The following paragraph is from Joachim C. Fest’s Hitler (1974) (bibliographic information down below) and is from the very end of the text, “The Dead End.” While Fest is talking about 19th/early 20th century German, the conclusions he draws from the story of Hitler’s political life with the people are conclusions that expose some of the current trends in our own moment here in America. It’s these exposures, these moments when reading about another’s history and we see ourselves trodding down a similar path, that are important to take heed of, to listen to, to walk through the discomfort of… Just as people were just people in early 20th Century Germany, so are we just people–no more resistant than they to authoritarianism, nationalism, and (even) fascism. We are not a different breed of human, and especially not if we choose to ignore where and when history can and might repeat itself. So, I offer this paragraph as a moment for consideration of our own time, our own location in history, and our own relationship to this American political endeavor of democracy. In the end, we must be aware of our tendency to want to do away with “politics”, to be done with it, to hand it over to someone else so we don’t have to “worry” or “think” about it anymore. We must take seriously not only the rhetoric around but the ease of our tendencies toward private, autonomy, and the malformed conception of freedom as “freedom from the neighbor for myself.” We might be exhausted from party-politics and the constant manipulation of our fear and anger, but we must not confuse this exhaustion for an exhaustion with the entire idea of politics, which is larger and broader and deeper than simple party politics; it is the very ground under our feet as we move through our societies with each other. Enough from me, here’s Fest:
The National Socialist revolution did not merely shatter outmoded social structures. its psychological effects wen very deep, and possibly this was in fact its most significant aspect. For it totally transformed the entire relationship of Germans to politics. On many pages of this book we have mentioned the extent to which Germans were alienated from politics and oriented toward private concerns, virtues, and goals; Hitler’s success was partly due to that state of affairs. For on the whole the people, restricted to marching, raising hands, or applauding, felt that Hitler had not so much excluded them from politics as liberated them from politics. The whole catalogue of values, such as Third Reich, people’s community, leader principle, destiny, or greatness, enjoyed such widespread approval in part because it stood for a renunciation of politics, a farewell to the world of parties and parliaments, of subterfuges and compromises. Hitler’s tendency to think heroically rather than politically, tragically rather than socially, to put overwhelming mythical surrogates in place of the general welfare, was spontaneously accepted and understood by the Germans. Adorno said of Richard Wagner that he made music for the unmusical. We might add, and Hitler politics for the unpolitical.
Joachim C. Fest, Hitler, translated by, Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), 792. Originally published as Hitler, Berlin: Verlag Ullstein, 1973.
Psalm 146: 1-2, 4 Hallelujah! Praise Abba God, O my soul! I will praise Abba God as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have my being. Put not your trust in rulers, nor in any child of earth, for there is no help in them. Happy are they who have the God of Jacob for their help, whose hope is in their God…
Introduction
Last week we were reminded that there are no external boundaries that create a Christian group; in fact, we could say that based on what we learned in Ephesians and what we learned last week boundaries—dividing walls, traditions forcing some to withdraw from and exclude others—are anathema to reign of God. If so, then why do we—Christians—seem deadest on creating barriers to inclusion with the ecclesia and God?
I ponder this question a lot because of where I find myself caught in this particular socio-political timeline. I may be too sensitive here, but the lines between who is “right” and who is “wrong” are appearing to be deeper and thicker than ever before. It feels easy to pull apart right now, to cut ties, to wipe the dust from your sandals and move on. It feels safe to fall deep into your own party of ideas and ideologies, to surround yourself with those just like you, to shrug and sidestep those “others” who don’t think like you. It even feels good to be really frustrated and angry, to give into fear, to have anxiety and worry about the global dumpster-fire we seem trapped in. Even if easy, safe, and good feels really good (and it can feel really darn good), for Christians that path is contrary to the path articulated to us by Christ, the one we are supposed to travel, to walk in, and to grow through.
In short, part of Christian praxis and identity in the world is our burden to pull together and not pull apart, to dare to step into the void of the unknown and risk our comfort and safety, and to relinquish our addiction to anger and fear so to disrupt hostility and enmity with equity and justice. We are exhorted to see that even those whom we might call “dogs” are none other than our dear siblings, beloved little children of God.
Mark 7:24-37
And then he was saying to her, ‘You permit the children to be filled first, for it is not honorable to take the bread of the children and drop it to the little house dogs.’ And she answered and says to him, ‘[Yes] Lord, even the little house dogs under the dining table eat from the crumbs of the little children.’ And he said to her, ‘On account of this word, go; the evil spirit has gone out of your daughter.’ (Mk 7:27-29)
Mark continues the story from where we left off last week. After addressing the crowd about what actually makes a person clean or unclean (hint: it’s not what goes in but what comes out), Jesus sets out: Now, from there, writes Mark, he rose and departed toward the territory of Tyre. Tyre was a region that was connected to Palestine and exerted financial dominance over Galilee; in some historical documents, the Tyrians are considered Israel’s “‘notoriously… bitterest enemies.’”[1] Within this relatively small detail, Mark demonstrates that Jesus is continuing to push boundaries—even if reluctantly,[2]And then he entered a house desiring no one to recognize him and he was not able to escape notice. Mark highlights that the message about the dissolution of boundaries, of the destruction of traditions and dividing walls of the kingdom of humanity, is not only for the house of Israel but also for the neighboring territories (and the world).[3] Jesus’s traveling participate in God’s will: Gentiles are not excluded from the mission of the reign of God and the divine revolution of love, life, and liberation.[4] God is for them, too; God is for the entire world and all humankind no matter the race, the color of the skin, the orientation and identity of the person.[5] If Jesus is the way to this God, then this way, this door, is wide open; [6] no one will be excluded because of random lines drawn in the sand willy-nilly separating this or that people.[7]
The story continues. Mark tells us that Jesus’s desire to go unnoticed by entering a house fails,[8]But at once, after hearing about [Jesus], a woman—whose daughter had an unclean spirit—came and fell before his feet. Now, the woman[was] Greek—Syrophoenician by race—and she was asking him to cast out the evil spirit from her little daughter. This isn’t just any person, and this isn’t just any woman. This is a desperate woman before God. This woman was willing to transcend religious tradition, social expectation, and political boundaries to heal her daughter (either her daughter or one related to her).[9] She is a thoroughly Gentile woman (the double identification emphasizes this point), and she carries the threat of ritual impurity because her daughter is possessed by an “unclean” spirit. There were many strikes against her: woman, Gentile, and unclean (ritually).[10] This woman is in great need and hears about Jesus being in Tyre and is willing to risk her wellbeing to seek healing for one whom she loves. Love does this; faith in Christ also does this.[11],[12]
But Jesus doesn’t reply to her in a way the reader would expect, considering what’s occurred thus far in the Gospel of Mark. Jesus says to her, ‘You permit the children to be filled first, for it is not honorable to take the bread of the children and drop it to the little house dogs.’ As one commentator said, Jesus’s response “is certainly not diplomatic,”[13] it is downright offensive (not only today but especially then[14]); he comes across as one who won’t help.[15] No matter how you parse it, the intentional term Jesus calls her, κυνάρια (translated as “little house dogs”), is flat-out insulting and dehumanizing (she’s a dog not a child—and this goes for her entire race).[16] At that moment, she had every reason to be discouraged.[17]
But rather than be discouraged, she seizes on a moment, or an image: Yes, Lord, even the little house dogs under the table eat from the crumbs of the young children. The “yes” is lost to our translation, but it’s there in spirit. She doesn’t disagree with the insult and then twists the image to emphasize that the little house dogs are happy to eat—even if second—the crumbs that fall to the floor and under the table; [18] in other words, it is right to let the crumbs fall into the possession of the dogs and let the dogs have their moment.[19] Theologically, what she sees here is the bold articulation of the power of the reign of God transcending not just local religious tradition but also socio-political division and boundaries; crumbs fall from the table for the children on to the floor where the dogs are.[20] Why shouldn’t they eat, too?
What happens next? Her daughter is delivered of the evil, unclean spirit. Jesus replied, this time full of grace, like one happy to be wrong,[21] and walks back his initial (human[22]) comment and heals her daughter with one (divine) word,[23],[24]On account of this word, go!; the evil spirit has gone out of your daughter. Just as he did before over dirty hands and she did just then about dogs, Jesus demonstrates that the tradition and boundaries of the kingdom of humanity are no match for the transcending power of the reign of God and the divine revolution of love, life, and liberation.[25] The divine equity of God’s mission in the world is pronounced here: it is not about being exclusive but inclusive; the bread of life will be shared with all no matter who they are or from where they hail.[26] She, too, is a child of God, worthy of living bread.[27]
Conclusion
According to Mark’s Jesus, no one—absolutely no one—is to be excluded from the presence of God made known in Christ and revealed by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore here, in this passage from Mark, we are given every reason and motivation to pull together, to step outside of our comfort and safety, and relinquish our anger and fear. According to Mark’s Jesus, no one is so far gone to be outside of God’s great reach.
What is most paramount in this passage for us today—the thing that really jumps out at me, the thing that Mark wants his audience to understand—is that we are to be a healthy amount skeptical of the traditions and dogmas of the kingdom of humanity and how these very things have infiltrated our theology and worship, causing us to gate-keep, calling it God’s will. In this passage, Mark wants us to see that Jesus turns his back on the conception of God’s will that leads to exclusivist thinking, ranking some humans as more important to God than others. Nothing is further from the truth. No one has a unique claim to God or those who belong to God. And we do not work from the idea that we are “right” as if everyone else is wrong; it’s not about right and wrong, which is the worst language to speak in; rather it’s about working from hope, hope and our being fully dependent on God and God’s word.*
Beloved, remember that you are the beloved little child of God, adopted into the family of God through faith in Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit; remember, too, there are more people out there who think they are dogs and beyond God’s concern because that’s what our society has told them. To them we are sent; to them we go bringing God’s love, life, and liberation. To them and for them we bring divine equity and justice to the glory of God.
*This is inspired from Philip G. Ziegler’s AAR Paper (2023) “The Revolutionary Philanthropy of God–The Dogmatic Engine of Paul L. Lehmann’s Theological Ethics,” San Antonio, TX, p. 6. “…those who subsequently are impelled to ‘move against the focus of power’ in the existing social and political situation do not do so from a position of self–possession and strength–a position of right–but as those undone by judgment and grace and so in repentance, humility, and hope for others. Lehmann emphasizes that Christians and revolutionaries–Christians as revolutionaries–always ‘bear a righteousness not their own’ (Phil 3:9). They cannot and do not pursue their own righteousness; rather, their ethical and political adventure seeks only the righteousness of their neighbor.”
[1] R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, eds. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 297. “Tyre, whose territory adjoined northern Galilee, had long been an important trading city. It had close links with Palestine, particularly under Herod the Great, and its coinage was widely circulated there; indeed, it exercised considerable economic dominance over the neighbouring area of Galilee. But it was clearly foreign territory, and Josephus…describes the Tyrians as ‘notoriously our bitterest enemies.’”
[2] France, Mark, 294. “[Jesus’s] initial intention is apparently not to engage in a ‘Gentile mission’ as such but simply to remain incognito (7:24), but events soon dictate otherwise and he responds, even if at first reluctantly, to Gentile needs.”
[3] France, Mark, 294. “The debate about purity has raised the question of how far, if at all, the mission of Jesus has a relevance beyond the community of Israel, whose observance of the Mosaic food laws was an effective practical barrier to social contact with those who did not observe them.”
[4] France, Mark, 294. “Mark’s specific deduction that Jesus’ teaching has ‘made all food clean’ signals a radically new approach which will in due time make possible the integration of Jews and Gentiles into a single community of discipleship.”
[5] France, Mark, 294. “The first pericope…highlights the racial issue, as Jesus. ‘debates’ with the Syrophoenician woman the basis on which the ‘children’s bread’ can properly be enjoyed also by the ‘dogs’…”
[6] France, Mark, 296. “Within that sequence this pericope marks the further opening of the door rather than an attempt to sing it shut again.”
[7] France, Mark, 296. “The whole encounter builds up to the totally positive conclusions of vv. 29-30, while the preceding dialogue serves to underlines the radical nature of this new stage in Jesus’ ministry into which he has allowed himself to be ‘persuaded’ by the woman’s realism and wit.”
[8] France, Mark, 297. “…Jesus wishes to get away from public attention…uses a ‘house’ for the purpose…but is unable to escape those in need.”
[9] France, Mark, 297. “…there is no doubt that here [Ἑλλην]carries its normal biblical connotation of Gentile (as opposed to Jewish), and the term Συροφοινίκισσα (the prefix Συρο- distinguished the Phoenicians of the Levant form those of North Africa around Carthage) reinforces the point. That such a woman chose to approach a Jewish healer, and even fell at his feet, indicates either desperation or a remarkable insight into the wider significance of Jesus’ ministry…”
[10] France, Mark, 297. “Few of those who approached Jesus had so much against, them, from an orthodox Jewish point of view. She was….a woman, and therefore one with whom a respectable Jewish teacher should not associate. She was a Gentile, as the double designation Ἑλληνίς Συροφοινίκισσα emphasizes. And her daughter’s condition might be expected to inspire fear and/or disgust, while the ‘uncleanness’ of the demon suggests ritual impurity.”
