preposition syn gives it the force of “fellow heirs,” indicating that the Gentiles share equally with the Jews all the privileges and blessings of sonship.

Second, they are members together of one body. Since there is no occurrence of this word (syssōma) anywhere in the NT, the Septuagint (the pre-Christian Greek translation of the OT), or classical literature, it becomes obvious that the author coined it in order to describe the intimate relation that Jews and Gentiles have to each other in the body of Christ, the church. Robinson notes that there is no English equivalent and, in order to capture its full meaning, offers this idea: “In relation to the Body the members are ‘incorporate’; in relation to one another they are ‘con-corporate,’ that is, sharers in the one body” (p. 78).

Third, the Gentiles are sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Once again, the author uses a syn noun (symmetochos) to emphasize that the Gentiles participate equally with the Jews in the promises of God. Their entire relationship with the people of God is established by their incorporation in Christ as it came to them through the gospel. The gospel is the proclamation of all the privileges that Christ has made available to humanity, including the Gentiles. Earlier, the author indicated that God’s ultimate plan was to bring all creation together (1:10). One gets the distinct impression that the unity between Jew and Gentile is but the first step in a broader cosmic unity that is going to include all of creation under the headship of Christ (cf. Rom. 8:19–21).

3:7 / Having stated the role of the gospel in bringing this unity about, the author reminds his readers once again that Paul became a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace (cf. 3:2). Paul’s ministry was neither a self-chosen nor a self-appointed one but a gift of God’s grace. The ability to carry out that mission came through the working of his (God’s) power and not Paul’s strength (Col. 1:29). Everything that Paul received and achieved was the result of God’s gift of grace and power.

3:8 / Readers of the Pauline epistles will recall statements similar to the one made here: I am less than the least of all God’s people. When Paul’s apostleship was being questioned by the Corinthians, he remarked that “I am not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles,’ even though I am nothing” (2 Cor. 12:11). And on occasions when Paul is haunted by his former persecution of the church, he reminds himself of his unworthiness and inadequacy (cf. 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; 1 Tim. 1:12–14). In this context, it appears that Paul’s feeling of inferiority comes from reflecting upon the grace of God and how it has worked in his life and among the Gentiles. He is overcome, not by a guilty conscience or questions about his authority, but by a heart that is overflowing with the marvels of God’s grace.

The next phrase indicates that there is a double function to Paul’s apostleship: First, there is his ministry of the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles (this grace was given to me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ). Though Paul has commented on his mission to the Gentiles, he appears to be amazed—and thankful—that God’s grace was rich enough to include them and that he was God’s instrument in bringing the message of reconciliation to them. F. Beare draws attention to the article before Christ, thus indicating that “the Christ,” or “the Messiah” who was promised to the Jews, is now proclaimed to the Gentiles as well (p. 669). This could be a conscious thought in the author’s mind, given the context of a passage in which the incorporation of both Jews and Gentiles is stressed.

The translation unsearchable (anexichniastos) riches captures beautifully the idea behind this Greek word (cf. NEB, “unfathomable”). Stott lists ten different English equivalents that he has discovered in various translations and commentaries—all attempting to define the word without confining its meaning (p. 120). Basically, it means “not to be tracked out,” “beyond comprehension,” or “inscrutable.” Paul expresses this idea when he writes to the Romans: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (11:33). The same thoughts occur in Job 5:9 and 9:10 with respect to God’s creation and providence: they lie beyond human comprehension and defy description.

A modern analogy may be found in the current attempt to conquer the cosmos. The present universe, as it is known, is accessible and “trackable.” But as one reaches farther and farther into space, one discovers that there are many more universes and galaxies to explore—literally, an infinity in space. And so it is with the riches of Christ! They are unsearchable to the extent that the moment one discovers some of them a new door is opened to God’s treasury, which in turn leads to a supply of riches that is endless and even beyond comprehension. These unsearchable riches are none other than Christ himself.

3:9 / The second aspect of Paul’s mission is to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery. Literally, the phrase reads “to enlighten” (phōtisai), or “to bring to light what is the stewardship (oikonomia) of the mystery.” The Greek word for “all people” (pantes) is omitted in some manuscripts, so the emphasis is on bringing God’s mystery plan to light. Although not stated, the intention appears to be that the revelation is to everyone (as the NIV).

The idea of “illuminating,” or making all of humanity see how God’s mystery plan is to be put into effect, suggests something more than proclamation; it conveys the idea that Paul was used specifically to show the world how God publicly disclosed what had been kept secret. Paul accomplished this by explaining the incorporation of the Jews and Gentiles into the body of Christ. Everything that has taken place is part of God’s master plan (oikonomia). The reference to God as the one who created all things is somewhat enigmatic. Does it mean that this mystery/plan of God is part of his creative activity, or does it emphasize that his mystery was hidden from the time of creation and for ages past was kept hidden in God?

The parallel in Colossians 1:26, for example, mentions the mystery hidden “for ages and generations” but without reference to God as the Creator. Beare concludes that the mention of God’s creative activity is “in keeping with the writer’s consistent association of creation and redemption, and his emphasis on the cosmic aspect of the saving work of Christ” (p. 670). It does confirm that God created all things, including that which is momentarily concealed but which, in his eternal plan, is made plain to everyone.

3:10 / What had remained hidden “for ages past” (3:9) is now (nyn) made manifest. This verse makes one of the most inclusive statements about the church in the entire NT. Simply put, it announces that the church has a cosmic function in the plan of God.

With this verse, the author reaches the climax of his development on the “mystery/plan of God.” C. L. Mitton calls this “God’s master plan” and outlines the sequence by which this revelation took place: “It was made known first to Paul (3:3), then to the apostles and prophets (3:5), then to all men (3:9). Only then, as God’s reconciling power in Christ became effective in his Church and produced a united fellowship out of elements which in the world had seemed irreconcilable, did the powers of evil realize what God was achieving” (p. 127). This unfolding of God’s plan as presented in Ephesians may be diagrammed in the following way:

Paul (3:3)

Apostles and prophets (3:5)

All mankind (3:9)

Angelic powers and rulers in the heavenly world (3:10)

In this last stage God’s plan comes full circle: What was alluded to in the opening hymn of praise (1:10) is now complete. The grand purpose of the church is that through its agency, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms. These angelic rulers and powers are those beings mentioned in 1:21 and in 6:12. Colossians used similar expressions when it taught Christ’s—and consequently the believer’s—victory over these evil forces (Col. 1:16; 2:15, 20; cf. also Rom. 8:38; 1 Pet. 3:22).

In order to understand this verse it is necessary to realize that the author is assuming an ancient cosmological system. In pre-Copernican times, astronomers believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that it had no motion. The earth was surrounded by a series of spheres that contained celestial bodies, such as the sun, moon, stars, and planets, which revolved around the earth. Beyond these spheres (usually seven) was the highest heaven, where God made his abode. In time, it was believed that these spheres were inhabited by some kind of “heavenly beings,” which acted as sovereign rulers within these spheres. These heavenly powers could be either good and friendly or evil and hostile.

With respect to salvation, some religious systems, such as that of the Gnostics, believed that the human soul had to pass through these spheres as it ascended to its permanent abode with God in the highest heaven. But as it moved upward, it was confronted by the rulers and authorities of these spheres, who, in most cases, were hostile and needed to be placated or appeased in some way so that safe passage through the spheres could be guaranteed. This developed into elaborate systems of magic, sorcery, and astrology, many of which were current during Paul’s time.

