For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity…

– Ephesians 2:14-15a

Racial reconciliation and social justice have been major topics of discussion in the culture for several years. Churches and parachurch organizations have correspondingly been addressing these topics more frequently. This is not a bad thing; God’s Word certainly has a great deal to say about these things, including our equality based on being created in the image of God, and the love we are to have for the disenfranchised. Churches who are preaching the whole counsel of God—being Biblically proportionate—will regularly encounter God’s wisdom that speaks to issues of social justice.

One frequent line of argumentation, however, which derives from the latter half of Ephesians 2, warrants a critical evaluation. Here, Paul talks about two distinct people groups, the Jews and the Gentiles, and how—through Christ—these two groups are now one. I’m concerned that this passage falls prey to a bit of “buzzword exegesis” that misses the main point that is being made, which is rooted in the full redemptive-historical storyline. The passage mentions these conflicting groups obtaining “peace”, the abolition of “enmity”, and “reconciliation”, and a culturally-relevant sermon practically writes itself: “Throughout the Old Testament, and at the time of Jesus, the Jewish people were antagonistic towards Gentiles. They saw themselves as the insiders and were prejudiced against those on the outside, seeking to preserve their privilege. But through Christ, God has broken down that social enmity so that the two groups are now reconciled. And thus, by way of application, we need to follow that same example in our modern society, seeking to put away division among us.”

Those points and application are not wholely untrue. They are just not what this passage is saying in its context.

What is the source of the enmity?

Paul rather clearly identifies the source of this “dividing wall” and “enmity”, and it‘s not the people‘s prejudicial hatred toward one another that is in view. The dividing wall that was broken down, the source of enmity that was abolished, was “the Law of commandments contained in ordinances”:

For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity.

We rightly proclaim that it was always God’s intention to bring all of humanity—all tribes, peoples, and languages—together as one body in Christ. This is inherent, for example, in the promises given in the Garden of Eden, and in the promises given to Abraham. But what we often fail to acknowledge when discussing passages like Ephesians 2 is that while this unity was part of God’s good and perfect plan, so also was the (temporary) Old Covenant era, in which God determined to separate a particular people, the Jews, and mediate that covenant through the Mosaic Law which—among other things—was designed to maintain their distinctiveness. The covenant blessings given exclusively to Israel were very real. This was God’s doing, not the work of a people trying desperately to maintain their privilege.

God-fearing foreigners were welcome, but in order for a foreigner to receive the covenant blessings under the Old Covenant, they were required to adopt the Jewish Law as their own. Passages like the following are repeated throughout the Law:

“As for the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who resides among you, a permanent statute throughout your generations; as you are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord. There is to be one law and one ordinance for you and for the stranger who resides with you.” (Numbers 15:15–16)

The scandal of the New Covenant was that, in opening up the way of salvation to the Gentiles, the Law no longer applied. Gentiles no longer had to “become Jewish” in order to be first-class citizens. The economy of the New Covenant is completely different, and this was a difficult thing for faithful Jews to grasp.

Andrew Lincoln summarizes the argument of this passage well:

That which was the distinguishing mark of Israel under the old order, the Torah, has been abolished. As the symbol of the particularity and exclusiveness of Israel’s election, and thereby the source of hostility and alienation between Jews and Gentiles, it was quite unable to produce peace, but with its removal through Christ’s death reconciliation was able to take place on a new basis. ¹

Understood in context, this section of Ephesians is sort of a “mini version” of the arguments made in much more detail in the book of Galatians explaining the proper relation of the Mosaic Law to the promises fulfilled in Christ. Ignoring this, and making this passage in Ephesians all about socioeconomic racial reconciliation, inadvertently turns the God of the Old Testament into a repentant racist who “got woke” at the time of Jesus, a point I am quite sure no one is trying to make.²

Speaking of Galatians…

A similar argument is often made from Galatians 2, where Peter is rebuked by Paul for refusing to eat with the Gentiles. Again, one popular explanation is that Peter had trouble casting aside his previous prejudice against Gentiles and needed to be reminded of the inclusiveness demanded by the morals of Christ. Thus, one often hears, “racial reconciliation is a Gospel issue”.