[11] William C. Placher, Mark, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher. (Louisville: WJK, 2010), 104. “Unlike Jairus, she seems to take for granted that Jesus can work cures at a distance. Before a word is exchanged, she is already presented as a woman of deep faith.”
[12] Placher, Mark, 106. “It is her faith, though, that lies at the center of the story.”
[13] France, Mark, 298. “Jesus’ response, though nowhere near as brutal as in Matthew, is certainly not diplomatic.”
[14] Placher, Mark, 104. “What he says is harsh enough in our culture, but even harsher then, in a culture where dogs were not beloved house pets but disgusting scavengers who skulked about living on garbage. Calling someone a dog was a real insult…”
[15] France, Mark, 298. “The whole tone of the sentence is negative to the point of offensiveness, and suggests that Jesus has no intention of helping the woman.”
[16] France, Mark, 298. “The use of κυνάρια seems to add gratuitously to the Semitic neighbours as unclean animals. Biblical references to dogs…are always hostile. To refer to a human being as a ‘dog’ is a deliberately offensive or dismissive….Jews typically referred to Gentiles as dogs. The diminutive form (used in biblical literature only in this pericope), perhaps indicates the status of the dogs in Jesus’ image as dogs of the house rather than of the yard, but it does not remove the harshness of picturing Gentiles en masse as ‘dogs’ as opposed to ‘children’. It is the sort of language a Gentile might expect from a Jews, but to find it in a saying of Jesus is shocking.”
[17] France, Mark, 298. “…as a response to the Gentile woman’s request it is very harsh, and does not encourage her to expect help at the present time.”
[18] France, Mark, 298-299. “Jesus’ image (and his inclusion of πρῶτον) have given the woman the cue she needs, and enable her, on the basis of his own saying, to refute his οὐκ ἔστιν καλόν and replace it with a defiant Ναί, κύριε – ‘Yes, it is right’. By using the vocative κύριε (it’s only appearance in Mark…) the woman recognizes Jesus’ authority and her dependence on his help, but need not convey any more specific theological insight; it is an appropriate address to a distinguished stranger.”
[19] France, Mark, 299. “Jesus’ own image is thus pressed to its full extent, and provides the basis for her request to be granted, not refused. It is a remarkable twist to the argument, and one which displays as much humility on the woman’s part as it does shrewdness. She does not dispute the lower place which Jesus’ saying assumes for the Gentiles, and even accepts without protest the offensive epithet ‘dog’, but insists that the dogs, too, just have their day.”
[20] France, Mark, 299. “Putting it more theologically, the mission of the Messiah of Israel, while it must of course begin with Israel, cannot be confined there. The Gentiles may have to wait, but they are not excluded from the benefits which the Messiah brings. On this basis, she is bold enough to pursue her request; even the crumbs will be enough.”
[21] France, Mark, 296. “He appears like the wise teacher who allows, and indeed incites, his pupil to mount a victorious argument against the foil of his own reluctance. He functions as what in a different context might be called ‘devil’s advocate’, and is not disappointed to be defeated’ in argument.”
[22] Placher, Mark, 106. “Here yet again humanity and divinity come together in a single narrative of a single agent—the same Jesus who loses the argument can cure her daughter.”
[23] France, Mark, 299. “Διὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον makes it clear that the woman’s response, and the attitude which it reveals, has changed Jesus’s apparent intention. It is of course impossible now to be sure on the basis of the printed text alone whether his words were designed to provoke such a response, or whether he genuinely did intend to refuse her request and was persuaded by her argument. Much may have been conveyed by tone of voice and gesture. But Mark, by placing the incident in the setting of the opening up of Jesus’ ministry to the Gentiles…suggests that his initial reluctance should be taken with a pinch of salt.”
[24] Placher, Mark, 106. “If Mark did not show us Jesus’ initial harsh remark, we could not see the grace with which Jesus concedes defeat in an argument. That the woman does win the argument is a point any valid interpretation needs to acknowledge. To say that that could not happen is to deny Jesus’ full humanity.”
[25] France, Mark, 297. “That Jesus ultimately responded to a request from such a suppliant, and even that he was prepared to engage her in a serious dialogue, is typical of his unconcern for convention when it stood in the way of his mission.”
[26] France, Mark, 296. “As a result the reader is left more vividly aware of the reality of the problem of Jew-Gentile relations, and of the importance of the step Jesus here takes to overcome it. The woman’s ‘victory’ in the debate is a decisive watershed as a result of which the whole future course of the Christians movement is set not on the basis of Jewish exclusivism but of sharing the ‘children’s bread’.”
[27] Martin Luther, “Second Sunday in Lent,” Sermons Volume Two, trans. John Nicholas Lenker, et al, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. 2:126. “He compares her to a dog, she concedes it, and asks nothing more than that he let her be a dog, as he himself judged her to be. Where will Christ now take refuge? He is caught. Truly, people let the dog have the crumbs under the table; it is entitled to that. Therefore Christ now completely opens his heart to her and yields to her will, so that she is now no dog, but even a child of Israel.”
Psalm 45:1, 7 My heart is stirring with a noble song; let me recite what I have fashioned…my tongue shall be the pen of a skilled writer. Your throne, O God, endures for ever and ever, a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your reign; you love righteousness and hate iniquity.
Introduction
We just finished discussing the text of the letter to the Ephesians where “alignment” of the inner and outer person was a core thread woven through. For the author of the letter of Ephesians, whom I refer to as Paul, the encounter with God in the event of faith rectifies and substantiates the inner person of the believer with God in the message of what Christ did in his life and death and resurrection, and which is sealed to the believer by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This “spiritual” reality is not enough for Paul, as if just being right with God on the inside is all that matters. According to the logic of Ephesians, for this inner reality to be a real thing it must be/come tangible and that means it must find expression in the temporal realm through the outer person, the body. Faith must (and wants to!) express itself through acts of love. (full stop) In other words, what is on the inside wants to find expression on the outside.
It’s not a pop-psych thing; it’s not a fad or a phase. It’s not “these kids these days!”, it’s a very important concept that must be revisited often in our lives as we grow and mature, change with new information, and after we deconstruct spiritually and intellectually, emotionally and physically. It’s such an important topic that God in Christ Jesus picks up this very concept and discusses it from a different perspective. This time, though, Jesus addresses the discrepancy between empty action toward God because of a heart that clings to human tradition.
Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, 21-23
The Pharisees and some of the scribes [from Jerusalem] questioned [Jesus], “Why do your disciples not walk according to the traditions of the priest, but eat bread with dirty hands? And [Jesus] said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as is has been written, ‘This people revere me with [their] lips but their heart keeps far off from me. In vain they worship me, teaching the teachings of the precepts of humanity.’ Leaving the commands of God, you hold fast the traditions of humanity.”
Mark opens chapter 7 with the local pharisees coming together with some of the scribes having arrived from Jerusalem.[1] Here we, the audience, are being introduced to the building crisis and intensifying controversy between Jesus and the established leadership of Israel.[2] Not just the local leadership is worried, but the larger leadership is worried; so Jerusalem dispatched a group of scribes to see about this Jesus and his claims and actions.[3] As the two groups (the Pharisees and Jerusalem scribes) come together they take notice that Jesus’s disciples eat bread with unclean hands—that is, unwashed. This small oversight on the part of the disciples sparks pharisaic and scribal attention because, as Mark parenthetically explains to us, for the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they might carefully wash [their] hands, holding fast to the tradition of the priest; and they do not eat unless they ritually wash themselves also from the market… According to Mark, there is a human-made[4] tradition demanding hands (and bodies from the market!) are thoroughly cleansed before consuming food. Even more, anything to do with food should be baptized (washed thoroughly): winecups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.The desire is to prevent something external and unclean from contaminating the person on the inside. So, seeing the disciples break such a tradition—running the risk of making themselves unclean—provokes the Pharisees and the scribes to question Jesus, “Why do your disciples not walk according to the traditions of the priests, but eat bread with unclean hands?” As Jesus is pulled into the crisis, this rather small oversight becomes a much bigger deal.[5]
The reason why this small oversight becomes significant is because it marks a very early departure of Jesus’s followers from the traditions of the priests, a departure which will become—over time—more radical.[6] Jesus takes hold of the conversation and moves it away from the banality of tradition-obedience and toward something much more significant: inner-person and outer-person alignment and obedience to God.[7] Jesus begins by calling them hypocrites and then quoting Isaiah, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as is has been written, ‘This people revere me with [their] lips but their heart keeps far off from me. In vain they worship me, teaching the teachings of the precepts of humanity.’ And then concludes, “Leaving the commands of God, you hold fast the traditions of humanity.” In other words, Jesus has turned (flipped?) the table on the Pharisees and Jerusalem scribes: it is not my disciples who have left the true tradition of reign of God; it is you who have left God as you cling to traditionalism of the kingdom of humanity.[8] According to Jesus, the existing leadership of the children of Israel have allowed God’s commands to slip away as they grabbed onto the traditions of humanity. They are the ones who are now caught in dissonance: they say they love God but their actions demonstrate that they love their own traditions more. Something is askew.
Then, according to our assigned text, Jesus turns to the crowd, and draws them into the discussion, leaving the Pharisees and Jerusalem scribes to their own thoughts, “Listen to me all [of you] and understand, nothing from outside of a person is able to make them unclean by entering into them. Rather, it is that which proceeds out of/is spoken by a person which makes the person unclean. Jesus addresses the crowd because what is at stake exceeds just washing one’s hands according to the traditions of human beings; what is at stake is one’s orientation toward God (inward) and, thus, one’s orientation toward the neighbor (outward).[9] Building from the Isaiah quotation, Jesus recenters the state of the inner person (the heart) as the most important thing, as the seat of what defiles or does not defile a person.[10] It’s not a dirty pitcher or dirty hands that makes one unclean, it’s what is produced from the heart and finds its way out that makes someone unclean. Thus, why Jesus then says, For it is from within the heart of the person that the bad reasonings bursts forth….all these wicked things burst forth from within and pollute the person. In other words, you can be as ritually pure according to tradition as you want—avoiding this or that thing, person, or deed—but if your heart is still far from God then none of it matters because you are still unclean and exposes that you’ve never been thoroughly washed (baptized), from head to toe. [11] You can say you are worshipping God and love God all you want, but your actions (toward your neighbor) will speak otherwise because what’s on the inside always wants to find expression on the outside. For Mark’s Jesus, clinging to traditionalisms in the name of God reveal the heart that is turned away from the neighbor because it cannot see the oppression and marginalization being imposed on the people who are just trying to live to the best of their ability. In other words, for Jesus, the Pharisees and the scribes from Jerusalem have forsaken the mission of the reign of God and have invested in the tyranny of the kingdom of humanity; God’s divine revolution of love, life, and liberation is being ignored (at best) and hindered (at worst).
Conclusion
According to Mark’s Jesus, our hearts must first be made right before we can begin to align the outer person with the inner person in a way that conforms with God’s will and the mission of the reign of God. Our hearts are repeatedly tempted to return to the ways of the kingdom of humanity, and we find ourselves lured to (re)draw lines of division between the “acceptable” and “unacceptable,” the “good” and the “bad,” the “clean” and the “unclean.”[12] (Remember, according to Ephesians, humans love a good dividing wall and God loves unity.) So, Mark’s Jesus is asking us—challenging us, inviting us[13]—to reevaluate and take stock of these tendencies and to align our bodily expressions to our faith, our auditory words to God’s Word residing in our hearts, to recenter in our lives and loves those who have been otherwise left out and oppressed by the dominant culture of the kingdom of humanity (people of color, queer people, indigenous people, people who are disabled, our elders, women, etc.). We must take a deep, hard look at the ways we’ve participated in forcing obedience to external conformity on those who look different from us, act different from us, and who walk through the world differently from us, and really see how we have refused to let them be who they are inside and out, how we have denied their bodies, their stories, and their religions in the world. Our histories expose that our hearts have been far from God—calcified, cold, and dead—even though we have convinced ourselves we acted and proclaimed in God’s will and name! We must take our inner and outer alignment seriously—for Jesus is speaking to us and not “them out there” who are getting it wrong according to our books. We must begin to realize we’ve conflated the goals of our human empire for the mission of the reign of God. And it is “We” because we are being addressed, those who claim to represent God by bearing Christ’s name into the world and those who claim to participate in God’s mission of divine revolution of life, love, and liberation in the world by the leading of the Spirit.
[1] R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC, eds. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 276. “…not the local scribal leadership but…a delegation ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων.”