The central message in the book of Colossians is that Christ has defeated these evil powers through his death on the cross. Consequently, they no longer have any control or authority over humankind; believers share in that victory by virtue of their faith in Christ and by virtue of their union with his death and resurrection in baptism (Col. 2:20).

Ephesians retains a similar cosmology: Christ is exalted and rules “far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given” (1:21); the Christian is engaged in a battle “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (6:12); and in 3:10, these forces exist as witnesses to what God has done and is doing through the church. Thus, all forms of life—whether on earth or in the far regions of the cosmos—know about God’s eternal plan and purpose.

Scholarly interpretations vary greatly in their approach to the cosmology presented in Ephesians and Colossians. Some believe that the concepts are obsolete and need to be demythologized, that is, reinterpreted in terms that have meaning for the modern era. A good example is Barth, who understands these concepts as politicoeconomic structures of society rather than as cosmic intelligences (cf. notes on 1:21, 22). At the other extreme there is the position represented by Stott, who takes exception to the kind of interpretation given by Barth and others. Stott does not accept the view that Paul was referring to earthly social structures that are included in the redemptive activity of God. In his book God’s New Society, he provides a short history of the study of the principalities and powers (pp. 267–75) and makes a passionate appeal that readers of the NT understand them as supernatural beings rather than as “structures, institutions and traditions” (p. 273).

It is unclear what effect this revelation of God’s mystery through the church is to have upon these heavenly beings. All the text says is that through the church they might know the manifold wisdom of God. Are they objects of God’s redemptive activity, or are they merely cosmic spectators to a drama that is being worked out on earth through the church? The rest of the NT is silent on this subject, and only a few verses allude to some kind of intelligent activity among the angels (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9; 1 Pet. 1:12).

The author describes the unity of the church as the manifestation of the wisdom of God—wisdom to the extent that God’s divine purposes were being accomplished throughout all the “past ages” down to the present time. Only an all-wise God could bring hostile nations and powers together into a unified whole.

God’s wisdom, the author continues, is manifold. This is a translation of the Greek polypoikilos, which basically means “many-sided” or “varied forms” (NEB). God’s manifold wisdom is like looking through a kaleidoscope that reveals an amazing array of shapes and colors as one turns it gently; it is like beholding a marvelous tapestry that a designer has woven from a variety of different strands (Stott, p. 123). In this verse, the author has a magnificent vision of a triumphant and unified church that demonstrates the entire creative and redemptive purposes of God to all humanity (3:9) as well as to all cosmic powers (3:10).

3:11 / The recent disclosure of God’s mystery was something that God had planned to do from eternity. In a way, the apostle is sharing a philosophy of history in which he sees each successive age as a further revelation of the eternal plan that God is working out for humanity. Many Christian writers have suggested that history be spelled His-story (cf. Stott, p. 127). The One who “chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (1:4, RSV) has now made that election possible in Christ Jesus our Lord.

As in the opening hymn, the author indicates that Christ is the agent through whom God accomplishes his purposes. Here he uses three specific titles for Christ: He is “the Christ,” that is, the Messiah for whom the Jews hoped; he is Jesus, the one whom the early Christians believed was historically present with them in the Incarnation; he is the Lord, who through death and resurrection has been exalted to the Father’s right hand.

When this verse states that God’s eternal purpose was accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, it implies that everything Christ did and said was important. The apostle is drawing attention to the entire Christ-event (incarnation-life-death-resurrection-exaltation), for in this, God accomplished his redemptive purpose for humankind. Ephesians 2:1–10 serves as a good commentary on how the apostle views the work of Christ as applied to the believer; 2:11–22 performs a similar function in showing how Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ to form his body. The church is a living testimony to the redemptive and unifying power of God on earth (3:9) as well as to all heavenly beings (3:10).

3:12 / Lest the readers conclude that the God who worked out this eternal plan is somehow removed from the everyday affairs of mankind, the apostle turns to a practical concern and reminds them that their union with Christ grants them the privilege of communicating with God (in him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence). The words in Greek are “boldness” (parrēsia), “access” (prosagōgē), and confidence (pepoithēsis). Parrēsia is used in the NT in the context of speaking, such as boldness in proclaiming the gospel (Acts 4:31; Eph. 6:20; Phil. 1:20) and confidence in approaching God (Heb. 4:16; 10:19).

Christians have that boldness in approaching God because their faith and union with Christ have given them confidence. In Christ, all barriers have been removed that would keep the believer from approaching God openly and confidently. Christ has revealed the Father as one who has forgiven his children and who loves them. B. F. Westcott aptly comments that “the right of address and the right of access are coupled together as parts of the right of personal communion with God” (p. 49).

3:13 / In this verse there appears to be an abrupt shift in the author’s thought, and he returns to his previous mention of being a prisoner (3:1). By reading between the lines one could get the impression that the Gentile congregations had become discouraged (enkakeō, “become weary,” “despair,” “lose heart,” “be afraid”) because their great spokesman had been imprisoned. Undoubtedly, much prayer went up to God on Paul’s behalf (Col. 4:18). It could be that his discussion on the revelation of God’s mystery and the reminder of the believer’s freedom in approaching God led him to encourage his readers not to become discouraged over the circumstances surrounding his imprisonment.

Most commentators draw attention to the fact that the Greek phrase is capable of a number of translations and meanings because the verb “do not be discouraged” (mē enkakein) does not have a subject. Consequently, it could read (a) “I ask that I may not be discouraged,” or (b) “I ask that ‘you’ not be discouraged.” The context of the passage, together with Paul’s positive attitude toward his sufferings (Rom. 5:3; 2 Cor. 12:10; Col. 1:24), suggests that the author’s concern is with the members of the Gentile congregations who may have become disheartened over Paul’s imprisonment. Consequently, they are once again reminded (cf. 3:1) that Paul is suffering on their behalf; but this time the author adds that it is for your benefit, literally, “for your glory” (doxa). The immediate benefit, or glory, is that through Paul’s ministry and subsequent imprisonment, the Gentiles have become members of Christ’s body. This, in turn, should prevent them from losing heart. It is doubtful that Ephesians is teaching that the sufferings of the martyrs are the glory of the church—a concept that developed in later centuries.

Additional Notes §13

3:2 / For an extended discussion of the “mystery,” see R. E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the Term “Mystery” in the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); A. E. Harvey, “The Use of Mystery Language in the Bible,” JTS n.s. 31 (1980), pp. 320–36.

3:10 / There is additional discussion of these concepts in the commentary on Col. 1:16; 2:15, 20, and Eph. 1:21–22 and 6:12. See the bibliographies listed in notes on Eph. 1:21–22 and 6:12. Cf. also Caragounis, The Ephesians Mysterion, pp. 139–42; Beare, pp. 671–72; Stott, pp. 267–75.

§14 Praying for Enlightenment (Eph. 3:14–19)

This section follows the same structural pattern that the author established earlier in the epistle. He began with a great hymn of thanksgiving for all of the spiritual blessings that God provided in Christ (1:3–14) and followed this by a prayer for his readers to understand their hope and inheritance in the Lord (1:15–20). In 2:1–3:13, the author provides a lengthy exposition on the believer’s position in Christ (2:1–10), the incorporation of Jews and Gentiles into one body, the church (2:11–22), and Paul’s personal role in revealing God’s eternal and secret plan (3:1–13); this, too, is followed by a prayer that the readers will understand the magnitude of God’s plan and be filled with the perfect fullness of God (3:14–19). An appropriate benediction closes the main doctrinal section of the epistle (3:20–21).

