For our discussion this week, we were asked to look at Paul’s somewhat negative view of the law in Ephesians 2:15; “[Christ] has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace…”[1] We were asked to consider why Paul appears to have such a negative view of the law. Why would he say the law has been abolished when Christ explicitly declares in Matt. 5:17 that he came to fulfill it?
I had said that if we take into account the preceding verse, we find a clue. “For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us.” What was circumcision? It was an outward expression of Israel’s unique, “set apart” relationship with God. Yet, as has been discussed before, it seems to have been a sign of national identity, which of course meant that if you were a Gentile, you must take on all the procedures of Jewish identity to become a member of the people of Israel.
So what I think Paul is doing in Ephesians, which appears to be a mostly Gentile community, is preventing them from separating over any issues of national identity (i.e. circumcision/non-circumcision). This works in both directions: neither Roman national identity, nor Israelite national identity. Instead, because of Christ, “both groups [are] one” because the wall of division (commandment of circumcision) has been removed.
Ever since our discussion, though, I’ve been wondering what this would have looked like for the average Gentile? After believing for most – if not all – of one’s life in many gods and goddesses, what would it be like to suddenly focus on one? And what if one was aware of the requirements for becoming Jewish? Now imagine another Jew, Paul, coming around and saying this one requirement was no longer necessary in order to believe in and follow the one God of Israel. It now meant one was no longer either Jew or Gentile; it meant one was now absent of national identity.
Imagine yourself as a Gentile in 1st Century Rome (or within the Roman Empire); what would you think of the Jewish people? What would you think of your own national identity? Now imagine a Jew wandering around telling people to believe in the God of the Jews, but not to subscribe to many of the ordinary customs. “Instead,” he says, “believe and follow the Messiah.” How might you react? What are your thoughts as you listen to this Jew named Paul?
[1] New Revised Standard Version
the archives near Emmaus 
Last week at the HBU Theology Conference N.T. Wright played out this very scenario in one of his talks. He was pretending to be Paul announcing the Jewish Messiah to the world. It was like, “Good news! We have a Messiah….a Jewish Messiah….who was crucified….who God raised from the dead!” Between each statement he pretended to be a puzzled Roman or Greek ending with the realization when Paul says God raised this crucified Jewish Messiah from the dead that Paul must be insane! So yes, the Gentiles didn’t have to submit to the Old Covenant to “join” the commonwealth of Israel, but it sure did demand that their whole lives still change!
I don’t know that I would have received Paul’s message. When I was younger, maybe, but now I am older, sometimes more skeptical. I think Paul would have had a better shot with a early twenties me than an early thirties me.
“So what I think Paul is doing in Ephesians, which appears to be a mostly Gentile community, is preventing them from separating over any issues of national identity.”
While many suppose that Ephesians was written to non-Israelites, this perspective lacks all support. Despite this, few bother to either prove it, or question their presuppositions. In fact, the evidence seems to suggest Paul was addressing the non-Jewish ‘Greek’ Israelites spoken of in [John 7:35]. To see this, let’s look at some clues:
ALIENATED FROM COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL
1. [Eph 2:12] – Whoever Paul’s audience were, they were a people alienated from the commonwealth of Israel. The word “alienate means to be ‘estranged‘ from. You cannot be estranged from something you never had a relationship to. Someone who has never had a relationship to a particular community cannot be alienated or estranged from that community. However there was a historical people who were alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, because of the sins of Solomon, set in dispersion because of their own sins: that was the House of Israel.
[1 Kings 11:30-31] “Then Ahijah laid hold of the new garment that was on him, and tore it into twelve pieces. And he said to Jeroboam, ‘Take for yourself ten pieces, for thus says YHWH, the Elohim of Israel, “Behold, I am about to tear the kingdom from the hand of Solomon and will give you ten tribes.” This is the origin of the wall of partition between the two House of Israel and Judah.
These ten tribes were never known as ‘Jews’, and Daniel’s vision (8:20-26) tells us their dispersion would start with Medo-Persia (8:20), taking them through Greece (Alexander, 8:21) ending with the Messiah (8:25). Only these Israelites, rejected by God [Hos 1:9-10] were prophesied to be grafted back into Judah [Eze 37:15] and become known as ‘my people’ [Hos 2:23]. All prophets foresaw the reunification of the House of Israel with the House of Judah, no prophet foresaw the unification of the commonwealth of Israel with the world.
ALIENATED FROM LIFE OF GOD
2. Similarly, Paul’s audience had at one time lived the ‘life of God’, now alienated from it [Eph 4:18], had been aliened by the nations amongst whom they lived and had forgotten their God and become ‘strangers’ [Isa 17:10]. Only the House of Israel had been prophesied to become ‘not-my-people’ (darkened) [Hos 1:9-10; 2:23].