[2] France, Mark, 276. “With the beginning of chapter 7 we return to a situation of controversy and of teaching, the two closely woven together. Opposition and rejection have of course been recurrent themes in the Galilean ministry so far, but with this new pericope the tension between Jesus and the religious leadership rises to a new of mutual repudiation, and Jesus deliberately fuels the fire with a more radical pronouncement even than his controversial comments on the sabbath (vv. 15, 19).”
[3] France, Mark, 280. “The fact that in both instances they are described as having arrived …from Jerusalem probably indicates that they have come specially to investigate and/or to dispute with Jesus.”
[4] France, Mark, 280. “…it is the behaviour of Jesus’ disciples rather than his own actions which provides the point of dispute…The issue this time…is not one of obedience to the OT laws, but of rules subsequently developed in Pharisaic circles. While no doubt it could normally be expected that hands would be washed before a meal for hygienic reasons (since food was often taken from a common dish), the only hand washing required in the OT for purposes of ritual purity is that of priests before offering sacrifice…The extension o this principle to the eating of ordinary food and to Jewish people other than priests, was a matter of scribal development, and it is uncertain how far it had progressed by the time of Jesus.”
[5] France, Mark, 277. “While the issue raised by the scribes in v. 2 is at the relatively inoffensive level of ritual washing before meals (a matter on which Jews themselves held different views), by his pronouncement in v. 15 Jesus deliberately widens the discussion to include this ritual separation which constituted one of the ‘badges’ of Jewish national identity.”
[6] France, Mark, 277. The hand washing is smallish but ends up being the catalyst for the “stark polarisation of views which must pit Jesus’ new teaching irrevocably against current religious orthodoxy, and which will, in the fulness of time, lead the community of his followers outside the confines of traditional Judaism altogether.”
[7] France, Mark, 283. “Jesus’ response will therefore focus on this more fundamental issue of the relative authority of tradition as such as a guide to the will of God, rather than on the provenance of the particular tradition in question.”
[8] France, Mark, 285. “The basic charge is economically expressed by means of three contrasting pairs of words: ἀφέντες…κρατεῖτε; ἐντολὴν…παράδοσιν; θεοῦ…ἀνθρώπων. The fundamental contrast is the last—true religion is focused on God, not a merely human activity. What comes from God has the authoritative character of ἐντολή, which requires obedience; what comes from human authority is merely παράδοσις, which may or may not be of value in itself, but cannot have the same mandatory character. Yet they have held fast to the latter, while allowing the former to go by default.”
[9] France, Mark, 286. “Indeed, the Pharisees and scribes are not mentioned again; their accusation has been rebutted, and now Jesus takes the imitative in raising publicly a much more fundamental issue of purity which goes far beyond the limited question of the validity of the scribal rules for hand washing. No specific regulation is now in view, but rather the basic principle of defilement by means of external contacts which underlies all the purity laws of the To and of scribal tradition.”
[10] France, Mark, 291. “Unlike the things which do not defile because they do not make contact with the καρδία, the really defiling things are those which actually originate in the καρδία.”[10] The seat of thought and will
[11] William C. Placher, Mark, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher. (Louisville: WJK, 2010), 102. “The challenge is not to particular details of traditional purity laws but to the whole idea that ‘purity’ means keeping your distance from unclean persons, things, and types of food.”
[12] Placher, Mark, 103. “Worry about your own attitudes and behavior, not how you might look to others if they see you associating with the wrong people. There are no ‘wrong people’ when it comes to those Christians should care about.”
[13] Placher, Mark, 104. “Jesus invites us to let all our respectability be burned away so that nothing will distinguish us from the freaks and lunatics, and only thus to enter his reign.”
Psalm 84:9-11 For one day in your courts is better than a thousand in my own room, and to stand at the threshold of the house of my God than to dwell in the tents of the wicked. For Abba God is both sun and shield; God will give grace and glory…
Introduction
The author of Ephesians begins their final thoughts, weaving together all that has transpired. The Ephesians are reminded, once again, to remember and have hope and thus to pray standing firm on the ground of remembrance of Christ and hope in God fort hey are sealed unto God and Christ by the power the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1). There is great unity and wholeness for this sealed body of believers who are united together through memory and hope and prayer; the Ephesians are asked to look again at the absence of the division wall of the fence, of enmity and hostility, of laws that keep some in and some out (Eph 2). The exhortation to grow (Eph 3) echoes, the arduous task of bringing the outer person in line with the inner person is not a one-and-done thing; it is daily arising and intentionally (re)learning about God’s love made tangible in Christ and sealed by the Holy Spirt. The movement from doxology to praxis and ethics is once again solidified as our praise of God informs our activity in the world to the well-being of the neighbor which returns our ethical activity into doxology and the praising of God‘s name and bringing God glory because God’s love pro nobis (for us) is the bedrock and the source of our power in the world before God (coram deo)and before humanity (coram hominibus) (Eph. 4). The emphasis on the truth is affirmed again as the Ephesians are given real ways to participate in the cosmic battle between the truth of the reign of God and the untruth of the kingdom of humanity through keeping track on how their words and deeds toward and about others either builds up or tears down, being reminded that our words (especially) and our deeds (generally) participate in the sacramental nature of the communication of God’s grace to others (Eph. 4-5).
And now in these final exhortations, Paul describes the believer as a warrior, but not one laden with the weaponry of the kingdom of humanity with the intent to harm and destroy flesh and blood, but a warrior of the reign of God, clothed in Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and absolutely, positively, dependent on God and God’s love, ready to go out, divine orders in hand, to participate in God’s mission in the world.
Ephesians 6:10-20
For the remaining time, be filled with power by Christ and in the strength of his ability. Be clothed in the complete armor of God so as to be able to stand firm against the wiliness of the devil. For the struggle against blood and flesh is not for us. Rather, [we are to struggle] with the kingdom of humanity, with authorities, with the ruler of this world of darkness, with the spiritual hosts of iniquity in the heavenly speres. (Eph. 6:10-12)
Paul begins these final remarks for this remaining time by exhorting the Ephesians to press into Christ, to find themselves empowered not by their own will power but by the power of Christ and in the strength of [Christ’s] ability.[1] Everything comes from God: it starts with God and it ends with God,[2] so goes Ephesians. [3] For what the Ephesians are going to stand to do in remaining times cannot be done by human strength alone, but only by the will and power of God through Christ by the Holy Spirit—the same power that turned death into life on Easter morning.[4],[5]
Following the exhortation to be strong in and by Christ, is: be clothed in the complete armor of God so as to be able to stand firm against the wiliness of the devil. This is the adversary against which the Ephesians must contend; this is why they are to press into the strength of Christ and his ability so that they can follow in Christ’s footsteps and refute the devil’s advancements at every point. Thus, they are to put on/be clothed in the offensive and defensive equipment of God;[6] this means they must take off the offensive and defensive equipment of the kingdom of humanity. Just as one cannot have two masters, one cannot be dressed in two version of complete armor. Just as the Ephesians are exhorted to ditch the lies and the untruths of the kingdom of humanity and adhere to the truth of the reign of God (contending with the old Adam within themselves so that the new Adam may be born anew[7]), so are they to be dressed appropriately in the panoply of God.[8]
Clothed as such, the Ephesians can confront the devil and his craftiness and not other human beings. For Paul writes, Because the struggle for us is not against blood and flesh. Rather, [we are to struggle] with the kingdom of humanity, with authorities, with the ruler of this world of darkness, with the spiritual hosts of iniquity in the heavenly speres.In other words, the Ephesians are neither to take up real weapons to fight against other human beings (uh oh, Church History) nor are they to take it upon themselves to defend God and legislate God’s will (uh oh, Christian Nationalists);[9] rather, they are to wrestle like athletes[10] against the advancements of the “devil” and the powers antagonistic to the divine revolution of love, life and liberation. I could say it another way, the Ephesians are to combat untruth with truth, light with not light, love with not love (etc.). This is a wrestling/boxing match that will last until Christ comes again, and not something human beings—no matter how well intended—can do of their own power. With this preparation, clothing, and orientation in the world, the Ephesians, says Paul, should be ableto withstand in the toilsome day and stand accomplishing everything. What God has set out to do—reconcile the beloved to God’s self, bringing love, life and liberation to the cosmos—God will do; the Ephesians are invited in and encouraged to participate and stand firm during these dark days (today and tomorrow[11]),[12] fully dependent and made able by God.[13]
Then Paul lists the different elements of the complete armor of God: putting on the belt[14] of truth, putting on the cuirass of justice, binding under the feet the solid foundation of the good news of peace, and with all [this] taking up the large shield of the faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming javelins of the evil one, receive the helmet [of victory] of salvation and the dagger from the Spirit, which is the word of God. The Ephesians are exhorted to gird themselves and be led by God and God’s truth; they are not to be girded and lead away by someone else or untruth.[15] They are to be fully covered in protective armor by God’s righteousness which is God’s justice; not only do they have God and God’s justice on their side, they stand on and have truth binding them, being conformed to God’s will, to pursue what God pursues. This does not mean doing things in God’s name by baptizing human action as God’s will. Rather, it is to be the clay vessels through whom God brings God’s justice: life, love, and liberation. The Ephesians, thusly, stand on the gospel that is the proclamation of Christ and the work of Christ that brings peace—the elimination of dividing walls, enmity, and laws of division—the word that makes humanity one.[16] The Ephesians are to put out the flaming arrows of the evil one with their shield of faith, thus faith—see rightly by the power of God—can put out the destructive untruths of the kingdom of humanity; here, the Ephesians do not fight fire with fire,[17] but extinguish the lies by faith by speaking the truth in love.[18] They are to wear their helmet of victory because what God started God will finish and victory is already God’s; thus the Ephesians can enter their spiritual battles knowing their victory is secured.[19] Last, they are to use the one weapon they have, the word of God; [20] the goal is not to tear down but to defend the lives of others with the word of God, to build up, to protect, to advocate, to resist on behalf of the neighbor, to, ultimately, proclaim the good news that brings liberation to the captives.[21]
Paul closes with an(other) exhortation to prayer. Throughout the letter of Ephesians, prayer has been the backbone concept throughout the text.[22] Now it comes out full force, through all prayer and supplication, pray in the Spirit in all seasons, and toward this being awake with all steadfastness and entreaty on behalf of all the holy ones, and on behalf of me… Prayer is both the way the believer is clothed in the complete armor of God and is the seizing of the sword of God, the word—not purely scripture, but the living breathing word of life, love and liberation that ushers forth from God’s lips anew every day.[23],[24] It is the core of the life of the believer in the world who, facing both good and bad times, is the representative of Christ, thus of God among and with the beloved of God—thus, the exhortation to be awake[25] and with all steadfastness and entreaty on behalf of all…[26] The faithful representative of God brings God close the neighbor and, through prayer, brings the neighbor close to God.
Conclusion
So, beloved, Ephesians leaves us drenched and soaked in the presence of God. What started off with remembering and hoping and prayer, ends with them. We are, according to Ephesians, part and participant in this great cloud of witnesses that not only sees God’s glory but also gets to share in bringing that glory further and deeper into the world. You may feel insignificant for such a cosmic task, but you are the perfect and most precious breakable vessel spreading God’s mission in the world. Together here, through our minds and our hearts, we see, hear, and experience in the proclamation of Christ the destruction of the dividing walls, the elimination of enmity, and the rendering obsolete oppressive laws. Each week, according to Ephesians, we grow in this knowledge of divine equity and we grow more mature in our knowledge and love of God and as a community eager to reach out and support each other, to stand in solidarity together, to have compassion, and to care. Then we bring this very reality out into the world—each of us—as God’s representatives, charged with an invaluable charge to participate in God’s divine revolution of love, life, and liberation. And this brings us back here, again, to remember, to hope, and to pray. Our doxology becomes our praxis that comes back again as our doxology.
[1] Barth, Markus, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3, The Anchor Bible Series (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 760. “…a power which comes to man from outside is meant, rather than an increase in strength flowing from internal resources.”
[2] Allen Verhey and Joseph S. Harvard, Ephesians, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds. Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher (Louisville: WJK, 2011), 249-250. “…’Be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power.’ The ‘in the lord’ signals the solidarity with the Lord, and ‘in the strength of his power’ displays that we have been made alive together with him (2:5). We have been raised with him; we are seated with him above the principalities and powers (2:6) it is not our own strength upon which we rely; it is God’s strength. But we must live in it! We mut perform our baptism, our being raised with Christ, our being united not only to Christ but to those who are different from us to those the culture of enmity has trained us to despise…”
[3] Barth, Ephesians, 760. “…no strength other than God’s own can fortify the saints…”
[4] Barth, Ephesians, 760. “They are ‘citizens…in the kingdom of the Messiah and God’ (2:19, 5:5); they live from the incomparable power that was demonstrated in the past through the resurrection of Christ and the subjugation of all other powers (1:19-21), and that will now and from day to day strengthen the heart of each individual. (3:16-19).”