These similarities, however, should not prevent one from seeing some of the significant differences in the prayer. One devotional writer put the distinction in the following way: In the first prayer, “the apostle petitions God for knowledge; and in the second, he prays for love. The first is a prayer for revelation; the second is for enablement. It is not enough merely to know; we must be. The fruit of divine knowledge is the expression of divine life” (Strauss, p. 160).

Two significant features of this prayer should be noted. First, it has many parallels to the praise and prayer in chapter 1. In a sense, 3:14–21 could be considered a further application of the ideas developed earlier: prayer is offered to the Father (1:17 = 3:14f.); prayer is for the Spirit (1:17 = 3:16); the sphere of God’s action is in the mind (1:18) or the inner self (3:16); there is an aim for knowledge and fullness (1:18f. = 3:18f.); there is a linking of knowledge and power (1:19 = 3:19); and finally, praise and glory are offered to God (1:6, 12, 14 = 3:21).

Second, this prayer has a wonderful and ever-expanding progression to it. The author begins by listing three specific requests: He prays that his readers may (a) receive inner strength from the Holy Spirit (3:16), (b) experience the abiding presence of Christ in their hearts (3:17a), and (c) root and ground their lives in love (3:17b). The author envisions two significant developments from this: first, a deeper understanding and appreciation of the extent of God’s love (3:18); second—the ultimate goal—being “filled to the measure of all the fullness of God” (3:19).

3:14 / C. L. Mitton begins his exposition of this prayer by rightfully noting that “this short paragraph is one of the gems of the NT” (p. 129). The section opens with the same phrase (for this reason) as 3:1, where it appears that the author initially wanted to offer this prayer but was momentarily diverted. To kneel is an expression of deep emotion and humility—prostration in the spirit of submission (Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Phil. 2:10). Another posture of prayer was to stand with one’s face and hands lifted up to God (Matt. 6:5; Mark 11:25). Either way, it is the motive and inner attitude that is important, not the method. Once again, God is the Father to whom the prayer is directed.

3:15 / In Greek, there is a play on words between “Father” (patros) and family (patria) that is not obvious in the English. The author indicates that God, as Father, is the one from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. The meaning of the text is ambiguous and raises a number of problems: First, patria means a family, clan, or tribe that descends from a common ancestor. It cannot be translated as “fatherhood,” although the idea of fatherhood is there and has led some commentators to think of God as the prototype or archetype of all fatherhood. This is different from saying that God is the father of all, which the passage is not teaching.

Second, the phrase whole family (pasa patria) presents a problem analogous to “whole building” in 2:21. Some translations (as NIV) use whole family, but to do so requires an article (pasa hē patria). The GNB “every family” is the correct translation. But this does not clarify the meaning.

Given the context of the passage, which includes the unity of all people and reference to “angels, rulers, and powers,” it appears that the apostle understands that “every family,” that is, every human and divine fatherhood, derives its pattern and meaning from God, the divine prototype. The family on earth could be the Jews and the Gentiles that make up the church as the family of God. By “every family” in heaven, either the apostle envisions some kind of heavenly community in which family structures are meaningful, or he is using it as an inclusive way of saying that all conceivable family patterns, whether on earth or in heaven, receive their name from the Father. Mitton’s suggestion that the verse could mean “local congregations” (on the earth) and “a company of departed Christians” (in heaven) is intriguing though not entirely convincing (pp. 131–32).

3:16 / In this prayer, the apostle draws upon the vast reservoir of God’s resources—I pray that out of his glorious riches. The glory of God is the essence of all that God is, and so there is no limit to his ability to give. Normally, one’s prayers are limited by the inability to comprehend God’s riches and ask accordingly (3:20; James 4:2, 3). Ephesians reminds believers that God gives out of his glorious riches!

The first request is for inner strength from the Holy Spirit. Inner being is an inclusive term that can mean the heart, mind, spirit, and so on—anything that stands in contrast to the outer person (cf. Rom. 7:22; 2 Cor. 4:16). This inner strengthening is to take place by means of the power (dynamis) imparted by the Holy Spirit. It is the means by which God works within the believer’s life.

3:17 / Second, there is the abiding presence of Christ in one’s heart (that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith). Here is another way that God prepares the believer to fulfill his ultimate purpose. This statement reverses Paul’s usual terminology concerning the believer’s union with Christ by emphasizing that Christ dwells within the believer. This indwelling is to be perceived as Christ taking up residency in the believer’s heart, that is, in his or her inmost being. Furthermore, it is a relationship granted through faith, a thought reminiscent of 2:1–10 and the baptismal passages that connect faith with the indwelling Christ (Rom. 6:1–11; Gal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:11–13; cf. also Gal. 2:20). Faith is one’s inner response to the action of God through his Spirit.

Although the requests for strength from the Holy Spirit and for the indwelling of Christ are two separate expressions, they conform to Paul’s theology that equates the Spirit as the Spirit of Christ: To have Christ is to have the Spirit; to be in the Spirit is to be in Christ (Rom. 8:9ff.).

The third request is that the readers may be rooted and established in love. The tense of these verbs in Greek (perfect passive, errizōmenoi, tethemeliōmenoi) indicates this action already has taken place but is to continue as a reality in the believer’s life (see Col. 1:23; 2:7, for similar exhortations toward stability). To illustrate the depth of life that he is after, the author uses a botanical and architectural metaphor. One sends its roots deep into the soil, whereas the other is grounded on a firm foundation. The NIV indicates that the soil or foundation is love.

This translation does not indicate a rather serious textual question at this point. In the Greek, it is permissible to take the phrase in love with rooted and grounded (as NIV) or to take it with the preceding phrase to read “that Christ may make his home in your hearts, through faith in love.” Robinson, for one, takes it in this latter sense; by faith the Gentiles are partakers of Christ, but they are bound together in love (p. 175).

Most scholars, however, take love as the soil into which the roots grow or the foundation upon which a structure is built. Love is seen more as the result of Christ dwelling within the believer than as the sphere in which he dwells. The ultimate truth is that those who are strengthened by the Spirit and in whom Christ dwells will have their lives rooted and grounded in love. Since love is the possession of Jews and Gentiles, both can grow together in their understanding of Christ’s love.

3:18 / After making these three specific requests, the apostle concludes by mentioning the effect that his prayer will have upon their understanding of God. He is still addressing the Gentiles and indicates that their reception of God’s gifts is not something that they experience in isolation but together with all the saints.

These words are especially appropriate to people of a Greek background, with their tendency toward rationalism and love for knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. 1:22; 8:1–3; Col. 2:18, 23; 1 Tim. 1:4; 6:4). But even though the author has been developing a Christian philosophy of history with respect to God, humanity, and the world, the emphasis is upon love rather than knowledge. He would not condone a Gnostic system that elevates knowledge as the highest gift. The real test of one’s spiritual maturity is whether or not one is rooted and grounded in love; love, not knowledge, leads to a deeper understanding of God.

With the emphasis upon love rather than knowledge, one cannot help but feel that the author is attacking some form of Gnosticism (cf. Introduction). Besides stressing knowledge (gnōsis) in itself, Gnosticism’s emphasis on the attainment and possession of knowledge often led to a kind of spiritual elitism in the church. In Corinth, for example, this developed into a division between the “spiritual,” that is, those who possessed a higher knowledge, and the “fleshly,” those who were less enlightened (cf. 1 Corinthians). The Apostle John confronts a similar problem in his first epistle, where a manifestation of Gnosticism threatened to divide the church. This made it necessary for him to emphasize the close relationship between knowledge and love: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8; cf. also 2:9; 3:11–19; 4:13–21).

