Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Temple language in Ephesians 2:11:22
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Yes I was very struck by this as I read Ephesians over the summer. What do you think he means by the 'dividing wall of hostility'? Temple curtain? Actual hostility between Jews and Gentiles? Both?
ReplyDeleteGreat encouragement. Hope we get to see you over Christmas!
ReplyDeleteThanks Laura, I know I'm pretty rubbish at being encouraging in this blog, seeing as they are notes on specific things rather than all of my thoughts on everything like some other peoples blogs. Just shows you though - sure fire way to be encouraged - read the bible (almost) unadulterated.
ReplyDeletePete, I guess there are a number of levels. There literally was a wall between the court of the gentiles (in Herod's temple, I don’t think Solomon had a court of the gentiles) and the rest of the temple. So that's where Paul got the concept of a 'wall' from, I think. But that wall represented something too. It represented that the Jews were the priests to the gentiles (who in turn had their own priests) and only the priests could 'come near to the father'. Only those who were ritually clean, wearing the right clothing, and of the right ancestry (Israel for the nation of priests, Levi for the priests to the priestly nation, Aaron for the high priests) could enter beyond that wall. The further you went in the more rituals (ordinances) you had to perform and the more specific your ancestry had to be. God is a consuming fire after all. But what the wall represented was also represented in other ways such as the circumcision that Paul mentions here. Circumcision (table fellowship etc) was a sign that the ‘covenant of promise’ was for the Jews and not for the gentiles and was a constant reminder to any gentile who knew Jews – and we all know the hostility that comes from exclusive claims like that. So I think Paul uses ‘wall of hostility’ as a symbol of this more pervasive division.
Anyway, Paul is more structured than me. He says that:
A The wall of hostility is destroyed because the law of commandments and ordinances are destroyed.
B So Jews and Gentiles are in peace with each other AND reconciled to God
A’ So killing hostility
Undoubtedly there was ‘real’ hostility between Jews and gentiles as we know from Acts, but from ancient lit we know there was hostility from the gentiles toward the Jews too – it went both ways. But Jewish hostility is partly excusable as it reflected the hostility that God had toward the nations if they attempted to come near him. In summary I think from Paul’s structure, and more generally you have to see the hostility as both a horizontal (jew/gentile) and vertical (gentiles/God) thing.
I don’t think that the dividing of the curtain was particularly in view here, as Paul is concerned with gentiles and walls. However the tearing of the curtain is expressing the same sort of thing – but more focused on the vertical/creational than horizontal/covenantal.
Does that make sense? I'd be interested to know if you have any thoughts.
Hi Dave,
ReplyDeleteYes I think you've probably hit it on the head there. I guess that Paul has several things in mind; architecturally (and I meant the divsion of the temple between Jews and Gentiles rather than separating off the most holy place), culturally (concerning circumcision and the temple cult) and sociologically (for want of a better word - and I guess the tensions both ways between Jews and Gentiles are described in Romans). All three dividing walls have been broken down.
What I've also been struck with in Ephesians is the number of times that the words 'together' and 'all' are used. It's the same theological point I think.
Hello again Pete,
ReplyDeleteYou put it much better than I did. Although I do think you have to be careful to not make it all one race v. another race, i.e. all horizontal. It is necessarily the case that this alienation between races is also an alienation from Christ (v.12; after all 'salvation is from the Jews' John 4).
Ephesians is good... lots about unity as you say, and it is not just a theological unity but is applied in the second half (mutual encouragement, mutual rebuking, mutual submitting, - but different roles in the family, in the church, in the workplace).
The other thing I noticed lots of is 'riches'. Seems to pop up all over the place and it is the richness of the inheritance, and the richness of God's mercy, which leads Paul to see the bringing near of the Gentiles. There is too much grace to be penned in - it overflows to the whole world!