[5] Barth, Ephesians, 760-761. “The strength available to them is the resurrection power; more briefly, God is their power in person. They can and shall rely on it, that is, on Him.”
[6] Barth, Ephesians, 761. Panoply “…often the term means the full and complete equipment of a soldier with weapons of offense and defense. …It can also serve as a summary description of all the apparel with which a woman ‘dresses up’ to show herself in public.”
[7] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 250-251. “This is a cosmic conflict that is as old as sin. To be sure, it is a battle that is fought on the turf of every soul. A battle rages between ‘the old self’ and the ‘new self,’ a battle between our inclination to hate and despise and our participation in the peaceable difference of our creation and renewal. From the beginning the vision in Ephesians has been cosmic in scope and social and political in its implications. Here it would enlist us in a battle not only or our own souls but especially for the renewal of the cosmos and humanity.”
[8] Barth, Ephesians, 762. “The saints are ‘able’-bodied men not by nature, nor by one act of ordination in the past (e.g. by their baptism), but only inasmuch as again and again they take up the special armor given to them.”
[9] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 251. “The final struggle is not ours to win; that is already sure and in God’s hands. But in the interim we are to resist the resistance to God’s cause. We are not called to defend God, not even called exactly to defend our own souls; we are called to defend the beachheads God’s cause has made, they displays here and there of a renewed creation and a new humanity, the places and times that bear the primes of God’s good future.”
[10] Barth, Ephesians, 763. “No doubt Eph 6 describes a ‘spiritual war’ and ‘spiritual weapons’; but rather than use the term ‘war’ (polemos) Paul chooses a concept that originally denotes the activity of an athlete.”
[11] Barth, Ephesians, 765. Darkest day may be just a reference to evil days in a regular life or “may indicate that even now is the last time.”
[12] Barth, Ephesians, 765. “….’taking up’ is sometimes a a technical military term. It describe the last preparation and final step necessary before the actual battle begins.”
[13] Barth, Ephesians, 766. “In Eph 6 far more emphasis is placed on readiness and firmness in the struggle than upon any actual human accomplishment during the battle. The good works which they will do according to 2:10 are prepared by God’ long beforehand.”
[14] Barth, Ephesians, 767. “girdle” belt “…the special belt or sash…designating an officer or high official.”
[15] Barth, Ephesians, 767. “For the strength of God’s power is promised to each of them, and the expression ‘gird one’s loins’ …is synonymous with the idiom, ‘gird with strength.’ The opposite is to be girded by someone else and to e led away involuntarily…or to be girded with a. rope or with sackcloth…”
[16] Barth, Ephesians, 771. “The ‘peace’ and the ‘gospel’ to which Eph 6:15 refers can only be the ‘peace made’ and ‘proclaimed’ by the Messiah which is described in 2:13-18. It is not a victory of men inside God’s kingdom over men outside it that make the saints stand ‘steadfast.’ Rather the Messianic ‘peace’ which has united and will further draw together ‘those far’ and ‘those near’ gives the strength to resist non-human, demonic attacks however spiritual their origin.”
[17] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 255. “Compared to the armor of the Zealots and the Roman soldiers, this list of items—truthfulness and righteousness and the proclamation of the gospel of peace, faithfulness and the gifts of salvation and the word—is deeply countercultural. There is no confidence in the ordinary weapons of war; there is confidence in God. it is as deeply countercultural as peace and unity in the midst of the cultures of enmity that marked the life of the first century.”
[18] Barth, Ephesians, 774. “Instead of flame throwers and napalm-canisters by which the opponents and their strongholds might be burned, they are given shields which ‘enable them to quench’ (only) the fire thrown at them. The fiery attacks endured now are unlike the fire of the last judgment of God who which all men and all the creation will be exposed…”
[19] Barth, Ephesians, 775. “Most likely, a ‘helmet of victory’ is in mind which is more ornate than a battle helmet and demonstrates that the battle has been won: the saints are to ‘take’ this helmet as a gift from God. they go into battle and stand the heat of the day in full confidence of the outcome, with no uncertainty in their minds; for they were the same battle-proven helmet which God straps on his head…and which is defined by ‘impartial justice’ in…”
[20] Barth, Ephesians, 777. “Whether a traditional or a freshly inspired ‘word of God’ is in mind, this ‘word’ can be called the cutting edge of the Spirit—but it must be maintained that the word itself, not the Spirit, is the sword.”
[21] Barth, Ephesians, 777. “Therefore it is probable that the ‘word of God,’ which he calls a ‘sword,’ has to do mostly directly with the preaching of the gospel and with prayer, or is identified with them.”
[22] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 258. “We are not surprised to find that the last world of the exhortation is an exhortation to pray. Prayer here, finally, is a form of watchfulness, of waiting and hoping for God’s good future. It is a way to ‘stay alert.’ But here too this form of attention to God, this waiting and hoping, is not simply passivity. Attentive to God, we are attentive to the one who makes us agents in God’s cause, the one who invites us to bless God, the one who invites our lives and our common life to be doxology, to be for ‘the praise of [God’s] glory’ (1:12,14).”
[23] Barth, Ephesians, 777. “In consequence, persistent ‘prayer’ can be the essence and modality of the whole process of arming oneself, or only of the seizing of the sword.”
[24] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 255. “The Spirit’s sword is not simply identical with Scripture, at least not as an artifact that we can hold in our hand. It is rather the powerful and creative Word of God.”
[25] Barth, Ephesians, 779. “The purpose of staying awake is ‘praying,’ rather than putting on arms.”
[26] Barth, Ephesians, 778. “Nothing less is suggested than that the life and strife of the saints be one great prayer to God, that this prayer be offered in ever new forms however good or bad the circumstance, and that this prayer not be self-centered but express the need and hope of all the saints.”
Kate Hanch, Storied Witness: The Theology of Black Women Preachers in 19th-Century America, Minneapolis, Fortress, 2022.
Kate Hanch’s text, Storied Witness, provides crucial information about women, three black women preachers, who would otherwise go undetected and radically underquoted by mainstream theology. Hanch centers the voices of Zilpha Elaw, Julia Foote, and Sojourner Truth and demonstrates that these three humble and powerful women must be included in regular discourse about God and God’s work in the world. For mainstream theology, Hanch’s book is a challenge: can we broaden the scope of whom we turn to gather our theological education and research? I believe Hanch’s answer is not only a vibrant and bold “Yes!” but also “We must!” If theology—rather, good theology, or “better theology,” referring to Hanna Reichel’s work in “After Method”—is going to resist the temptation to obsolescence and survive this rampant era of welcome deconstruction, then theologians and other servants of “words about God” *must*find new pathways to talk about God’s divine revolution of love, life, and liberation in the world for the wellbeing of God’s beloved.
The book is structured so that Elaw, Foote, and Truth all get their own spotlight. In addition to this clear structure, Hanch draws out from each essential biblical truths about God and about Christian praxis. Reading about Zipha Elaw, the reader also learns the old truth often forgotten that the Spirit of God is no respecter or persons but calls and rejuvenates the inner power to proclaim God’s good news of Christ’s life and work in liberating the captives. Yet, the reader isn’t a mere spectator here: clearly, if you are reading along as Hanch is deftly waling you through Elaw’s life and preaching, then you, too, are being addressed by God through Elaw and thus being summoned into the light of Christ to see and hear the cries of those still captive. The same goes for the chapters on Julia Foote and Sojourner Truth: the reader is unable to claim ignorance once she’s done reading these chapters, she has been solicited into becoming aware of her “bodied” “power” (Foote) and her need to be a witness to God and God’s work in Christ and God’s work in her by the power of the Holy Spirit (Truth). Essentially, Hanch puts her reader—especially her white reader—on the hook chapter after chapter.
The last chapter, “Black Women Preachers as Exemplars of a Prophetic Pastoral Theology,” weaves together the lives of these three prophetic and pastoral preachers and drives home without hesitation how robust and living theology streams forth from the lips of Elaw, Foote, and Truth. In essence, what Hanch has done in this last chapter was give her reader a “cheat sheet,” if you will, on how to do theology better with voices that are not mainlined—as in, not cis-het-white men. She lays out the ways that the previous structure of the book is limiting because one can’t pigeonhole these women into a single theme because they are each doing theology, they are each speaking about a very big God who did a big thing in Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit. Hanch builds many theology ideas around and out of the work of Elaw, Foote, and Truth; thus, Hanch, exhorts her reader to the same. Here, Hanch directs her reader to really see—in case they missed it in the pages before—how the reader’s theology can grow by engaging the work of these women, using them as her guide, and affirming the presence of the divine Spirit in their words and works without recourse to making sure they align to the voices of cis-het-white men from ages past and limited/specific encounter with God.
The one thing I was left wondering was about Hanch’s use of “bodied” and “powered.” Very creative uses of these words because I want to say “embodied” and “empowered,” as in, being given the power and the bodiedness. But maybe that’s Hanch’s point. The power and the bodiedness of these three women wasn’t to be *given* to them as if earned or merited by being good or doing well according to an earthly authority. Rather, these women took the place and occupied the space because they had their *own* power and their *own* beautiful bodies and used both because the source of that power and bodiedness is God in and of God’s self; that was all the permission Elaw, Foote, and truth needed. To my reader, it begs the question, doesn’t it?
Psalm 111:1, 10 Hallelujah! I will give thanks to Abba God with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, in the congregation. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; those who act accordingly have a good understanding; God’s praise endures for ever.
Introduction
At the end of the sermon from August 4th on Ephesians 4:1-16, there was this exhortation at the end, “Beloved, we are exhorted and begged through the words of Ephesians to grow…to grow up![1] For the love of God, to the glory of God, and for the well-being of our neighbors, we are to grow up and be(come) the body of Christ in the world, bearing into the world by acts of love that which has been born in us through faith.” That exhortation still holds here in Ephesians 4:25-5:2. The Ephesians are given not generalized commands but specific ways to work out their faith through deeds of love to the glory of God and to the wellbeing of the neighbor. These deeds produced by love are the deeds that reflect the truth of what God has done for the Ephesians through Christ and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, are the very exact way the Ephesians participate in furthering God’s mission in the world and bringing the kingdom of humanity into confrontation with the reign of God. Each of these three ethical chapters guide the Ephesians toward actions that materialize in the world what is occurring/has occurred/will occur by faith in their hearts so joined together with God.
Ephesians 4:25-5:2
On which account…do not distress the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed toward the day of redemption…Therefore, become an imitator of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, just as also Christ loved us and betrayed himself on our behalf—a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Eph. 4:25a, 30; 5:1-2)[2]
Considering what Christ has done and the urging of the Ephesians to grow, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to renounce untruth preferring instead that they speak truth—each one—with their neighbor because we are a part of one another. The Ephesians are to leave behind the life of lies—peddled by the kingdom of humanity—in exchange for the truth—the Word that is of the reign of God. The Ephesians are to live into truth by word and deed what God revealed in Christ and made known to them by the power of the Holy Spirit.[3] In other words, if God is love and has loved them then they—in desiring to speak the truth—share this love in word and deed toward their neighbor because, according to Ephesians, everyone is a part of everyone else.[4],[5] This orientation away from untruth and toward truth grows this community of solidarity into becoming like Christ and displaying their righteous clothing of works of love.[6] The Ephesians are to be the well clothed representatives of God in the world; wherever they go, God is there and that ground is holy (ref. Ex. 3).