Knowledge, when grounded in love, will unify, not divide, God’s people. Thus the apostle prays that the Gentiles will realize that spiritual insight and maturity are not uniquely theirs; they do not exist in isolation from the way that God has worked out his purposes historically, particularly among the Jews. And since they are members of the same body, fellow heirs, and so forth (3:6), they share a knowledge of Christ’s love and the fullness of God together with all the saints.

This knowledge of God’s truth is not the possession of a few privileged individuals; it is not a matter of secret doctrines for a small inner circle. Knowledge of God’s mystery is given to individuals in and for the community of believers in the same way that all spiritual gifts are given for the welfare of the entire body (4:11–16; 1 Cor. 12:4–13; 14:12, 26). This is a timely message to Christians of any age when individualism tends to destroy the unity of the body of Christ.

The prayer includes the power to grasp—in other words, strength to comprehend or the complete ability to realize—how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ. This spatial imagery should be seen as the author’s attempt to show the magnitude of Christ’s love and should not leave the reader searching for objects that the author may have in mind. A number of interpretations of this passage refer to the shape of the cross, the church, the temple, the visible universe, and so forth. At best, however, such suggestions are “curiosities” (Stott, p. 137), or fanciful and ingenious interpretations (Mitton, p. 134).

When the author begins to reflect upon Christ’s love, he quickly discovers that there is no tangible way to describe it, and so he resorts to these rhetorical expressions. Christ’s love can be described only in spatial images. Paul had a similar experience when he dwelled upon God’s love in Christ and exclaimed that absolutely nothing can separate the believer from the “love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:31–9). Ephesians uses spatial imagery in a way analogous to the psalmist when he describes God’s love (Ps. 103) or omnipresence (Ps. 139). Every part of the universe is suffused with the love of Christ.

3:19 / But even as the apostle summons his readers to understand Christ’s love, he realizes that any effort to do so falls short of its intended goal. No matter how much power of comprehension one has, Christ’s love surpasses knowledge; it exceeds one’s “capacity of comprehension” (Beare, p. 679). What an indictment of those people who claimed such knowledge for themselves! Though it is legitimate and necessary to seek such comprehension, it is folly to claim full attainment of it. (For another discussion of love and its superiority to knowledge see 1 Cor. 8:1–3; 13:1–3.)

Although believers never fully understand Christ’s love, it is a step toward being filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. This is the second result of his prayer envisioned by the apostle. He began by praying that the power of the Holy Spirit, the indwelling of Christ, and grounding in love would lead to an understanding of Christ’s love. But the ultimate goal is that the believers attain the fullness that belongs to God, that is, all the riches and glory that belong to him. “God’s fullness or perfection becomes the standard or level up to which we pray to be filled” (Stott, p. 138).

The concept of “fullness” (plērōma) in Colossians (1:19; 2:9, 10) and Ephesians (1:23; 3:19; 4:13) is another way by which the author describes the indicative and imperative or the “already” and the “not yet” of the Christian life. In union with Christ, believers have been granted this fullness; but their possession is a goal that remains to be fulfilled as they appropriate God’s gifts and grow in their capacity to receive them (1:14; 4:30). The apostle seems to be emphasizing the reality of this within the context of the church and is not alluding to some kind of heavenly perfection that awaits God’s people when this earthly pilgrimage is over.

Additional Notes §14

On 3:14–21, see W. E. Hull, Love in Four Dimensions (Nashville: Broadman, 1982).

3:15 / For further discussion on whole family in 3:15, see Abbott, pp. 93–94; Mitton, pp. 130–32.

3:18 / See N. A. Dahl, “Cosmic Dimensions and Religious Knowledge (Eph. 3:18),” in Jesus und Paulus, ed. E. E. Ellis and E. Grässer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 57–75. Also Barth, Eph. 1–3, pp. 395–97; Moule, p. 100; Robinson, p. 176.

§15 Praising Through Doxology (Eph. 3:20–21)

3:20 / The apostle has prayed earnestly for certain things, but he realizes that even his requests fall far short of what God is able to do. Thus he concludes this doctrinal section with an appeal to the infinite wealth and understanding of God: To him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine. He has opened to his readers the marvels of God’s secret and how they have been incorporated into the body of Christ. But in spite of this vast and eternal plan of God, he reminds them that God has the resources to do much more according to his power that is at work within us. “Our experience of his power, as it is brought to bear within us, is a limited but true index to the nature of the power that governs the universe and brings all things to their appointed end” (Beare, p. 680).

3:21 / Most of the doxologies in the NT connect the glory of God to Christ in some way (Rom. 11:36; 16:27; Gal. 1:5; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Pet. 4:11; Jude 24, 25); this is the only passage that refers to glory in the church and in Christ Jesus. Some commentators take this as part of the author’s liturgical language, which should not be pressed for any kind of theological precision (see Houlden, p. 305). However, given the teaching about the church in Ephesians, the relationship of the church as the body to its head, Christ, and the occurrence of so much liturgical language, it seems more likely that this statement is chosen deliberately. Christ (head) and his church (body) form the entire sphere of God’s glory as well as provide the means by which that glory is proclaimed to all humanity. This praising of God’s glory is to go on throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. This amen is a final liturgical declaration that everything the apostle has written may indeed be so.

§16 The Appeal and Pattern for Unity (Eph. 4:1–6)

Chapter 4 begins what often is referred to as the ethical or practical section of the epistle. If chapters 1–3 provide the theological basis for Christian unity, then chapters 4–6 contain the practical instruction for its maintenance. Unity has been established (the indicative); now it becomes the duty of the believers to strengthen and maintain unity in their fellowship (the imperative).

This generalization does not mean that chapters 4–6 are devoid of theological content. The division of the epistle into such broad categories is somewhat misleading, because, as in the case of Colossians, the apostle throughout his epistles frequently combines theological and ethical statements (cf. disc. on Col. 3:1ff.). In Ephesians, the moral teaching is based upon what has been said in the earlier chapters (1–3) but also grows out of new theological concerns of the author, particularly with respect to the unity of the church. The liturgical style that characterized much of the first half of the epistle is maintained throughout the second half as well.

It has been suggested that the main theme in Ephesians is unity—a unity that has been effected by the reconciling work of Christ who has united all things in heaven and earth (1:10) and who has brought Jews and Gentiles together into the church. The apostle now exhorts his readers to maintain that unity in their personal, domestic, social, and ecclesiastical lives.

In the opening exhortation (4:1–3), he immediately draws attention to his main concern: The readers need to manifest those virtues characterizing their new life in Christ that “keep the unity of the Spirit” (4:3). This admonition is followed by a list of all the unifying elements of the church (4:4–6), which, in turn, are given further application throughout the remaining chapters.

4:1 / Then (“therefore,” RSV), I urge you refers to what has been said in chapters 1–3. As in 3:1, the apostle reminds his readers that his vocation is the reason for his captivity (as a prisoner for the Lord). The Greek preposition en also points to the sphere of his captivity: He is a prisoner “in the Lord.”

The exhortation begins by calling the readers to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. The concept of calling is an important one in biblical thought. On a number of occasions the prophets remind the people of Israel that they have been “called” by God to fulfill a specific function (see Isa. 41:9; 42:6; 43:1; 44:2; 45:3, 4; Hos. 11:1). Christians, likewise, have a calling from God, as is evident in the Lord’s disciples (Mark 1:20), the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:1), and the Gentiles (Eph. 3:6).

In Ephesians, the Gentiles have been told that God has chosen them to be his children (1:4, 5), appointed them to praise God’s glory (1:12), called them to a wonderful hope (1:18), and incorporated them into the body of Christ for a life of good works (2:10). Now they are admonished to demonstrate their calling and position in Christ by living a worthy ethical life.

