Ephesians

by David Dryden

Chapter 2

verses 11-12

Paul makes the following case:

(11) Therefore, remember that you, in times past gentiles in the flesh, called "uncircumcision" by that which is called circumcision in the flesh handmade, (12) that, in that time, you were estranged from the state of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Ephesians 2:11-12)

Now, contextually, there's not much to comment on in this passage. But, unfortunately, some derive from this that all gentiles, non-Jews, are naturally hopeless, without God, having no relationship with him. In fact, some state that it was impoosible or non-Jews to have any relationship with God without becoming a Jew!

Now I'm not going to go through this again since I've dealt with this sort of thinking in another article which I'll direct you to. Just go to the article series called "The way of righteousness for the nations" found on the main Tanakh index page. But, specifically, I deal with Paul's logic in chapter 1 and chapter 2a.

For a very brief response, I'll just say that the Hebrew Bible again contradicts such thinking, showing that non-Jews can have a relationship with Deity without becoming Jews. Read the whole series that I just referred to for evidence.

verses 13-16

Paul continues to press his point:

(13) But now in Christ Jesus you who before were far off become near by the blood of Christ. (14) For he is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of division; (15) Having nullified in his flesh the enmity: the law of commandments in regulations, in order to create in himself of the two one new man, [thereby] making peace; (16) And that he might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Ephesians 2:13-16)

So, according to Paul, in order establish peace between Jew and gentile, Jesus did the the following with his blood (sacrifice, or death):

τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασιν καταργησας
TRANSLATION: ... having made void/rendered idle/nullified/abolishing the law of the commandments in regulations ...

Now, is Paul talking about the law of Moses? Why even ask the question since that's all that Paul has been attacking so far? Well, there are some who would say that Paul is not talking about the law of Moses! They would say that the Greek word translated "regulations" (other translate it as "ordinances", but that's not a commonly understood term) refers everywhere else in the "new testament" to authoritative decrees made by man (Acts 16:4; 17:7; Luke 2:1). Therefore, according to their logic, the word cannot refer to the word of God, the law He gave to Moses. So the "regulations" refer to the decrees made by man, either our sins (Colossians 2:14), or the oral law of the Pharisees (Ephesians 2:15), which they believe to be manmade.

But the problem with this thinking is that the Greek word is only used 5 times. There are 3 clear occurrences that refer to manmade decrees. But that, in itself, is not enough to dictate the meaning of the other two occurrences. If we were dealing vith a word that occurred many, many times, like 50 times, and they all had a certain meaning, and there were 4 uncertain occurrences, we'd have a good idea about the meaning of the 4 uncertain ones. But if we have 60 certain occurrences but 40 uncertain ones, then it is not so easy to state, for certain, what the other 40 mean because the amount of certain one is not a big enough proportion to dictate the others.

The same is true for having 3 occurrences that have one certain connotation, and 2 that have some uncertainty or possibly a different slightly meaning. Three is just not enough to dictate two.

Add to this, the fact that there is nothing in the Greek word for "regulations", δογμα, dogma, that stops it from referring to a decree or regulation from God. In fact, a writer around the time of Paul, called Josephus, referred to God's Law as the regulations, δογματα, dogmata, of God.

Throughout the Pauline writings, Paul consistently has a problem with regulations, laws, and decrees: the Law of God given through Moses. So, seeing Paul's track record with attacking the Law, there is no real sound argument for not taking Paul's words to their obvious meaning: The Law of Moses is the emnity which was nullified by Jesus. It is the Moses' divinely given law that is supposed to make a separation between Jew and non-Jew, a separation Paul takes as a dividing wall, a hostility between Jew and Gentile.

Let's just take this interpretation which mainstream christianity takes as true, namely, that Paul is talking about the abolition of the law of Moses as a whole, or laws within the Mosaic law. One notable thing that has to be taken into account is one of the verses Paul quotes in his book, in Galatians 3, i.e., Deuteronomy 27:26. It's interesting that Paul refers to laws being abolished and nullified, contradicting its validity when that's exactly what Deuteronomy 27:26 speaks against.

Going back to Paul's words, we must ask if they accurately depict the purpose of God's law, or even a result of it. You see, the true intent of God's law that is outwardly spoken of and written about in the Hebrew Bible was never segregation with hostility. It is only Paul and his followers who try to link the Law with segregation and hostility. But, on the other hand, the law sets apart a people in order to purify and disseminate. Remember that! The law sets apart a people in order to purify and disseminate!