A part of being so well clothed is knowing when and where to allow one’s anger to do the walking and talking:[7] if it is against injustice and oppression of the neighbor, then it is well placed and will fuel righteous deeds;[8] but, if this violent irritation[9] is to defend oneself or is because of pride, then it is ill placed and must be exposed to the light of confession so that it does not fester in the darkness. Conjoined here is the demand not to steal[10]—the one who steals no longer steals. There is no designation specifically to whom Paul is speaking, so we must keep a broad view in mind. Therefore, everyonemust grow weary working well by their own hands. Rather than this being strictly about petty theft (though it is addressing this), it’s also about obtaining money without working with one’s own hands. Theft—no matter what[11] or who[12]—is not to be tolerated. Why? So that they may have the ability to bestow to those who have needs. For Paul, the emphasis is on providing for the needy. Thus, those who earn by means of skimming off the top of what’s not theirs—not done by their own hands—are exhorted to stop and find “hard work” so to give from what is theirs. And this, in turn, becomes how those who steal out of necessity no longer need to. The exhortation is the solution.[13]
Moving along, the author brings up the “fruit of the lips” as a measure of the heart of the believer.[14] If the Ephesians are to be clothed in righteous garb, then truly their speech must reflect such a status. The Ephesians are to prevent every rotten word from leaving their mouths, rather they are to spew forth whatever is good toward the building up so that it might give grace to those who hear. The community is not only to prohibit the stealing of material goods but also the stealing of the honor and dignity of each person.[15] Words designed to destroy rather than build are to be avoided at all costs because this community who wears Christ and is to be like Christ is to see each and every word in a sacramental light, giving grace to those who hear.[16],[17] Words must be drenched in truth and love.[18]
Finally, the community is exhorted not to distress the Holy Spirit of Godin whom they have been sealed toward the day of redemption by lettingall bitterness and passionate outbursts and wrath and clamoring against each other and slandering be removed from them together with all malice. In other words, anything that tries to grab the edges of this finely stitched quilt and pull it apart and destroy it is the very cause of God’s distress.[19] To grieve the Holy Spirit, to cause God’s Spirit distress is to try to tear apart that which God has joined together: God’s self and God’s people, thus God’s people with each other. This community is to turn toward each other, reinforcing the well stitched seems, being useful [and] tender hearted toward each other, giving freely to each other just as God in Christ gave to you. The exhortation lands in the laps of the Ephesians, you who have received so much from God in Christ[20] are to build up and not tear down, you are to be compassionate and not dispassionate, you are to be useful toward each other and not useless, you are to give freely and not hoard and steal. [21]
In this way, these humble, breakable vessels become imitators of God,[22] as beloved children, and by being this way toward each other and toward their neighbors they walk in love just as Christ loved [walked in love toward] us and betrayed himself on our behalf a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. In other words, the Ephesians do not need to perform special material sacrifices to please God but they themselves are the fragrant sacrifice,[23] those who betray themselves (put themselves aside) on behalf of others—not just their family and friends, but their neighbor whomever they are—these are the imitators of God and are like Christ.[24] These are the divine representatives in the world who are inspired and sealed by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Conclusion
Working like a talented seamstress, the author of the letter to the Ephesians stitches the hearer to the fullness of God; through each intentional retelling of what God has done for us in Christ and how the Spirit applies this to our lives is a careful working over of the seam joining the two, adding layer upon layer of words as thread to forbid the joining to break. These two are one. But to be one with this God, according to the logic of Ephesians, is to be one with whom God loves: the neighbor. Thus, with the same deftness, this author-seamstress stitches each of the hearers together anchoring them—together—into God and—together—to each other. These many are one and this one is joined to God thus they are all one–dividing walls destroyed, and laws of separation rendered inoperative. The believers are chosen from the beginning of time to be those whom God will work through to further God’s divine revolution of love, life and liberation that God started, revealed in Christ, and makes available to all who hear God’s summons by the power of the Holy Spirit.
All that has transpired thus far in Ephesians brings us to the real and practical conclusions that we are not our own and that we are God’s and thus our neighbor’s. We live not for ourselves but for Christ and for the divine mission revealed by God through Christ. In this part of Ephesians, we see that every part of our existence is tied up, threaded into this divine tapestry of God’s activity in the world. Our words and thoughts carry weight, our actions have force and power, our bodies are to bear Christ into the world reminding the world that God is not dead, that there’s always another way, and that hope and peace are possible. This is not about being seduced into the slumber of saccharine positivity but about looking the kingdom of humanity square in the eye and in speaking the truth saying, “No, this is not all there is and it is not the only way…there’s more…things can be different…”
So, beloved, we love because we have first been loved.
[1] Allen Verhey and Joseph S. Harvard, Ephesians, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds. Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher (Louisville: WJK, 2011), 176. “Live a common life worthy of God’s grace and gift, worthy of God’s promise and plan. Grow up! Build a body fitting to Christ as the head! Love one another!”
[3] Barth, Markus, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3, The Anchor Bible Series (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 511. “Thus the whole former existence of the saints Is defined as a lie, or as living a lie; if the existentialist’ terminology has any validity as a tool for interpreting Paul, then this is the place to speak of ‘inauthentic existence.’ But while secular existentialism considers inauthenticity a deviation from each individual man’s potential, Paul measures man’s existence against the ‘truth in Jesus’ or the ‘true word,’ i.e. the Gospel, and their social effect, i.e. the fact that ‘we are members of one body.’”
[4] Barth, Ephesians, 512. “And he ‘speaks the truth in love’ who acts as a man responsible for the growth of a community ‘toward Christ’ and ‘from him’ (4:15-16).”
[5] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 188. “The ‘truth’ in Jesus of our social solidarity, that ‘we are members of one another,’ points beyond the church to the universal community that is God’s plan. It may be a ‘secret’ too well kept that we are members of one another in a universal community, but it is the truth in Jesus.”
[6] Barth, Ephesians, 512. “The command to ‘speak the truth’ includes and expresses the responsibility to be a witness to revelation, to follow Christ who gave his life for saving sinners, to show unselfish love, and to build up the fellow man to his own best.”
[7] Barth, Ephesians, 513. “…concedes that righteous anger is aroused by injustice…’Wrath against a brother’ draws judgment upon the angry man….but ‘indignation on behalf of other is one of the common bonds by which society is held together.”
[8] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 190. “Anger at injustice is permitted. Indeed, an injustice not only prompts anger; it requires it. When we see the poor oppressed, we should get angry. When the ‘other’ is demeaned or insulted, we should get angry. But anger can be an occasion of sin, for seeking revenge instead of justice, for holding a grudge instead of seeking reconciliation. It is sin that is renounced.”
[9] Barth, Ephesians, 514. “A violent irritation is meant, expressed either by hiding oneself form others or by flaming looks, harmful words, inconsiderate actions, that is, something distinctly less permanent than deep-rooted wrath, anger or hostility.”
[10] Barth, Ephesians, 518. “…the ‘needy’ (whoever he may be!) is to be the beneficiary of the saint’s labor! This universality of concerns is characteristic of Ephesians.”
[11] Barth, Ephesians, 515. “…it is probably that Paul includes in the term ‘thief’ those who make money without working; who get rich at the expense of slaves or employees; who by artificial price-fixing take advantage of those in need or who cheat the community of saints after the pattern of Ananias and Sapphira…”
[12] Barth, Ephesians, 515. “However uncomplimentary it is for saints to realize that the apostle reckons with thieves in their midst, Paul fights the opinion that theft in any form may be sanctified if the thief is a member of the congregation.”
[13] Barth, Ephesians, 517. ‘In Eph 4:28 the opportunity to help the needy fellow man is the rationale for working, not self-satisfaction. What a man may gain for himself is certainly not excluded, but it is incidental to the motive here given: labor is necessary in order that the needy may live! In turn, liberal giving of the gilds of one’s labor is not recommended. As a meritorious act deserving a reward or covering sins; it is rather a recognition of God’s immeasurably rich gift…”
[14] Barth, Ephesians, 518. “The ‘fruit of the lips,’ i.e. man’s speech, reveals the quality of the tree. Bad language and foul talk defile the whole man and manifest his corruption.”
[15] Barth, Ephesians, 519. “Constructive work has to be done, and in all conversations the choice of language and subject matter has to be such that edification takes place. Obviously no room is left for empty chatter or for remarks that serve no other purpose than to detract from a person’s honor.”
[16] Barth, Ephesians, 520. “Therefore, 4:29 can be understood to say that dialogue is a sacrament.”
[17] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 196. “Our talk should bear a resemblance to the grace god gave and gives…to Christ. That grace should make us bold to speak, but also careful to talk in ways that build up the neighbor and the community. We are made agents by the grace or God, and by God’s gift and grace our own words ‘may give grace to those who hear.’ They may not be rhetorically powerful words, but they must be ‘gracious words.’”
[18] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 195. “If our talk is to be ‘speaking the truth in love,’ then it is not just talk that violates truth that we must renounce but also any talk that violates love.”
[19] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, . “We make the Spirit sad when we do not live ‘to the praise of his glory,’ when we do not serve God’s cause in the world, when we do not make ‘the secret’ known by putting ‘the new humanity’ created by Christ on display. We make the Spirit sad when we lie and when we nurse a grudge or insult a neighbor, when we do not share with the needy, when our talk is destructive to person or to the community. We make the Spirit sad whenever we are conformed to this present evil age rather than transformed by a vision of God’s good future and by a devotion to God’s cause. This is no ‘passionless’ God. When we sin, the Spirit grieves.”
[20] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 206. “Both God’s forgiveness and the practice of forgiveness within the church are, after all, works of grace. Moreover, kindness, compassion, and forgiveness—and the whole set of renunciations and exhortations in this section—find their final motive and basis in the grace of God made known in Christ.”
[21] Barth, Ephesians, 546. “Ethics makes the gospel concrete. The Ephesians are told by the apostle that there is no reason to despair of speech and labor, of thought and decision; for in the name of the Lord it is asserted that your dirty tongue, your crafty hands, and your hard and violent heart (that is, precisely you, the egotists), can and shall do what befits a ‘member of one body.’ You and no one else are to take care of the ’needs’ of others; you are to ‘build them up’; you re to perform that which is ‘good’ for many.”
[22] Barth, Ephesians, 557. “Men cannot copy the essence of God, e.g. his work as creator or redeemer, or his trinity, but they are called to imitate his love and make progress on the way of love.”
[23] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 207. “We do not seal the new covenant by our little sacrifices, but we celebrate it by living in love, by kindness, by compassion, by forgiveness, by speaking the truth, by reconciling with our enemies, by sharing with the needy, and by words that are gracious.”
[24] Barth, Ephesians, 559. “Because Christ’s love is a s unique and inimitable as God the Father’s, the Gentile-born Ephesians are brothers, have brothers, and can behave as brothers united in love. Because Christ is the first-born among many brethren…his way, including his death, invites and inspires the saints to follow in his footsteps on the way of love…”
First, I never thought that there would be a text that would pick up the mantel left by Christine Helmer at the end of her “Theology and the End of Doctrine.” But there is. It’s Hanna Reichel’s text, “After Method.” And much like Helmer’s text, the title is both misleading and spot on: doctrine and method are not bad, but calcified doctrines and methods can be—to summarize bluntly. If I had the opportunity to build an “Introduction to Theology” course, I’m quite certain I’d frame that course around these two texts. I’ve yet to encounter any text that could rival the clarity and depth provided by Helmer and Reichel.
Second, if you have ever read a theologian who seemed to be “straying from the pack” and “doing her own thing,” Reichel’s text gives you the reason why. I want to place this text *before* all Dorothee Sölle’s texts because I see deep kinship in what Reichel proposes and what a Lutheran theologian outlier–like Sölle–did. I read Reichel’s book and felt a wave of vindication for someone like Sölle. “See!” I wanted to holler at all the historical nay-sayers, “THIS! This is what she was doing.”
Third, I was so burnt out on Althaus-Reid from the way cis-het, white, men had treated the material that I was turned off by the idea of diving in as deep as Reichel wanted me, too. However, here Reichel demonstrates that they themself are trying to be the theologian demanded of in this text. They represented the material to me, recast the lighting, pointed out different aspects I was unfamiliar with, critiqued and praised the work, and in the end gave me something new. Like restoring something to original form what was disfigured due to abuse, Reichel demonstrates their God-given theological and professorial talent and skill. (They do the same for Barth, too! I felt a refreshing invigoration urging me to take up, once again, some of those big Barth tomes!)
Now, “After Method”…
Reichel brings together two unlikely dialogue partners and demonstrates their compatibility without destroying their distinctions and differences. Never once did I think that Reformed Theology following Barth ever eclipsed Queer Theology following Althaus-Reid. In the process, Reichel demonstrates her thesis to the reader that “Better Theology” is not a retreat into archaic dogma, standing on the shore of “safe” and “traditionalism” nor is it a complete jettisoning of all that has come before and diving headfirst into the deep waters of the “just not that!” Rather, it’s a willingness and maturity to step into the void caused by the collision of the history and tradition of Systematic Theology and creativity and curiosity of Constructive Theology. It’s an exhortation to hear backwards and forwards because in hearing backwards and forwards we have something to say in the present and that then guarantees our mutual future together with bits of the past and bits of what is to come. Reichel’s book demands theologians to grow up! and get to the good and hard work of their hands to do theology and method for the wellbeing of others (ref Ephesians 4)
Throughout the text, the demand to do “Better” theology takes on pastoral and professional implications. To be/do better in this theological space will have tremendous impact for the world; better theology is not static but dynamic, it is not solid but fluid, it is not stuck but liberated and moving toward others–whoever those others are. In all of it I couldn’t shake an image from my moments of being a stay-at-home parent with my littles. I’ll share that image because I think it does better to some up what this text asks of us for the sake of the world:
When my eldest (now threatening to turn 18) was little, he would spend his waking hours playing and exploring (as toddlers do) by dragging everything out: toys, shoes, pots and pans, cans from the pantry, bottles form the fridge, essentially whatever he could get his hands on. At some point, I wearied from picking up everything after him all the time. I decided to just let the chaos reign! What I didn’t know then—which was only an action of desperate surrender rather a stroke of brilliant parenting—was that by letting him get *everything* and *whatever* out, he would blend into one many different things. Legos, train tracks, and a chutes and ladder’s game; pots, lids, and many DC figurines; finger paints, markers, and whatever was inside that sandwich. He learned that *a* toy or *a* pot didn’t have *a* use only to be put back in a box and tucked away again and never retrieved until that *use* was necessary. He learned that many different things worked together, even if it meant that I was on my hands and knees at 9pm hunting down that last puzzle piece or figurine from under the couch. The mess was absolutely necessary for him to play *better* and *bigger* and to give his little world something new…
I think Reichel is encouraging us to play with all of our toys! And, having read Barth’s “Ethics,” I assume that idea isn’t far from their mind. This book dares its reader to find joy again in the task of doing theology—joy *and* fun! It’s an exhortation for us to get all our toys out and to see what new things can be made—the good ones we push forward and the bad ones, well, we should take them down. There’s creativity and flexibility that can define the theologian that has been held hostage by fear and anger; Reichel does well to recover this creativity and flexibility and give it back to their reader. Thus, the text very much does what it sets out do.