To live a life is a translation of the Greek peripateō, which means “to walk.” At one time their “walk” conformed to “the world’s evil way” (2:2); now they are exhorted to “walk,” to live out their new life in Christ and the unity that is theirs in the church. They are a part of God’s grand design for the world, which includes the uniting of all things in heaven and on earth (1:10).

4:2 / This verse presents a list of personal attitudes essential for unity in the body of Christ. There is a striking similarity to the list in Colossians 3:12–15, but here the application is developed around the theme of unity. Stott refers to these virtues as the “five foundation stones of Christian unity” (p. 149). As was noted in Colossians, many of these virtues are related, and it is sometimes difficult to draw distinctions between them.

Humility (tapeinophrosynē) is that attitude of mind that enables one to see people other than oneself. The Greeks disdained the idea of a submissive or subservient attitude, but Christianity, by virtue of Christ’s example in the Incarnation (Phil. 2:5–11), gave it new meaning. When Paul met with the Ephesian elders, he reminded them that his ministry among them was carried out “with great humility” (Acts 20:19). Humility is especially important in the body of Christ, where interpersonal relationships are so important. The Philippian church is a classic example of how pride, selfishness, and conceit produce a fractured fellowship (Phil. 2:1–4).

Gentleness (prautēs) is consideration toward others. A gentle person will not insist upon his or her personal rights or be assertive at the expense of others. Stott notes how humility and gentleness go together by drawing upon an insight from R. W. Dale: “For ‘the meek man thinks as little of his personal claims, as the humble man of his personal merits’ ” (p. 149).

Patience (makrothymia) and bearing with one another (anechō, lit., “endure someone or something”) form another single thought. Patience would be the willingness and the ability to deal with people in a deliberate but courteous way—in the manner that God deals patiently with his people (Rom. 2:4; 9:22; 1 Tim. 1:16; 1 Pet. 3:20; 2 Pet. 3:15); Christians are called upon to demonstrate this virtue in dealing with one another (1 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 5:22; 2 Tim. 4:2). Such mutual tolerance within the body will go a long way in maintaining a spirit of unity.

The fifth virtue is love. Though it could be argued that love is not a separate quality from patience but “an amplification of what patience means” (Mitton, p. 138), love could be taken as the crowning virtue that embraces all the rest. Love is emphasized a number of times throughout the epistle (1:4; 3:17; 4:15, 16). And although love may include being helpful to one another, the author realizes that all virtues need to be practiced if there is to be unity within the church.

4:3 / Make every effort (Gk. spoudazō, which means “to exert zealous effort,” “to take pains”) to keep the unity. The entire expression underscores the apostle’s concern that his readers to guard carefully the unity that has been given to them. In principle, this unity already exists as something the Spirit gives; now God’s people are admonished to preserve and manifest that unity.

Ephesians is the only epistle in the NT that uses the word unity (enotēs, 4:3, 13). Elsewhere unity is described by such concepts as “fellowship,” “communion,” “one man,” “one body,” and so on. The unity here is a gift of the Spirit and should thus manifest itself in the human spirit.

Peace is introduced as the quality or means that forges a bond holding believers together. This is different from Colossians 3:14, where love binds all things together in perfect unity. In Ephesians, peace was obtained when the hostilities that separated Jews and Gentiles were broken down and both races were united in one new man in Christ (2:14–16); here it is presented as the bond by which that unity is kept.

Now that the author has exhorted his readers to maintain their unity through proper conduct, he presents the theological base from which all unity arises. Verses 4–6 list seven “ones” that relate the unity of the church to the unity of Christ and God.

There are a number of theories about the origin of this passage. Scholars have found striking parallels with forms of Hellenistic Judaism and Stoic philosophy. Beare, for example, lists a number of non-Christian sources that bear witness to the concern that existed in the ancient world about the unity of the cosmos, God, Law, Truth, and all areas of life (pp. 685–86). The assumption is that the author of Ephesians adopted such formulas, gave them a specific Christian content, and incorporated them into his epistle.

Most commentators, however, take verses 4–6 to be a compilation of verses and ideas that Paul has used throughout his writings. The main difference between Paul’s undisputed writings and the epistle to the Ephesians is not so much the content as the structure in which these formulations occur. Only Ephesians collects and arranges the thoughts into a pattern that resembles a liturgical hymn or a creedal confession.

Though the author may be indebted to such Pauline texts as 1 Corinthians 8:6 and 12:4–13, the application that he gives to the ideas found there conforms to his specific concern for unity within the body of Christ. In Corinthians, for example (1 Cor. 12:4–13), a local concern is dealt with regarding a misunderstanding of spiritual gifts and their application in the church’s worship and corporate life. It is emphasized that all spiritual pride and disunity should disappear because such gifts come from the same Spirit. In Ephesians, Christ is the dispenser of spiritual gifts, and the unity that embraces all of society is based upon the “oneness” of God himself as the ultimate source of unity (see Houlden, p. 309).

Structurally, several features of this passage are worth noting: First, the author moves from the church (“body”) to the Godhead. One may have expected him to proceed from the unity of God to the unity of the church, but his order appears to be determined by his concern for unity within the body. Verse 4 flows quite naturally from his exhortation in verse 3 calling for the church to preserve the unity that the Spirit gives; thus, “there is one body and one Spirit.”

Second, there is an obvious emphasis on all the members of the Trinity and the believer’s relationship to the Spirit, Son, and Father. Though there have been a number of ingenious attempts at outlining the apostle’s thoughts, there does not appear to be any conscious symmetry or parallelism in his mind. Stott, for example, applies four of the expressions to different members of the Trinity: “First, the one Father creates the one family. Second, the one Lord Jesus creates the one faith, hope, and baptism. Third, the one Spirit creates the one body” (p. 151). Basically, however, the passage teaches that the unity of the Godhead is the foundation of the church’s unity. “Its unity is of the same order as the unity of Christ and of God; as there cannot be other gods or other lords, so there cannot be other churches” (Beare, p. 686).

4:4 / There is one body and one Spirit: The union of body and Spirit is noticeable in 1 Corinthians 8:6; 12:4–6, 13. The emphasis in Ephesians undoubtedly is related to the concept that believers are members of the body by virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:13). There is only one body because there is one Spirit.

Besides being one in body and Spirit, they were called to one hope. Hope is the goal or inheritance toward which the body strives in the Spirit (1:14, 18; Col. 1:4, 5). All who have been called by God share in the hope that is common to all believers.

4:5 / From “the body,” the apostle moves to “the Head” (Christ) and what unites the believer to him. Lord is the Greek kyrios, which is attributed to Christ on a number of occasions (1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3; Phil. 2:11). The church is established by its acknowledgment of Jesus as “the sovereign Lord.”

Faith may be taken in two ways: First, it could signify “the faith,” that is, that body of teaching that contains all the truths about Christ’s life, work, and so forth. In the early church this became a common expression for the Christian message (Gal. 1:23; Phil. 1:27; 1 Tim. 3:9; 4:1, 6; Titus 1:4; Jude 3). But the absence of the article “the” in this passage makes it more likely that the author is thinking of one’s belief in Jesus as Lord and thus the acceptance and acknowledgment of him as Lord.