Racial reconciliation is a vital issue, and one that Christians should care deeply about, but—at the risk of sounding a bit cheeky—in the context of Galatians, the Gospel issue is: the Gospel. As the immediate context (and indeed, the entire letter) makes clear, the issue at stake is a failure to grasp the newness of the New Covenant, and the (non-)role that the Mosaic Law has in both justification and sanctification. The Law, which is based on “doing” (Galatians 3:12), must not be confused with faith, or else we have lost the Gospel. This is the root of the hypocrisy that Paul is opposing. Paul goes on to argue one of the most shocking ramifications of the new economy:

If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. (Galatians 2:18–19)

This is a scandalous point Paul is making. Understood as God intended, the Mosaic Law brings us to faith in Christ (“through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God”). It is those who rebuild a life based on law—after having come to Christ—who are the true lawbreakers according to Paul. (“If I rebuild what I destroyed, then I really would be a lawbreaker.”)

This was a very difficult thing to accept for the early church, and remains a difficult thing for many today, which I suspect is one reason we grasp onto alternate interpretations of passages like Galatians 2 and Ephesians 2.

Does it matter?

Does it matter, though? As long as we arrive at conclusions that are valid and truthful on their own terms, does it make a huge difference how we got there? Could we not just call it “secondary application”? Or perhaps argue the value of keeping the Bible relevant? I would argue that it does matter, for two reasons.

First, let us not miss the self-evident fact that if we overlook the original meaning of the text, we have robbed our readers/listeners of being reminded of exactly that original intent of the passage. In the case of passages like the ones above, there are powerful points being made about the newness of the New Covenant, the supremacy of Christ, and the inadequacy of law-based living. Especially in Galatians, this leads directly to an understanding of what it means to live by the Spirit. These profound truths have immense present-day relevance as we are ever tempted to return to the errors that plagued the Pharisees.

Second, it inhibits the development of Biblical discernment. We are bombarded continually with messaging telling us what we should think, from sources such as social media influencers and the most extreme voices of our political parties.³ Without discernment, the influence war is won by those most skilled in rhetoric and marketing savvy. In teaching God’s Word, we are ideally not just another voice communicating what to think, but modeling how to think, showing others how to go from the original meaning of Scripture to modern application, so they can in turn interpret the Bible for themselves. I fear that when we skim over the main storyline to focus immediately on present relevance, we miss the opportunity to better prepare our readers/listeners to sniff out the error that bombards them every day.

Put another way, we rightly object if someone misinterprets Scripture and arrives at a false conclusion, for example citing 1 Timothy 2:5⁴ to prove that Jesus is less than divine, or Titus 2:11⁵ to endorse universalism. But why do we object? I would argue that ultimately we are not merely rejecting the conclusions of these errors, but more significantly the hermeneutical process that led to those errors in the first place. A foundational key of the historical-grammatical approach to hermeneutics is that “a text cannot mean what it never meant … the true meaning of the biblical text for us is what God originally intended it to mean when it was first spoken.”⁶ Understanding that interpretive principal is far more valuable than only being able to refute a specific theological error. It’s the old adage of, “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.”

Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians (Word Biblical Commentary), Zondervan, 2014, p.163. ↩
It’s not as if there are no passages of Scripture that speak directly to issues of prejudice or social justice. To cite a single example, the central question of the parable of the Good Samaritan is “Who is my neighbor?”, and the teaching of Jesus clearly answers that in a way that leaves no place for tribalism or religious justification of indifference. ↩
I am not claiming that our era is unique in this way. There have always been, and always will be, voices demanding our allegiance. ↩
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus…” ↩
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all people…” ↩
Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (3rd ed.), Zondervan, 2003, p.30 ↩