The only question I have is of the structure of the book, I wonder if using the reformed, three uses of the law-works to further the thesis of the text or does it end up subverting all of it to the reformed, systematic order. Does the structure do what the text does so well? I may have decided on a daring two uses while allowing the end to be that “new” terrain undefined by a this or that use of a law or defined by both given the demand and the situation. Even with that question, the point is taken well. Under the goodness of method conceived so creatively holding on loosely to what was and what will be, I can return to method in a new way with a new relationship without fear and condemnation, using it as a well decorated teacher.
Psalm 51:11-13 Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from your presence and take not your holy Spirit from me. Give me the joy of your saving help again and sustain me with your bountiful Spirit.
Introduction
Ephesians 1 called believers to remember the work of Christ as God’s word in the world. In remembering, we find Christ with us and this presence is the source of our hope. Remembering and hope then become the ground upon which we kneel and pray, giving space and time for the divine Spirit in us (the deposit and guarantor of our faith) to mold our will to the will of God moving us as participatants in God’s mission in the world made known to us in remembering Christ: bringing the divine revolution of love, life, and liberation to the beloved.
Ephesians 2 exhorted believers toward wholeness: wholeness with God, with the neighbor, and with the self by pressing into Christ’s destruction of the division-wall of the fence, the eradication of enmity, and the lessening the bite of the law as a means to creating in-groups and out-groups. This destruction, eradication, and lessening brings people of various stripes and types, walks and talks, lives and vibes together: together with God, with each other, and with themselves; this is the source of peace Christ brings to those who follow him.
Ephesians 3 encouraged believers to grow and grow! in the knowledge of God’s profound love. The believer is always growing and bringing the outer person in line with the inner person. Thus, the idea of getting to a fixed point where the believer thinks they know everything is eliminated as Ephesians leans to the reality that the believer—individually and communally—will always be in a posture of learning about God’s love made tangible in Christ because the Spirit revealing God’s self to the believers anew through remembering Christ. This process prepares and causes Christians to grow into the able partners of God.
Now the text moves from theologically infused doxological statements creating the groundwork of the believer’s life in Christ with the neighbor to the glory of God. In Ephesians 4, we turn toward the natural outpouring of faith eagerly working itself out in love toward the neighbor. Love is not only the bedrock but is the very power that motivates us and that desires to be born from us as we are born from Love.
Ephesians 4:1-16
Therefore, I, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to conduct yourself in manner worthy of the vocation into which you were summoned, with all humility and gentleness, with forbearance enduring with one another in love, hastening to guard the unity of the Spirit in the peace that binds together…speaking truth in love, we might grow in every way into him, who is the head, Christ, out of whom the entire body is being fit and brought together thru every joint of the support according to the proper activity of each part causing the growth of its body for the purpose of building itself up in love. (Eph 4:1-3, 16)*
Here in Ephesians, the content swings from doxological to ethical; for the author of Ephesians, to praise God results in right Christian work[1] in the world that is (also![2]) doxological, bringing the praise of God to the lips of those encountered by the loving hands and feet of the believers.[3] The therefore and then Paul’s I, a prisoner in the Lord, beseech you to conduct yourself in manner worthy of the vocation into which you were summoned, provides the hinge transitioning into the ethical portion of this doxological letter. How are the Ephesians to conduct themselves? What is the worthy manner of their vocation as priests in the world? The author begs them to act with humility and gentleness, and to act with forbearance [by] enduring with one another in love. To act with humility and gentleness is, like Christ, to shrug off that which is privilege and power in the kingdom of humanity and to become as and like our neighbor in the reign of God like Christ did (ref. Phil 2).[4] And this “shrugging off” is the ground of the forbearance that is suffering with one another in love.
According to Ephesians, the believer is to identify so deeply with their neighbor that the neighbor’s problems become their problems; here, the believer cannot ignore the neighbor as if the neighbor’s well-being has no impact or import to the believer’s well-being. Rather, the believer shrugs off their own comfort, their own power, their own privilege, shrugs off their own self[5] as privatized and prioritized over the neighbor.[6] Ephesians puts the believer on the hook: to be as Christ in the world, to humble themselves, to choose to be gentle, to bear the burdens of human existence, to step in and under the trials and tribulations and refusing to let the neighbor go, to grab their hand and whisper, I will not leave you or forsake you. This, according to Ephesians, is the answer to the what now? of the season of Pentecost: we are to bring the love of Christ[7] deep into the world. And to do this, according to Ephesians, is how they will know we are Christians by our love—the unequivocal love that is our foundation of our mutuality, equity, and union with our neighbor,[8] the essence of divine peace within our lives, the substance of our life together, the marrow of our actions, and the air we breathe in and out.[9]
For we are, according to Ephesians, one body, one spirit, just as also you were summoned in one hope of your vocation; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and parent of all people… The church is one historically in remembering Christ, one currently by being in the presence of Christ through the proclamation of the Word of God and by the power of the Holy Spirit, and always will be one because the source of this unity is God who is before all people and through all people and in all people. In other words, the foundation and source of the church—yesterday-today-tomorrow—is always God.[10] And God is (also!) the source and foundation of our mutual love, union, and our equity among each other because we are each recipient of God’s grace given according to the measure of the free gift of Christ.
Because Christ was given to the whole cosmos (Jn 3:16) none of us can claim to have more grace than another person and none of us can try to obtain more because the divine gift of Christ is free.[11] We are all, each of us, under the headship of Christ. According to Ephesians, we are not under any human person holding authority in the kingdom of humanity, but under the divine leadership of God made known in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, this church/“institution” must run differently, not like the kingdom of humanity, by lording over others assumed authority but by pressing into the omnipresent divine equity of the reign of God.[12] We may all have different vocations within this communal vocation to be priests in the world to the glory of God and the well-being of the neighbor (v. 11)); yet, this doesn’t indicate, according to Ephesians, a hierarchy of human beings within the body of Christ (v. 12).[13]
According to the inner logic of Ephesians, these vocations within the divine vocation to the community of believers functions in two ways: 1. assisting the body of Christ to grow into maturity[14] in the love of Christ to be as Christ in the world,[15] and 2. causing the body of Christ to grow away from being held captive like infants by the blusterous and empty yet attractive doctrine of the kingdom of humanity oriented toward deceiving and misleading(vv. 13-14). Thus, through faithful teachers and preachers and ministers[16] who speak the truth in love, so then does the entire congregation confess and live rightly into their vocation to the glory of God and the well-being of the neighbor.[17] The whole congregation—the entire body is being fit and brought together thru every joint … according to the proper activity of each part—is charged as a “personal partner”[18] of Christ to confess Christ not just within the unique gathering, but into the world by loving acts in word and deed.[19] According to Paul, this confession by each believer causes the growth of its body for the purpose of building itself up in love.[20]
Conclusion
Beloved, we are exhorted and begged through the words of Ephesians to grow…to grow up![21] For the love of God, to the glory of God, and for the well-being of our neighbors, we are to grow up and be(come) the body of Christ in the world, bearing into the world by acts of love that which has been born in us through faith. As those summoned to be formed by, to live into, and to participate in God’s good will made known in Christ and deposited in our hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are called to live in humility and gentleness. We are not to be prideful about our own faith and lives as if we are superior to our neighbor. We are not to act cruelly by forcing others to conform to our ideology/ies. We are exhorted to bear the burdens of our neighbor, not turn a blind eye because we have ours as if that’s all that matters. We are to dare to live radically by adhering to divine inspired equity among humanity, willingly stepping into the voids created between groups by the kingdom of humanity to call into reality the possibility of the reign of God. We are to be the socio-political wild cards, like Christ, ready at any moment to do what it takes to bring God’s mission of the divine revolution of love, life, and liberation deeper into the cosmos.
*Translation mine and v. 16 with the help of my Greek professor, Ann Castro ❤
[1] Allen Verhey and Joseph S. Harvard, Ephesians, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds. Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher (Louisville: WJK, 2011), 131. “Ethics is fundamentally a response to God.”
[2] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 132-133. “In Ephesians… ‘therefore’ signals a link, not just a transition. It is a moral theology in the first three chapters, announcing the ‘immeasurable greatness of God’s power’…, attentive to the grace and the cause of God, but always already with an eye toward the implications of the gospel for the lives of Christians and the common life of the churches. And it is a theological morality in the last three chapters, announcing the gospel now in the imperative mood, attentive to the sort of conduct, character, and the community that are empowered and required by God’s grace and cause.”
[3] Barth, Markus, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3, The Anchor Bible Series (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 426. “Moral indoctrination therefore appears to be derived from dogmatic doctrine. However, the content of Eph 1-3 is doxological rather than dogmatic. The direct connection of the ethical chapters 4-6 with the praise of God rather than with a doctrine of God is a specific feature of Ephesians.”
[4] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 138. “This community maintains and performs this unity when the members of the community practice ‘humility and gentleness [and] patience, bearing with one another in love’ (4:2). These are virtues for living in community with those who are different from you. These are virtues to make and maintain community of peaceable difference” peace like dividing wall down peace.
[5] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 157. “The unity of the church does not require an oppressive uniformity. It requires self-giving love and peaceable difference. That is the way and the will of triune God, the ‘one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all’ (4:6). The unity of the church includes diverse people and it is nurtured and sustained by a diversity of gifts.”
[6] Barth, Ephesians, 427-428. “If to love includes bearing one’s neighbor, then love is not just an emotion or ideal of the individual soul; rather the personalities of specific neighbors and personal relations actually existing among the saints become the field and material of love. According to this passage there is no love except in relation to specific neighbors. Love is not a disposition of the soul which can be perfect in itself, without being given and shaped in ever new concrete encounters. It is always specific. Always costly, always a miraculous event.”
[7] Barth, Ephesians, 427. “The ‘love’ mentioned here is probably the brotherly love among the saints which bears testimony to God’s and Christ’s love.”
[8] Barth, Ephesians, 461. “‘Love’ needs the neighbor and is dependent upon him. The neighbor—even the one who is a burden and whose character and behavior prove cumbersome—is much more than just an occasion or test of love. He is its very material. Love is not an abstract substance or mood that can be present in a man’s heart even when there are no other sin sight and no confrontations are taking place. It does not exist in a vacuum, in abstracto, in detachment from involvement in other men’s lives. Rather it is a question of being surprised by a neighbor, accepting him, going out to him, and seeking solidarity and unity just with him even if this should mean temporary neglect of, or estrangement from, others.”
[9] Barth, Ephesians, 427. “The gracious election of the Jewish and Gentile neighbor is the presupposition, the unshakable ground, and the undying source of the saints’ mutual love. The love that rules among them is the necessary and indispensable result of God’s care for them. It is the essence of the ‘good works’ created for them, and the ground on which they are to walk…”
[10] Barth, Ephesians, 429. “The unity of the church is …. Not constituted by something underneath or inside the church or her several members. Rather it is eschatological: the reason for the church’s hope for unity, and for her commitment to unity, is ‘deposited in heaven’ (Col 1:5). Not the attainment to unity, but the guarantee of that attainment is, in the best interest of the church preserved at a place ‘out of this world.’”
[11] Barth, Ephesians, 435-436. “By providing for all saints equally, God constitutes the unity of the church. No one member possesses anything that is not given to the whole body of Christ. It is impossible for any group inside the church to claim an extra gift from the exalted Messiah.”
[12] Barth, Ephesians, 481. “…the task of the special ministers mentioned in Eph 4:11 is to be servants in that ministry which is entrusted to the whole church. Their place is not above but below the great number of saints who are not adorned by resounding titles. Every one of the special ministers is a servus servorum Dei. He is a ‘pastor’ of God’s flock who understands himself as a minister to ministers.”
[13] Barth, Ephesians, 435. “God appoints Christ to be head over church and world…; the exalted Christ will fill all, and he appoints ministers to the church… That is all!”
[14] Barth, Ephesians, 443. “The heretical teachers are bluntly accused of bad intentions. All the more do unstable and immature saints need teachers who can lead them out of error and toward solid knowledge of the truth.”