Baptism refers to the rite of water baptism, because it is the visible expression of one’s faith in the Lord and is the means by which one becomes a member of Christ’s body, the church (Rom. 6:1–11; Gal. 3:26, 27; Col. 2:11–13). It is doubtful that one baptism carries the idea that baptism is unrepeatable or that it is a polemic against other baptismal practices current at the time. All that is implied is that the one proper, or correct, baptism is the baptism of faith into Christ. Baptism is a sacrament of unity because it expresses a common faith in the one Lord.

The idea of baptism as a sacrament of unity is not unique to Ephesians. Behind Paul’s rather sarcastic remark to the Corinthians—“Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:13)—lies the implication that their baptism into Christ should unify rather than divide. This is even more forcefully expressed in 1 Corinthians 12:13, where there is a specific reference to baptism “by one Spirit into one body.” The direct mention of Jews and Greeks in this Corinthians passage, as well as in Galatians 3:27, 28, and Colossians 3:10, 11, fits well into the theme of unity in Ephesians.

Though faith, Lord, body, and Spirit all belong to the baptismal event, there is no way of knowing whether these phrases contain a baptismal formula or confession. If one subscribes to the liturgical setting of Ephesians, then it would be possible to envision these verses as a confession that a baptismal candidate recited or that the witnessing congregation sang as a hymn. The opening admonition to live a life that coincides with God’s call could be taken to refer to the new life that is received in baptism. However, the appearance of this formula in Ephesians does not necessarily mean that the epistle is a baptismal treatise or liturgy. Its application of baptismal imagery and theology simply conforms to the author’s purpose in describing the unity of the church. But behind the formula lies the idea of baptism as the “sacrament of unity,” the rite by which Jew and Gentile have been made members of the body of Christ. Both their faith and their baptism are in Jesus Christ as Lord.

4:6 / The writer’s thoughts reach their climax in the unity of God (one God and Father of all). The Christian community shared the Jewish concept of monotheism (one God) and through their relationship with Christ, appreciated God as Father (Rom. 8:15; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:14) of all, who is over all and through all and in all. The KJV “in you all” reflects a reading that lacks strong manuscript evidence and that has been abandoned in subsequent translations.

Given the context of the passage, it would appear that the author has the community of God’s people in mind (Stott, p. 151), even though such thoughts can embrace the entire universe. The concepts express God’s transcendence (over all), his omnipresence (through all) and his immanence (in all). One wonders if there is a veiled reference to the triune God, for in Christian thought, God’s omnipresence and immanence are manifestations of the Son and the Spirit. The verse is similar to Paul’s benediction in Romans 11:36, where he states: “For from him and through him and to him are all things.”

§17 The Giving of Spiritual Gifts to the Body (Eph. 4:7–11)

4:7 / The apostle has been discussing the unity of the whole (4:1–6); now he turns to the individual parts and shows how diversity within the body contributes to its unity. The body is unified but it is not uniform; every person has a special gift that makes a contribution to the whole.

In the verses following, the apostle lists the various gifts necessary for the body to function properly and ultimately to attain its goal of maturity—“attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ” (4:13). But to each one of us grace has been given. Christ’s giving is always a matter of his grace, and just as the apostle has emphasized how he personally was the recipient of grace (3:2, 7, 8), he reminds the readers that each one of them has received the same privilege. Later, he will show how that privilege leads to responsibility (4:12–16).

The gift is as Christ apportioned it. Though grace suggests the unlimited favor of God, this phrase shows that, as it was given to each individual, it does have limitations. No one person has all the gifts required for the body; rather, the gifts of each member are supplemented by the gifts of all members. It is the working together of each part that produces unity and growth. Here it is the gift that Christ apportioned, not the gift of the Spirit, as in Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:7–13).

The continuity of this passage is interrupted by a parenthesis at 4:9–10. The writer has introduced Christ as the giver of spiritual gifts, but before he goes on to enumerate them (4:11), he pauses to reflect upon the “giver” and how Christ’s dispensing of these gifts relates to the humiliation and exaltation of Christ. This so-called parenthesis (4:9–10) is one of the most difficult and controversial passages in the entire epistle: First, there is the translation of an OT quotation; second, there is the application of the quotation to Christ; and third, there is the meaning of these verses within the context of Ephesians.

4:8 / This is why it says indicates that the author is quoting from the OT. The problem, however, is that the quotation in Ephesians differs considerably from Psalm 68:18, which is the only likely source of the quotation.

Psalm 68:18	Ephesians 4:8
When you ascended on high,	When he ascended on high
you led captives in your train;	he led captives in his train
you received gifts from men,
even from the rebellious.	and gave gifts to men.

The NIV translation indicates that there is a change from the second person (you) to the third person (he), and it shows that the author has changed the phrase “you received gifts from” to “he gave gifts to.” Scholarly reaction to this has varied from accusations of deliberate alteration (see Houlden, p. 310), an “unintentional misquotation” (Mitton, p. 146), a piece of rabbinical exegesis (Beare, p. 688), to Stott’s explanation “that the two renderings are only formally but not substantially contradictory” (p. 157).

Initially, the psalm celebrated an earthly triumph of the Israelites over their enemies and the return of the defeated foes with the spoils of war to the capital city. This serves also as a picture of God’s victory over all his enemies during the exodus and his enthronement in the holy city. At a later period, the rabbis interpreted this passage as referring to Moses’ ascension of Mount Sinai to receive the law (Exod. 19). The giving of the Torah (Law) became associated with the festival of Pentecost. In this usage of the psalm, the rabbis understood that Moses ascended the mountain to receive gifts, that is, the law, for people so that he, in turn, might give it to people (see Barth, Eph. 4–6, p. 472; Beare, p. 688). An ancient Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew) actually changes the wording of the original psalm to “he gave gifts to men.”

When the author of Ephesians comes to discuss the spiritual gifts that Christ bestowed upon the church, he draws upon that psalm because he sees Christ’s ascension to the Father as its prophetic fulfillment (when he ascended on high). As Moses was given the law for the people of Israel, Christ, as a second but greater Moses, gave the Spirit to the church, which, in turn, included the gifts mentioned in 4:11 (he … gave gifts to men). Captives refers to the principalities and powers that he led captive (1:20–22; Col. 2:15).

Either commentators are troubled by the author’s cavalier use of the OT (Houlden, p. 310) and disregard for the original meaning of the OT text, or they accept this as “a true testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy” (Moule, p. 107). Stott reconciles the problem by stressing that “receiving” was for the purpose of “giving” and finds this principle illustrated in Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:33), when he states: “He has been raised to the right side of God and received from him the Holy Spirit, as his Father had promised; and what you now see and hear is his gift that he has poured out on us” (pp. 158f.).

4:9 / The author leaves the quotation and expands (parenthetically in NIV) upon the meaning of ascend and descend: What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended. The phrase to the lower, earthly regions raises the second major interpretative problem in this passage. Commentators are full of suggestions, including (a) the earth; (b) the region below the earth, such as Hell or Hades; (c) Christ’s descent at the Incarnation; (d) Christ’s humiliation on the cross and his subsequent death and burial; and (e) Christ’s return at Pentecost to give his Spirit to the church.

Since the apostle does not clarify what he meant, one assumes that his readers must have known to what he was referring. Some may have thought of a tradition in the early church that spoke of Christ visiting the underground between the time of his death and resurrection (1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6). However, it could be just an expressive way of being as inclusive as possible. It thus serves to balance the phrase “higher than all the heavens” in 4:10.

4:10 / From descent the apostle turns to ascent and stresses that the same person is meant in both cases: He who descended is the very one who ascended. This must be a reference to an early heresy known as Docetism, which denied the reality and integrity of the Incarnation (cf. 1 John). What the author would be saying is that the same Jesus who became incarnate, who suffered and died, who descended to Hades (?), is the same person who was exalted to the right hand of the Father and who is the dispenser of spiritual gifts.