The law sets apart the people of Israel as chosen for a purpose. The law purifies those people, that nation, for a purpose. And then an important part of that purpose is for Israel to spread, or disseminate, the truth of God by being a light to the nations (Exodus 19:3-6; Deuteronomy 4:5-8; 7:6; 14:2). As a royal priesthood, the nation of Israel does not segregate to the point of total isolation from the world, but, by maintaining a high standard, they minister to the world and shine the light of the truth of Deity for all to see. Thus, there must be some interaction with the world in order to truly minister to it. But there also must be some separation - the set-apart nature of Israel - not for hostility, but rather that the message and messengers can remain pure, not geting mixed up with foreign elements.

What is overlooked by Paul's interpretation of the role of the law is the fact that it encourages and commands love for God and for mankind. That doesn't really tally with Paul's law-hostility doctrine.

A way to understand the relationship between Israel and the world is to look at the relationship between the Levitical priests and the rest of Israel. The Levites, who were a tribe of Israel, were "segregated" from the rest of Israel in a way, but not completely, by their special laws. Yet, according to that law, they were an integral part of Israel, always aimed at working with and for the rest of the nation as a whole as a loving and cohesive unit. In the same way, the priestly nation of Israel, though segregated in a way (not completely), should, according to that law, be working for and with the world until the knowledge of God fills the earth as the waters cover the sea.

So, the notion that the law, the true observance of it, produces hostility is wrong! It is through the law and the example of living it that real love is promoted in the whole world. As shown in my article series about righteousness for gentiles mentioned, it is not the case that Jews are in one corner with God and a covenant, a relationship, and laws that govern that devoted relationship, whereas the gentiles are in the other corner without Deity, without covenant, without a relationship with God, and without divine laws. The whole world has a covenant with God, the covenant of Noah. The world has divine laws that they should keep and we are accountable to God for our deeds, as can be seen by God's judgment against the generation of Noah who perished in the flood, God's judgment against Abimelech for taking Abraham's wife for his own, Naaman who accepted that the God of Israel was the only true God although he was Syrian, God's judgment against and mercy towards Nineveh, etc. So everyone can have a relationship with God without being a Jew if they want it. It is evident throughout the books of Moses, the law and history recorded in them and all the pages of the Hebrew Bible, and the historical heritage of the Jews that such laws were preserved throughout history and spread abroad.

So, if it is Paul's contention that the law creates or maintains hostility between Jew and non-Jew, then, once again, the Law itself with the rest of the Jewish Scriptures refute him.

Chapter 4

verse 8

Paul quotes Psalm 68:18 to say that Jesus came down to earth, went back to heaven, and gave gifts (such as apostleship and teaching) to his followers. Let's just look what Paul says and compare it to what the Hebrew Bible says, as well as its ancient Greek translation.

PAUL: ενι δε εκαστω ημων εδοθη η κατα το μετρον της δωρεας του χριστου, διο λεγει αναβας εις υψος ηχμαλωτευσεν αιχμαλωσιαν και εδωκεν δοματα τοις ανθρωποις
TRANSLATION: And to each one of us he gave the grace according to the measure of the gift of the christ. Therefore he said, He ascended into height[s]; he captured captives; and he gave gifts to men.

LXX: αναβης εις υψος ηχμαλωτευσας αιχμαλωσιαν ελαβες δοματα εν ανθρωπω
TRANSLATION: You ascended into height[s]; you captured captives; you took gifts among man.

HEBREW BIBLE:
עָלִיתָ לַמָּרוֺם שָׁבִיתָ שֶׁבִי לָקַחְתָּ מַתָּנוֺת בָּאָדָם
TRANSLATION: You ascended to the height[s]; you captured captives; you took gifts among man.

Can we be honest with ourselves and the text? OK, lets state the facts: Paul changes the words of scripture! Even the LXX, the questionable Septuagint, does a better job of translating the original Hebrew text than Paul. In fact, Paul has reversed the direction and meaning of the word: instead of the proper word "take", Paul uses a word with the opposite meaning and says "give"! So Paul is NOT being faithful to scripture, but, rather, he is again fulfilling his own agenda.

Also note that, contextually, the passage in Psalms has nothing to do with messiah. It is talking about God's action at and around Sinai (see Psalm 68:17).

I would point out that christian commentators try to say that Paul was justified in his translation based on the Jewish ancient Aramaic paraphrase/commentary called the Targum. They say that the Targum of Psalm 68 uses the phrase, "you gave gifts to the sons of man". And they are right! The Targum does use that phrase! But do you want to read the whole passage from the Targum? OK, here goes:

(18) The chariots of God are two myriads of burning fire, two thousand angles guiding them; the presence of the Lord rests on them on the mountain of Sinai in holiness. (19) You ascended to the firmament, O prophet Moses; you captured captives, you taught the words of Torah, you gave gifts to the sons of men, ..." (Psalm 68:18-19 - verse numbering is different in the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic versions than in the English versions)

Do you see a problem here? Compare the Targum with an "accurate" translation of the Bible, or, even better, if you know Hebrew, compare it with the original text. You'll see that the Targum adds a lot phrases and concepts that are not explicitly in the text. Why? Remember, I said that the Targum was a paraphrase/commentary of the text. It is not an attempt at our modern conception of a translation: it doesn't attempt to just convey the meaning of each word in the text. It actually uses Jewish tradition and interpretation and put it in a translated portion. It doesn't even claim to be a plain translation!