[15] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 168. “The church is Christ’s body, filled with Christ. And the church must grow into that body, ‘to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.’ By the grace and power and blessing of God, the church is and is called to be an agent in blessing God in words and lives of doxology, in service to God’s cause by its proclamation and its display of ta new humanity ‘to the praise of God’s glory.’ That is the final and climactic purpose of the one gift of grace God gave to the church (4:7), of the leaders Christ gave to the church, and of the many diverse gifts of the saints.”
[16] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 169. “We need teachers and leaders who hold tight to the confession of the unity creed, who hold tight to ‘the faith and knowledge of the Son of God,’ who proclaim a gospel of peaceable difference and hold us to it. Those who would divide, who would boast about some little truth they think they know well or some little good that they think they do well, and who for the sake of that little truth or that little good undercut the unity and peace that God intends, are less than faithful leaders and teachers. They are to be regarded as crafty and deceitful schemers (4:14). Our lives and our common life must be shaped by the truth o this one body, one Spirit, on hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all. Instead of using speech as a weapon against other Christians, instead of engaging in deceit or speaking in ways that destroy the unity of the body, we are to ‘speak the truth in love’ (4:15)…”
[17] Barth, Ephesians, 444. v. 15 “The passage calls for the right confession, and it urges the whole church and all its members to be a confessing church.”
[18] Barth, Ephesians, 450. “The church is a personal partner…rather than an impersonal outgrowth or extension of Christ.”
[19] Barth, Ephesians, 444. “The truth entrusted to the congregation is the truth of all-conquering love. Where there is no love, the truth revealed by God is denied. Equally, without ‘truth’ there may well be a ‘conspiracy’ that aims to subjugate men to human “opinions’ (Calvin), but no solid unity and community.”
[20] Barth, Ephesians, 449. “Most likely the apostle intends to say that tin their mutual dependence and communication all church members are chosen tools of the head for communicating nourishment, vitality, unity, solidity to the body (or building) as a whole. The weakest member or part is in this case as essential to the life and unity of the whole as the strongest.”
[21] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 176. “Live a common life worthy of God’s grace and gift, worthy of God’s promise and plan. Grow up! Build a body fitting to Christ as the head! Love one another!”
Psalm 145: 10-11, 19 All your works praise you, O God, and your faithful servants bless you. They make known the glory of your kingdom and speak of your power…Abba God is near to those who call upon him, to all who call upon him faithfully
Introduction
Through Ephesians we’ve talked about the need for heartfelt, mind-filled remembrance of Christ’s work in the world thru the Cross and Resurrection event and how remembering this brings Christ close to us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, here, we have hope. What God has done combined with God’s presence with the community through remembrance makes us hopeful because we are not abandoned and have something to participate in: the divine mission of the revolution of love, life, and liberation in the world for the beloved. And at the intersection of hope and remembrance we find ourselves bending our knee to pray, not as a last-ditch effort but to find our ground and our language so we can move through God and toward our neighbor, bringing tangible hope that is faith working itself out in action for those who are in need, on death’s door, frail and fatigued, on the verge of giving up.
Last week we dove into the peace that Christ brings us by destroying dividing walls, ridding us of hostility and enmity, and rendering inoperative laws that cause in groups and out groups. Within the Christian walk and life, the act of rebuilding walls keeping many out and few elite in, fomenting hostility and fear, and forcing the gospel to become a law in the church or the state is anathema. According to Ephesians, the followers of Christ cannot support any of these things or anything that supports these things. We have been liberated into radical equity with our neighbor through the work of Christ and the event of the Cross and Resurrection—(we are not, have never been, and will never be superior to our neighbor).
But all of this is moot if we don’t grow—individually and corporately—bringing the outer person in line with the inner person. Ephesians 3 exhorts us to grow in such a way so we can be stronger and more able partners of God participating in God’s mission in the world made known to us in Christ and inspiring our hearts, minds, and actions by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Ephesians 3:14-21
…so that [God] might give to you according to the abundance of his glory the power to grow through [God’s] Spirit to align with the inner person [and] establish Christ in your hearts through faith. Having been fixed firmly on and having laid the foundation of love, [stand on love] so that you might be perfectly able to comprehend with all the saints what the breadth and length and weight and depth, and to ascertain the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge… (Eph. 3: 16-19a)
This portion of Ephesians is a prayer to God the Father. The hint is For this reason I bend my knees to the Father, from whom all families in heaven and on earth received [their] name… I retained the use of “Father” in the translation to highlight that Paul isn’t praying to some distant deity,[1] but to a loving parent, who is involved in our lineage and our name.[2] But the point of the passage isn’t the emphasis on “Father” but rather the “bending of my knees,” the fact that Paul prays for the Ephesians.
So, Paul prays and prays these three petitions: for 1. Inner strength, 2. Profound understanding of God’s love, and 3. Being filled with God’s fullness.[3] The request for “inner strength”—so that [God] might give to you according to the abundance of his glory the power to grow through [God’s] Spirit to align with the inner person [and] establish Christ in your hearts through faith—is a statement that nothing is taken from God[4] as God inspires and woos the believer and the congregation as a whole[5] to bring the outer person into alignment with the inner person. In other words, the wholeness of self—the receipt of the believer’s self—hinted at in chapter 2 (last week) is confirmed here in chapter 3 as Paul prays that God out of God’s abundance gives abundant strength to the believer to be a whole person by bringing the outer person in line with the inner person. According to our letter, to be loved by God is healing balm that then empowers the believer to love as they have been loved and this is done from the firm ground and fixed foundation of Christ’s love and the believer’s faith that this God (as parent) really does love them.[6]
And because Paul sees the Ephesians as grounded and substantiated in God by love, Paul can write, Having been fixed firmly on and having laid the foundation of love, [stand on love] so that you might be perfectly able to comprehend with all the saints what the breadth and length and weight and depth, and to ascertain the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge… In this prayer, the author of the letter bases everything on the love of Christ—on which the Ephesians have been firmly fixed and which is the foundation under the ground where they stand in the spiritual realm. The love of Christ is the starting point for the believers in Ephesus, from here they not only understand just how massive and astounding is God’s love (which is truly beyond human understanding),[7] but from where they move, have their being, and participate in God’s mission of divine revolution of love, life, and liberation for the beloved. The great mystery that the Ephesians are let in on is the divine mystery that is Christ’s birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension and the impact of this divine event for the cosmos. But even then, understanding those points does not now make the Ephesians perfect or filled, or the arbiters of all that is of God[8] as if there is nothing more to learn or understand; this mystery surpasses all human knowledge. [9] For Paul these two things—the alignment of the outer with the inner person and the understanding the depth of God’s love—are woven together to create the situation where the believer might be filled into all fullness of God.[10] Embedded in the prayerful entreaty is Paul’s awareness that the Ephesians can never fully be filled with God’s fullness as if it is one and done. Rather, it is to be worked out; it’s on going—happening in the future and happening right now. This is what it means to grow: to grow in strength, to grow in act, to grow in prayer and dependence on God, to grow into fullness of the relationship with God, with the neighbor, and with the self.[11]
Paul then ends with And to the one who is able to do abundantly more than all things of which we ask or we can perceive according to the one who strengthens us, to [that one] be glory in the assembly and in Christ Jesus from all the families of the ages of ages, amen. As the three petitions work themselves out in the lives of the believers by the power of God, the Spirit,[12] glory is brought to God because where this community remembers, hopes, and prays, there is God in Christ. It is this that is the firm foundation and starting point for the one community that is the temple of God who worships together and then proceeds to move through God to serve the beloved, the neighbor. And as the neighbor is served, their God’s name is blessed (hallowed,[13] honored[14]) and glory is brought to God in the community and in Christ Jesus.[15]
Conclusion
Beloved, we remember, we hope, and we pray. We have wholeness with God, with our neighbor, and with ourselves by faith in Christ as divisions, hostilities, and laws cease to pull apart in Christ. From here we grow, constantly being brought to the edge of our understanding of God’s love for us and not just for us but for our neighbor. Because, for Paul here in Ephesians, the community who is open to and able to go outside of itself is the community that is growing—individually and corporately—in the knowledge of God’s love.
Paul prays for the believers—in Ephesus, and here today—that we would completely and fully—as limited as we are—understand just how much God loves us. Paul reminds us of the work of Christ on our behalf—the great mystery of the divinely inspired cosmos—and that we—who were once far off—are now counted among the children and families of God—spanning all time and space. And all of this never for ourselves in some privatized fashion so promoted by current American evangelical theology, but in a deprivatized way: for we are so loved by God that we can bring our outer person (personal and corporate) in line with the inner person (personal and corporate) and live in the world in love as we have been loved—no dividing walls and fences, no enmity and hostility, no laws keeping some in and some out. As we remember Christ, hope, pray, embrace radical divine equity, and grow, we can work to bring love to those who suffer under the oppression of indifference, life to those who are dying and liberation to those who are captive.
[1] Allen Verhey and Joseph S. Harvard, Ephesians, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds. Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher (Louisville: WJK, 2011), 123-124. “The ‘every family’ would have God as ‘Father,’ and every tribe and nation would be counted among the children of God. Then the invocation could be translated, ‘Father of all families [or tribes or nations].’ It is clearly not a biological relationship that is affirmed, but the care a father takes to supply the needs of his family, as when God is praised in Psalm 68:5 as the ‘father of orphans,’ the father of the fatherless. The scope of God’s parental care is not limited to those who know to call God ‘Father.’ Its reach extends beyond those who are near, and even beyond those who have been brought near.”
[2] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 124. “This is no tribal deity, no local god, not just the god of our ancestors. This God is not just committed to the flourishing of ap articular culture, country, or family. This God is the God of ‘all the families of the earth,’ the God of ‘all things.’ And to this God alone the Jews and Gentiles of the Lycus Valley—and we—owe ultimate loyalty.”
[3] Barth, Markus, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3, The Anchor Bible Series (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 368. “Three petitions may be discerned in what follows. (a) Intercession for the inner fortification of the saints; this is unfolded in the prayer that Christ reside in their hearts (vss. 16-17). (b) supplication for their strong perception of all the dimensions of God’s will; this supplication is interpreted by a request for knowledge of Christ’s love (vss. 18-19a). (c) Petition for perfection with God’s perfection (vs. 19b).”
[4] Barth, Ephesians, 369. “In remembering the ‘riches’ and ‘glory’ of the Father, Paul is convinced that God need not change or lose anything by granting the requests made to him. God is expected to act according to his nature, his character, i.e. his radiating love and power.”
[5] Barth, Ephesians, 385. “The gospel proclaimed in Ephesians is distinct from many variants of secular and religious collectivism by the vital concern shown for the enrichment, strength, stability, love, knowledge, grown, and perfection of each member of the community and, virtually, of every man.”
[6] Barth, Ephesians, 369. “If this command is a parallel to the prayer contained in 3:16, then ‘the Lord’ is the aim, focus, and source of gathering strength—he, and not some innate self that resides in the nature of man and constitutes his individual quality.”
[7] Barth, Ephesians, 369. “In Eph 3 these nouns are so arranged as to make it clear that man must be invigorated by God’s Spirit before he is able to grasp God’s manifold wisdom and hold onto it in knowledge. Paul would hardly affirm in general terms, that knowledge is power. Rather he avers that through his Spirit God empowers man to know things that are beyond the human mind, eye, ear…”
[8] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 127-128. “Paul pleads that the church will grow strong enough to hold onto the mystery of God without claiming to be able to understand that mystery fully. That is, after all, what ‘all the saints’ (Eph. 3:18), including Job, did.”
[9] Barth, Ephesians, 373. “God laid his heart bare when he showed that from eternity the Gentiles are included in his love and in the Messiah’s realm, but the saints’ knowledge and understanding of the secret is still ‘imperfect’…”
[10] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 128. “Here Paul prays that the church will in fact be ‘filled with all the fullness of God’…that is, with Christ…., in whom the secret was made known and who will bring the plan of God to complete fruition. That grace, that glory, that loves is not created by human beings, but it exalts human beings. It creates and restores humanity, and it strengthens the church to respond to God’s grace and glory and love, to be responsible agents in service to God’s plan.”
[11] Barth, Ephesians, 373. “While Col 1:19 and 2:9 speak of the ‘indwelling’ of ‘the whole fullness of God’ in Christ and the church, and described it as an accomplished fact, it is (despite all elements of ‘realized eschatology’) characteristic of Ephesians to speak of ‘filling’ as a process still going on.”
[12] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 125. “The petition is that the church will be empowered by the Spirit to grow into Christ.”
[14]Honor your Father and Mother (Ten Commandments)
[15] Barth, Ephesians, 376. “In Eph 4:4-6 Paul mentions the church first because he starts from the actual locus of God’s praise. Then he adds a reference to the Messiah Jesus to designate the basis of the that praise. The existence and manifestation of God’s glory in the church is and remains dependent upon glorification of God through the Son. The secret of God is indeed now known only to the church, but it was revealed in Christ of the benefit of the whole world.”