The ascension is higher than all the heavens. Ancient cosmology depicted at least seven heavens above the earth (see disc. on 3:10). Here again the apostle is saying that Christ has been exalted to “the highest honor and glory possible” (Foulkes, p. 116); his presence permeates everything between the deepest deep and the highest high (“all things in heaven and on earth,” 1:10). Early Christian theology described Christ’s ascension as an exaltation in, through, or beyond the heavens (1:20, 21; Heb. 4:14; 7:26).

The purpose of the ascension is that Christ will fill the whole universe (cf. 1:23). This could mean that Christ simply pervades everything with his presence or that, by doing so, he brings all things into subjection under his sovereignty. At any rate, the central truth about the ascension is that it makes Christ accessible “to all men everywhere at all time” (Mitton, p. 149). In the context of the gifts, this passage shows that the ascended Lord is the same person who descended to the earth in order to give these spiritual gifts to the church.

4:11 / After this brief commentary on Psalm 68:18, the apostle returns to his thoughts on the special gifts that Christ has given to the church (4:7). From his rendering of the psalm, he repeats—as if to reemphasize—that Christ is the giver: It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers.

Although this verse may look relatively simple on the surface, there are a number of issues that make its meaning difficult and even ambiguous: First, within the canon of the NT there is often an overlapping of functions attributed to an office. Deacons and elders, for example, perform a similar ministry, and few scholars agree on how presbyters, bishops, and elders are to be distinguished from each other.

Second, churches may have differed in their organizational structure from place to place. Thus, what was true for one specific congregation may not have applied to all the other churches. It is a fairly well accepted theory that the “charismatic” leadership of the early church was gradually replaced by regulated offices (e.g., elders, bishops, deacons). The Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Timothy, Titus), for example, stress the offices of the church rather than the variety of gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12.

Third, there also is the question of authority in the early church. Initially, spiritual and ecclesiastical authority belonged to the early leaders—the apostles, prophets, elders, and so on. Gradually, however, this authority was replaced, or rather superseded, by the canon of Scripture. As the early church leaders died, the church was forced to look at the inspired writings that they had left behind as their source of authority. Thus Paul’s apostolic authority could be maintained for succeeding generations through his letters to the churches.

A fourth problem about Ephesians is the intention of the author. What were his reasons for presenting the list that he does? Why does he omit the gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians? Does his selection conform to his presentation of a universal rather than local church? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not always easy to determine.

Finally, any interpretation of these “gifts” runs the risk of imposing contemporary ideas upon ancient categories. Since the church today does not generally use the office of apostle, for example, the temptation is to find a modern counterpart in church leaders such as area superintendents and overseers (see Stott, p. 160). There may be a certain legitimacy to this, but it does not help to clarify the original meaning of an office and/or gift and to understand it in the context in which it is used. Here, it is not a case of putting new wine into old skins; the church has new skins into which it is trying to pour old wine.

There are several things that can be noted about Ephesians: First, apostles, prophets, and teachers are the only three categories that are taken over directly from 1 Corinthians 12:28: “And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers.” The apostles and prophets have already been mentioned in the founding of the church (2:20; 3:5); the other offices (evangelists, pastors/teachers) occur for the first time.

Second, the office of evangelist occurs only two other times in the NT. Philip is an “evangelist” (Acts 21:8), and Timothy is exhorted by Paul to “do the work of an evangelist” (2 Tim. 4:5). There is no way of knowing whether the author thought of evangelists as foundational to the church in the same way as apostles and prophets. Certainly their function as proclaimers of the gospel could be considered in this way.

Third, it appears that attempts to separate these offices into foundational and continuing ministries, or those intended for the universal (apostles, prophets, evangelists) and local church (pastors/teachers) are arbitrary. Had the apostle intended to make distinctions, one would have expected him to mention presbyters, bishops, and deacons as well. What is certain, however, is that Christ gave (appointed) these offices to the church for the specific function of having the church attain its full maturity in him (4:12–16).

Apostles: This term comes from the verb apostellō, which means “to send out.” An apostle is one who has been sent. In the NT it is used of the Twelve, of those who are associated with specific churches (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25), and of Christians generally (John 13:16). In the early church, the qualifications of an apostle of Christ were to have seen Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1, 2) and been a witness to the resurrection (Acts 1:21–23). Apostles were sent out as messengers, probably upon the commission of a church (after the Lord’s death), to exercise leadership in spiritual and organizational matters.

Prophets: In biblical literature, a prophet is a proclaimer (forthteller) as well as a predictor (foreteller). These individuals received a specific message from God, either directly or through his Word, and by way of divine utterances made the will of God known in specific situations. In most cases, it was the communication of a specific and immediate message of God to his people or to the church (see Stott, pp. 161–62).

Evangelists: The most obvious definition of an evangelist is “a preacher of the gospel” (2 Tim. 4:2, “Preach the Word”). In the early church there were itinerant individuals who would move about into unevangelized areas in order to proclaim the gospel. However, an evangelist may also have the gift of making the gospel understandable or of leading individuals to accept it as God’s word for them (cf. 2 Tim. 4:5: “But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry”).

Pastors and teachers: A common debate at this point is whether the author intended to express two distinct offices or whether pastors and teachers are two functions of the same office. The absence of the article before teachers (tous de poimenas kai didaskalous) leads one to suspect that these words express two aspects of the same office—an office that has a pedagogical and pastoral ministry.

This is the only occasion in the NT where the noun poimēn occurs as a title for a church leader. Undoubtedly, it comes from the application of the shepherd imagery that characterized the Lord’s relationship with his disciples. Jesus is the good shepherd (ho poimēn ho kalos, John 10:11–18; cf. also Matt. 18:12–14; Luke 15:3–7; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 2:25; 5:4); on several occasions, leaders in the church are exhorted to “be shepherds of God’s flock” (1 Pet. 5:2; Acts 20:28); church leaders are to pattern their “pastoral” (shepherding) ministry after the example of Christ.

If the primary function of a pastor is to care for the flock in a loving and pastoral way, then the main function of the teacher would be the feeding of the flock through instruction. It is difficult to separate the two, because pastoring and teaching are so closely related. To quote Stott: “Perhaps one should say that, although every pastor must be a teacher, gifted in the ministry of God’s Word to people (whether a congregation or groups of individuals), yet not every Christian teacher is also a pastor since he may be teaching only in a school or college rather than in a local church” (pp. 163–64). Pastoring, which includes an element of teaching, implies a long-term responsibility for the spiritual needs of people.

Additional Notes §17

4:8 / R. Rubinkeiwicz examines the targumic version of the psalm in his article, “Ps LXVII 19 (= EPH IV 8): Another Textual Tradition or Targum?” NovT 17 (1975), pp. 219–24. See also G. V. Smith, “Paul’s Use of Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:8,” JETS 18 (1975), pp. 181–89.

4:9 / For further explanation of these theories, see Abbott, pp. 114–16; Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 433–34; Beare, pp. 688–89; Mitton, pp. 146–49; Stott, God’s New Society, pp. 156–59. On the theory of Christ’s descent at Pentecost, cf. G. B. Caird, “The Descent of Christ in Ephesians 4, 7–11,” in Studia Evangelica, vol. 2, ed., F. L. Cross (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1964), pp. 535–45.