MADE STRANGERS & FOREIGNERS IN GOD’s INHERITANCE
3. In [Eph 1:14] Paul speaks of Christ as the downpayment of our inheritance. Only one people were promised an inheritance through Abraham [Psa 147:19-20]. To Paul’s Ephesians, this inheritance was theirs yet they had been made strangers and foreigners to it. Paul’s already told us what the inheritance was, and who it was it was promised to: “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. [Rom 9:4]. God’s inheritance is noted in [Exo 34:9], and Israel denoted as the ‘heritage of the Lord’ in [2 Sam 20:19; 21:3]. Paul was speaking to those who inherited God’s promises, the covenant, so he is speaking to the sons of Abraham promised through Isaac, and Jacob [Gen 17:19], but what people ignore – is these same Israelites had been made strangers by being sifted through strange nations. The House of Israel had been made strangers [Eze 16:32][Isa 17:10] by being sifted through godless nations [Isa 30:28][Amos 9:9].
Of course, we could ignore the clues Paul put in his letter We could ignore the messianic promises of the prophets, pretending instead of uniting the House of Israel with the House of Judah, the messiah’s role was to make God a liar by removing the special ‘called out’ status Israel inherited from Abraham by making the world and Israel indistinguishable, but that would really require we be ignorant of God’s word and character.
The missing component that which breaks down the dividing wall is the new covenant. Jer 31:31, Heb 12:18-29. The new covenant supersedes the former that was an exercise, a forecast to prepare for the work of God Isaiah 40:3, 43:19, Mat 7:14, Jhn 6:29. There is a specific instance where many of His disciples left Jesus. This was not as other single instances where individuals sought to be identified with Jesus yet not actually turn their hearts to Him. Luke 9:57-62, Mat 19:22 The subject that offended many so much so that Jesus asked His apostles if they would leave too is expressed as the body and blood of Jesus. John 6:32-71. Most are too casual of His presence, disdain the purpose of this life. I Corinthians 11:27-31
Circumcision was applied to the physical vessel of the hope of man thereby placing procreation of that flesh unto God. circumcision was in the flesh, was of the law that applied to the physical. The New Covenant is peace with God. Children of the Kingdom of God born not of flesh but of God. Those whose heart is circumcised where flesh holds no sway, spirit life that is not subject to fleshly constraint. Rom 2:29
It usually strikes me as suspect when there is an attempt to put Paul’s words (or any Scripture) “into context.” While Paul may have been writing to a particular assembly, his words, as Scripture, were intended by the Holy Ghost for all believers of every age. Jesus stated that His coming and work by no means destroyed the Law (ie. the curse of God over Sin), as most of Christiandom today supposes. But through a promise made to Abraham (justification through faith) the Law is neutralized of its power to condemn, but only through . . . FAITH. The Law remains, as a Lion to chase some into Christ, and to work the end for all consummated transgressors. Consider also that the Law presumably WILL PASS AWAY, with natural things, according to (Matt. 5:18), what will NOT pass away, are Christ words (Matt. 24:35), thus demonstrating the transcendency of those things in Christ, over those things of the present age. .
Bob, indeed. The new marriage replaced the old marriage even if the bride was the same bride. So was this bride? The answer is in the same verses you just presented:
“‘Behold, the days are coming, declares YHWH, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares YHWH.” [Jer 31:31] and [Heb 8:8]
From [Isa 61:10] we see that Israel’s glory was this covenant. It works like this figuratively:
Husband (God) and wife (Israel) [Isa 54:5] marry. Wife commits adultery (by pursuing other gods [Eze 16:32]), but a married woman (Israel) is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if the husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress [Rom 7:2-3].
Israel was free to remarry God under the new covenant because her husband died. That is why the husband, Israel’s Redeemer [Isa 54:5] is called the Holy One of Israel [Isa 41:14; 43:14; 49:7].
The New Covenant is evidence that the sons of Abraham have received their Messiah; the sheep their shepherd.
Jesus offers all the promises of the Father to Israel. A word search of “whosoever” specifically in the gospels and consistent throughout biblical verses reveals the work of God. 2Timothy 2:10-13
Andrew:
“We could ignore the messianic promises of the prophets, pretending… the messiah’s role was to make God a liar by removing the special ‘called out’ status Israel inherited from Abraham by making the world and Israel indistinguishable, but that would really require we be ignorant of God’s word and character.”
What would you make of Paul’s language in Gal. 3:28-29; “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are in Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise,” (emphasis mine)? And as far as clues in Paul’s letter of Ephesians are concerned, he states in the opening chapter:
I can certainly see the plausibility of not being estranged from something one was never in a relationship with, but perhaps that isn’t in reference to Israelites estranged from the rest of Israel, but instead converts to Christ who had recently strayed away? Perhaps it is still in reference to a mostly Gentile audience, but an estranged-Christian audience (as you say, whoever they were)? Again, I find your point plausible, but not entirely convincing. Instead, I think Paul was focused on something beyond being “Jews and Gentiles”; instead, “fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,” (Eph. 2:19). Perhaps that is what you’re saying here and I’m simply missing it?
Also, I appreciate all the references to the prophets; it would have taken me quite a while to make all those connections, so thank you.