Psalm 23:1-3 Abba God is my shepherd; I shall not be in want. Abba God makes me lie down in green pastures and leads me beside still waters. God revives my soul and guides me along right pathways for God’s Name’s sake.
Introduction
At the end of last’s week sermon, we ended talking about remembrance, hope, and prayer. For Christians, when we gather to speak of, read of, hear of, and consume together with Christ in our weekly fellowship and worship, we are remembering Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, we are not just remembering Christ but participating the work of God made tangible in Christ: the divine revolution and mission of love, life, and liberation in the world for the beloved. This is truly εὐαγγέλιον. And if this is truly εὐαγγέλιον, then it is also the source and foundation of our hope that exists to sustain us today.
In remembering and having hope we are led to pray, to bring ourselves deeply into God, to bend our knee (literal or figurative), to be creatures fully dependent on God. We remember, we have hope, and we pray, and it is this that is the beginning of all our activity within the walls of the church and without. As mentioned last week, “Prayer does not resign the believer to non-activity as if it is the final act in the face of trouble; it is the starting point. Prayer is how the believer unites with God and God’s passion for life, love, and liberation.[1] It is the bold request for God to enter in, to act; in prayer God is spoken to and from, in prayer God is remembered, so, too, the neighbor.”[2]
But the author of Ephesians isn’t done with us yet as if it’s just about remembering and hoping and praying. But that this remembering, hoping, and praying participates in making believers one with God and with each other in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit and bringing them into the true peace that surpasses all understanding.
Ephesians 2:11-22
For [Christ] is our peace, the one who made both [the Israelites and the Gentiles] one and [the one who] destroyed in his flesh the division-wall of the fence, [and] the enmity [between the two], and [the one who] rendered inoperative the law of the commands and public decrees, so that the two might build in him one new peace-making humanity… (Eph. 2:14-15)
So, the author of Ephesians verbally exhorts us (using an imperative!) to remember. To remember what? Not only Christ but who we were prior to being encountered by Christ in the event of faith. …remember that in the past you [were] Gentiles in the flesh, the ones who were called “The Uncircumcised” by the ones who were called “The Circumcised” in the flesh done by [human] hands (v. 11). But that isn’t enough; Paul asks his audience to remember, further, that they were for a time without Christ, having been alienated from the citizenship of Israel and a stranger of the covenant of the promise, not possessing hope and [were] without God in the cosmos (v 12). Paul is eager to recreate the situation for the Ephesians to cause more than just recall but real, heart-felt remembering,[3] pressing into the reality that apart from Christ they were dead in their false-steps and missing the mark (sin) (v 1), they were strangers to the promises of God, to Christ, and to the hope of God which is the hope of the reign of God in Christ.[4],[5] According to Ephesians, the Gentiles were overcome by their own desires, turned in on themselves, stuck in place by division, and consumed by hostility. This isn’t something that someone can work themselves out of, no matter how hard they try. For Paul, it is only through the encounter with Christ where one finds God, finds their neighbor, and finds themself; it is only in Christ where one finds true life, love, and liberation.[6]But at this time you who were once far off you became near by the blood of Christ (v 13). In other words, this is not done by human hands (χειροποιήτου in v 11), but by the love of God in Christ done by the power of the Spirit[7] as the down-payment in lives of the believers in Ephesus.
This is why Christ is the peace of everyone—for [Christ] is our peace (v 14a)—Children of Israel and Gentiles combined. Because, as Paul writes, the one who made both [the Israelites and the Gentiles] one and [the one who] destroyed in his flesh the division-wall of the fence, [and] the enmity [between the two], and [the one who] rendered inoperative the law of the commands and public decrees, so that the two might build in him one new peace-making humanity (vv 14b-15). There is now no longer us v. them, insiders v. outsiders, elected v. not-elected, Israel v. Gentiles, the circumcised v. the not circumcised.[8] There are not two groups, but one group. Thus, this peace Jesus brings in his own flesh, by the blood of the cross event and the glory of his resurrection is not just for privatized souls but for deprivatized humanity; it’s a socio-political event.[9] There is now no wall that keeps some in and some out, some included and some excluded; there is now (absolutely) no line—whether 2-D or 3-D—that can render some humans “good” and others “bad” based on which side of that line they fall because that line has been destroyed[10] and is now anathema for the believers and followers of Christ who benefit from the destruction of the division-wall of the fence by being included in to the heredity and mission of God by the work of Christ on the cross and the power of the Holy Spirits dwelling in their hearts.
And if the wall has been destroyed, so, too, division according to enmity,[11] which is the hostility and intolerance fomented between the two groups that was the fruit of the division wall; it is the anger of the kingdoms of humanity turned inward to tear humanity apart.[12] This includes the laws and public commandments used to make some clean and some unclean, some righteous and others unrighteous; these, too, like the wall and the enmity, have become inoperative in solidifying groups of people against each other. For Paul then writes, and so he might completely reconcile both in one body for God through the cross he killed the hostility in himself (v 16).By Christ’s work[13]—the mission of God’s revolution of love, life, and liberation for the world—there is now no wall, thus no enmity, thus no law[14] that can keep anyone out and in this radical establishment of divine equity, there is peace[15]—true peace that is not contingent on one group suffering under the weight of another.
Then the letter continues, [Christ] came and brought peace to you (all) who were far-off and peace to you (all) who were near because through him we—both in one spirit—possess access to God therefore now you are no longer a stranger and sojourner but you are a fellow citizens with the saints and of the family of God (vv 17-19). In Christ, these two have become one[16] and together they will dwell in and with God and they will have real peace—the type of peace that threatens the principalities and powers of the kingdom of humanity. [17] But this peace brought by Christ is more than reconciliation with each other, it is also reconciliation with God, thus, these two who are now one become the dwelling place of God. [18] As Paul continues, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets—Jesus Christ himself being the cornerstone—in whom all building is being fitted together and grows itself into a holy temple in the lord in whom you, you also were built together into the dwelling place of God in Spirit (vv 20-22). Boldly Ephesians declares, where there is a lack of enmity and hostility, division walls and lines, laws and commands geared to keep some in and some out, there God is and there the saints of God are; no one is excluded and left out and the church is caught up in this radical inclusion and equity, snatched into this divine peace that knows absolutely positively no walls or dividing lines.[19],[20]
Conclusion
The church is without excuse here, according to Ephesians. Peace—the very peace Christ brings through his birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension—is peace that is not contingent on the kingdom of humanity but dependent on the reign of God. It is peace that arises in the communion of humanity with humanity, humanity with God, and humanity with creation; it is peace that manifests within and among humanity in its unity to the glory of God, which is in opposition to the “peace” (i.e. “security” (“control”)) of the kingdom of humanity that thrives on the humanity’s disunity. None of us who claim to follow Christ can afford to support systems dead set on dividing and conquering, oppressing and marginalizing, and fostering anger and fear; these systems are antithetical to the gospel of Christ and to the faith and praxis of the believer in the world before God and neighbor. None of us who claim to follow Christ can find peace (and hope) anywhere else apart from God: not in federal positions and presidents, not in parties and platforms, not in promises and progress made with human hands. We can only find true peace in our reconciliation with God, which is reconciliation with our neighbor, and, thus, these two combined give us reconciliation with ourselves because we have been made one with our neighbor and thus have become the dwelling place of God.
We cannot find peace by building the world we long for with human hands because as soon as we build it it has expired and must be torn down to allow something new to be born. We cannot find peace by turning the gospel into a law as if it can found a nation that would only gift life, love, and liberation to those who qualify. We cannot find peace by letting enmity and hostility be the mortar holding the bricks of the division-wall together. We cannot find peace by legislating Christianity because the doctrines born of the second word of God that form the tissue of the Christian Church inherently resist such socio-political ossification. We can and will only find peace by pressing further into God, clinging to God’s Word in Christ, and leaning into the guidance and leading of the Spirit of God, the guarantor of the new covenant, the down payment of our adoption into God, and the fertile soil making us one with God, with our neighbor, thus, with ourselves. It is only here, in God and with God, do we find true and lasting peace that surpasses all understanding.
[2] This portion is taken from, Lauren R.E. Larkin, “Leaving Heaven Behind: Paradoxical Identity as the Anchor of Dorothee Sölle’s Theology of Political Resistance,” PhD Dissertation (University of Aberdeen, 2024), 202.
[3] Barth, Markus, Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3, The Anchor Bible Series (Garden City: Doubleday, 1971), 254. “Repentance, decision, and gratitude are called for, not a mental recollection only.”
[4] Barth, Ephesians, 257. “In Eph 2:12 a status of strangership is described, not an event leading to estrangement.”
[5] Barth, Ephesians, 259. \“Unless Paul flippantly denied or dispossessed the Gentiles of any hope he must have meant a specific hope. This ‘hope,’ then, could be understood as fostered in the minds of the Jews, because it was founded and guaranteed in the heart of God or ‘laid up in heaven’……It is the hope for the promised messiah from the root of David…”
[6] Barth, Ephesians, 254. “Paul’s thought moves from men in the grip of ‘flesh’ (2:11), over the work performed in ‘Christ’s flesh’ (2:14, to the operation of the ‘Spirit’ (2:18). Nothing can prevent the ‘Spirit’ from operating ‘in the realm of flesh.’”
[7] Barth, Ephesians, 255. “As the building of the temple by God is contrasted to the construction of temples by men, so circumcision of the heart…highly excels handmade circumcision.”
[8] Allen Verhey and Joseph S. Harvard, Ephesians, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds. Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher (Louisville: WJK, 2011), 93. “If it was especially the Jewish Christian who needed to be reminded earlier that all are ‘sinners,’ not just the ‘uncircumcised,’ not just the Gentiles, and that all are brought from death to life by the gift of God’s grace, not by ‘works’ of the law, the Gentiles are now reminded of the promises to Israel and that it is in the Jewish Messiah that they are given a share in them.”
[9] Barth, Ephesians, 262. “Christ is praised here not primarily for the peace he bring to individual souls; rather the peace he brings is a social and political event…”
[10] Barth, Ephesians, 263-264. “The combination of the two Greek nouns yields a composite sense: it is a wall that prevents certain person from entering a house or a city (cf. 2:19), and is as much a mark of hostility (2:14, 16) as, e.g. a ghetto wall, the Iron Curtain the Berlin Wall, a racial barrier, or a railroad track that separates the right from the wrong side of the city, not to speak of the wall between state and church.”
[11] Barth, Ephesians, 264. “In this case, the ‘enmity’ is as much the object of destruction as the wall.”
[12] Barth, Ephesians, 264. “The word ‘enmity’ defines the separation between Jews and Gentiles more specifically: this segregation implies intolerance, and is a passionate, totalitarian, bellicose affair. While the ‘enmity’ mentioned at the end of vs. 16 is the one-sided enmity of man against God, the ‘enmity’ of vs. 14 is mutual among men.”
[13] Barth, Ephesians, 265. “…the context of Eph 2:15 reveals that for the author (as much as for Paul himself) the death of Christ rather than the promulgation of new decrees stood behind the abolition of the divisive statutes.”
[14] Barth, Ephesians, 264. Wall, enmity, and law “Each of these terms throws light on the others; the author wants them to be considered as synonyms.”
[15] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 96. “…God seals a ‘new covenant’ in ‘the blood of Christ.” And in that ‘new covenant’ there is a new community, a community of both Jew and Gentile, a community that shares the memory of Christ and the hope of God’s promises with a common meal.”
[16] Barth, Ephesians, 272. “After showing that the church exists only as a unity, that is, as one new man created out of Jews and Gentiles, the apostle does not proceed to split t into halves.”
[17] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 97. “But this was not merely an idea, as the reality of baptism makes clear. This was not merely an ideal that exists outside history and toward which we must strive. This was and is a reality wrought in Christ on the cross and displayed in the churches when God initiates diverse people into Christ and into the church. Ideals are powerless against the forces in this world that divide and abuse, against the principalities and power that nurture cultures of enmity. But those forces are and will be finally powerless against the promise and reality of God’s future.”
[18] Barth, Ephesians, 274. “The church herself is not reconciliation but she lives form it and manifests it. She serves the glory of God inasmuch as her members mutually assist, support, and strengthen one another. Neither jews nor Gentiles nor any individual can independently claim after Christ’s coming to offer an appropriate residence For God but Jews and Gentiles together are now ordained by God to become his temple.”
[19] Barth, Ephesians, 324-325. “Now the church is the sign of his mercy, his peace, and his nearness the whole world. If God can and will use people are who are as tempted and weak as the Christian are, then he is certainly able and willing to exclude no one from his realm. The church lives by this hope and bears witness to it publicly.”
[20] Verhey and Harvard, Ephesians, 98. “They are called to break down the walls and to perform this new social reality by forming friendships with the people on the other side of the aisle, or on the other side of town.”
LaurenRELarkin.com 