So people who claim that Paul is using the Targum to make a point are already standing on shaky ground, and that's IF he's using the Targumic tradition, which he never claims to. It is the commentators who are putting words in Paul's mouth which we can never know if he really said.

But the essential problem with people claiming that Paul is quoting from the Targum is right there in its text. Do you see the subject of verse 19 (or verse 18 in christian versions)? It's the prophet, Moses! So it's not talking about Jesus. It's not talking about God. The Targum is only talking about Moses! You may be able to see that this piece of Targumic commentary actually fits the context of the original Hebrew text, i.e., what happened at Sinai, with Moses being the main human player. So, if Paul is using the Targum, then he is not right in using it to make his alien claim.

So, this is the case, again, of out of context misusage and distortion by Paul.

Chapter 5

verse 14

(12) Because it is a shameful to speak of the things which are done by them in concealment. (13) But all things that are exposed are revealed by the light, because everything that reveals is light. (14) Therefore he says, Awake, sleeping one, and get up out from the dead, and the Christ will shine on you. (Galatians 5:12-14)

Now Paul, in verse 14, seems to be quoting something. How can I make such a claim when all Paul says is, "therefore, he says"? Well, I can make this claim basied on two principle places of evidence: firstly, from a good number of christian commentators who say that Paul is either quoting, paraphrasing, or referring to something in the Hebrew Bible; and, secondly, from Paul's own writings, namely that he uses this little phrase here that he used in a previous place where he quoted scripture (Ephesians 4:8), i.e. "διο λεγει", "therefore he/it says". So Paul seems to be referring to something in the Hebrew Bible.

But that's where we hit upon a problem. What exactly is Paul quoting or paraphrasing from the Hebrew Bible? Where is he referring to? There is a difference of opinion here. Some say he is neither quoting or paraphrasing; that these are just his own words (see Wesley's commentary). We'll ignore them for now. We'll focus on christian commentators like Gill, and Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown. They give two possible sources. That shows the ambiguity we are dealing with in this "quote". But let's look at the options.

Firstly, there's Gill in his Exposition of the Whole Bible, who refers to Isaiah 26:19.

Your dead shall live; my corpses shall arise. Awake and sing, dwellers in the dust, for your dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades. (Isaiah 26:19)

But the words and the message of Isaiah 26:19 don't match that of Paul. Paul is speaking of deeds being done in secret being revealed by the light. But Isaiah is speaking about the abundant revival of a nation, a people. The subjects are different. Plus, the words of the Isaiah say nothing about a "christ" or an anointed one. In essence, the subject Paul is talking about has nothing to do with the message of Isaiah. [Some may say that Paul already is expert at ripping verses out of context and giving them his meaning, but there is not a strong link between Paul's words and Isaiah's.]

Secondly, we have both JFB (Jamieson, Faucett, and Brown) and Gill referring to Isaiah 60:1, which is much closer in some ways.

Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of HaShem has shone upon you. (Isaiah 60:1)

But it is still very dissimilar to what Paul is saying. There is nothing about sleep, nothing about resurrection, and nothing about a "christ" or an anointed one. So again, both wording and subject matter are different.

Now, in my original notes of going through this verse of Paul's, I thought that Paul could have possibly done a cut-paste-edit of both verses, both Isaiah 26:19 and 60:1. I mean, there are hints of both in Paul's "rendition". At the very least, it has the light motif from both verses. And there would be no point in complaining that Paul wouldn't do such a thing, because it has already been shown in Romans 9:33 that Paul is not beyond cutting verses from two different portions of a book each in half and sticking them together for his own purposes. So it's not beyond Paul to sink to such levels. Neither is it far from Paul to add words to scripture in Galatians 3:10 where Paul adds the word "all" to help his point. But I didn't really want to push the point here because there is little point in speculating when Paul does more than just split-and-stick verses together: he rewrites it!

Someone may say, "Well, maybe he's not quoting anything." But then we have to make this verse alien to the rest of his writings, and imagine some unwritten identity who said these words, since Paul prefaces the words with "therefore, he says": who is "he"? We can either understand this preface in light of how Paul generally speaks, or, for some arbitrary reason, make an exception. Until, I see basis for the latter approach, I'll just move on and leave it.

In the end, Paul has either distorted scripture [beyond recognition] for his own purposes, or he has made up a scripture that doesn't exist.

BACK TO INDEX

Home

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.