4:11 / An old but valuable discussion can be found in J. B. Light-foot, “The Christian Ministry,” in Philippians (London: Macmillan, 1898), pp. 181–269. On the offices, cf. K. H. Rengstorf, “apostolos,” TDNT, vol. 1, pp. 407–47; G. Friedrich, “prophētēs,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 781–861; idem, “euangelistēs,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 736–37; J. Jeremias, “poimēn,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 485–502; K. J. Rengstorf, “didaskalos,” TDNT, vol. 2, pp. 148–60.

§18 The Attainment of Unity (Eph. 4:12–16)

4:12 / After listing the offices, the apostle now clarifies their function or purpose. In conformity with Corinthians, the gifts are given to the church for the good of the entire body (1 Cor. 12:7; 14:26, 31). The work and the results described fit the ministry entrusted to the pastors and the teachers.

The first and immediate function of church leaders is to prepare God’s people for works of service. The NIV correctly combines preparation and ministry, thus avoiding the error of some earlier translations that made two coordinate clauses out of the sentence (cf. KJV; RSV, 1947 ed.). In the body, every member and not only the ministers must be taught to serve. The word katartismos (“training,” “preparing,” “equipping”) conveys the idea of an harmonious development in which all parts are brought to a condition of being able to perform according to their created purpose (2 Tim. 3:17).

The second phrase, so that the body of Christ may be built up, expresses the ultimate goal of the gifts given to the church. Here building imagery indicates that the body is being built as God’s people are prepared for doing the work of the ministry (diakonia). Every member must contribute to this process, or the body will be deficient in areas of its growth.

4:13 / From these two general statements, the author goes on to define more specifically the various aspects of Christian growth in the body of Christ. The building up of the body of Christ includes several important features: First, there is an intellectual component (until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God). Here is a call for the Christian community to collectively work toward attaining the unity of the faith (eis tēn enotēta tēs pisteōs). Since Ephesians already has spoken about the unity inherent in the “faith” (4:5), one sees this as another reminder that the readers are to progressively appropriate what is theirs by possession. The emphasis here is upon the corporate attainment of this unity (we all reach unity) rather than upon individuals striving for spiritual growth apart from the body.

In addition to faith, knowledge of the Son of God is a second condition of unity. Son of God is another designation for Jesus (Rom. 1:4; Gal. 2:20), and there does not appear to be any specific reason why this term is used here. What is important is that the Son of God is essential to unity because he is the object of Christian faith and knowledge. The realization of unity, in other words, is to be found only in a personal relationship of faith and knowledge to the person of Jesus Christ.

A second feature of bodily growth includes personal maturity—we shall become mature (eis andra teleion). Although some scholars take this as a reference to individual or personal maturity (Mitton, p. 154) or to Christ as the “Perfect Man” (Barth, Eph. 4–6, pp. 484–96), the context shows that the author is still thinking about the corporate nature and unity of the church. As a body it is to grow up as mature people, a goal that, of course, can be attained only as each individual member grows in the unity of the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God.

The third feature is something equivalent to Christ-likeness (Mitton, p. 154)—attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. This is the final prepositional phrase (eis … eis … eis …), and it represents the final stage of the church’s maturity. Christian maturity, whether individual or corporate, is that quality of life that belongs to Christ. As the church attains Christ’s full stature there is a reciprocal benefit in that Christ also finds his fullness in the church (1:23).

So far the apostle has been describing Christian unity as a goal to be attained. True, there is diversity within the body with respect to the spiritual gifts that Christ has given to the church, but that diversity is to promote the unity of the faith and to assist the body in reaching its ultimate goal. Believers are to grow out of their individualism into the corporate oneness of the person of Christ. In the following verses he describes some circumstances that hinder the attainment of unity, and then he provides some insights on bodily growth.

4:14 / Although unity is an ideal to be realized, the writer is aware that the church’s pilgrimage toward that goal is characterized by immaturity and instability. Currently, the body of Christ acts very much like infants, a designation that implies immaturity, erratic temperament, individualism, self-assertion, and so on. When the church attains its goal, then it will no longer act in a childish way.

Children also are unstable, that is, they can be like a little boat, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men. The church acts in an immature and unstable way when it permits false teachings and doctrines to distract it from attaining its maturity in Christ. There is no way of knowing whether the author has any specific heresy in mind (such as Gnosticism or Docetism, cf., Acts 19:26–35), or whether it is a general exhortation toward sound doctrine. Either way, the teaching of false doctrine promotes sectarianism and individualism rather than corporate unity within the body of Christ.

The apostle expands upon the deceitfulness of humankind by employing a metaphor that comes from a game of dice—in their deceitful scheming. The Greek kybeia basically means “dice playing” but ultimately developed into such concepts as craftiness, trickery, and deceit.

It appears that false teachers deliberately tried to mislead the church through crafty and deceitful teachings. “The people are being swept along by the prevailing crazes and new fashions of thought; but also they are being manipulated by unscrupulous and clever men who by every trick they know are trying to divert them from the main life of the Church into divisive and sectarian movements” (Mitton, p. 155). All these negative qualities will disappear (then we will no longer be …) when the body of Christ has attained its goal of unity and maturity in Christ.

4:15 / From the negative, the apostle returns to the positive direction that the church is to take. A divided church is characterized by rivalry, suspicion, hatred, pride, selfishness, lack of direction, and so forth (cf. Phil. 2:2–4). Instead, he pleads that the church should be characterized by the qualities of truth and love (speaking the truth in love). Literally, the phrase should be translated “truthing in love” because there is no verb in the Greek text for speaking, and the essential meaning is that truth needs to be conveyed in love and not by deceit and craftiness.

Truth and love form two essential components of the church’s life. The significant teaching in this phrase is how these two virtues belong together. Christian truth has a moral as well as an intellectual side; it affects the entire person, not just the brain. And though the possession of truth is crucial to the life of the church, it also is important how that truth is obtained and maintained. Christian teachers clearly cannot resort to the kind of trickery that characterizes the false teachers (4:14).

“Truthing in love” suggests the idea of living out the truth in a spirit of love. Some congregations may have all “the truth,” but no love; others may have considerable love, but no truth. What is needed is a combination and balance between the two. Stott makes a fitting and astute statement on this point when he writes: “Truth becomes hard if it is not softened by love; love becomes soft if it is not strengthened by truth. The apostle calls us to hold the two together.… There is no other route than this to a fully mature Christian unity” (p. 172).

As with the apostle’s other exhortation, this one is directed toward the corporate life of the church as well. The individual must learn to live as a part of a greater whole—we, that is, the entire body, will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. The church is a living body, capable of manifesting such growth because of its relationship to Christ, the Head.

4:16 / As the head of the body, Christ directs and controls the growth that is to take place. Thus he is the source as well as the goal of the church’s growth. To illustrate, the author employs a physiological metaphor similar to the one in Colossians 2:19. In Colossians, the emphasis is upon the nourishment and cohesion that the Head gives the body; in Ephesians, the head-body relationship remains, but emphasis is given to the interdependence of individuals within the body in much the same way that muscles, nerves, limbs, and so on are joined together in the human organism. The syn verbs (synarmologoumenon, “to fit or join together,” and symbibazomenon, “to bring, unite, knit together”), underscore this concern, and their present tense indicates an ongoing process within the body of Christ.

Again, the author draws attention to the importance of parts in relation to the whole: The whole body, joined and held together … grows and builds … as each part does its work. It is one thing for individual members to be related to the Head (4:15); but it is equally significant that the growth of the body depends upon the way these members relate to one another and perform their appropriate function as members of the body. This building and growing process takes place in love. As the readers have been exhorted to demonstrate love to each other (4:2, 15), they are reminded again that love is the soil out of which such growth in unity takes place (cf. 3:17).