Corporate Metaphors in

Ephesians 2 as Models for

Pluralistic Reconciliation:
Body, Human, Temple
Lionel J. Windsor, Moore Theological College

Abstract: The theme of unity has been highlighted extensively

in Ephesians scholarship. However, this theme is often treated
in an overly totalizing way. This often results in notions of plu-
rality and diversity being downplayed or problematized, which
ironically can counteract the concerns of Ephesians to promote
reconciliation among hostile groups. This article offers a cor-
rective to this tendency by examining possibilities for plurality
in the corporate metaphors in Ephesians 2: body, human, and
temple. Notions of plurality inherent in the Greek grammatical
constructions pertaining to these metaphors are often quickly
rejected by interpreters on the assumption of an overarching,
totalizing unity that excludes plurality. This article brings some
of these plural possibilities into sharper focus and offers alter-
native translations of key grammatical constructions. The study
is offered in the hope that it will provide resources for more
pluralistic models of reconciliation in church and society.

Key Terms: Ephesians 2, ethnic tension, humanity, pluralism,

post-supersessionism, racial hostility, reconciliation, temple,
ἐκκλησία

Ephesians offers a grand vision of reconciliation in Christ. While

this reconciliation is ultimately cosmic in scope (Eph 1:10), a critical el-
ement is reconciliation between different groups of humanity. These
concerns are especially prominent in Eph 2:11–22. The passage depicts an
entrenched ethnic hostility between Israel and the nations/gentiles (vv.

Biblical Research 68 (2023): 74–93.

Copyright © 2023 by the Chicago Society of Biblical Research
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 75
11–12), then declares that this hostility has been destroyed through Christ’s
sacrificial death (vv. 13–22). The reconciliation in view is expressed using
potent corporate metaphors describing unity: “one body” (ἑνὶ σώματι; v.
16; cf. 4:4), “one new human” (ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον; v. 15; cf. 4:24), and
“holy temple” (ναὸν ἅγιον) as a site for common worship with others (v.
21).
There is no question that unity is a crucial theme in this passage, as it
is elsewhere in Ephesians. Often, however, interpreters press the concept
of unity so far that they downplay or problematize notions of plurality
and diversity, especially with respect to ethnic and racial concerns.1 Such
a totalizing vision of unity can easily result in oppressed or marginalized
groups being required disproportionately to suppress their identity and
grievances in favor of those of dominant or powerful groups. Ironically,
therefore, modern interpretations of the vision of unity in Ephesians can
work against the explicit concerns of the letter to describe and promote
peace and reconciliation among hostile groups.2 More than fifty years ago,
addressing racial tensions in the United States, James Cone wrote about
biblical passages such as Ephesians 2:
The biblical doctrine of reconciliation can be made a reality only when
white people are prepared to address black men as black men and not
as some grease-painted form of white humanity.… Otherwise recon-
ciliation will mean black people living according to white rules and
glorifying white values, being orderly and calm while others enact laws
that will destroy them.3

In view of these concerns, my aim in this article is to explore and high-

light notions of corporate plurality and diversity in Eph 2:11–22, focusing
on the three critical corporate metaphors of body, human, and temple.
This investigation has two related motivations. The first is hermeneutical.
As we will see, since the theme of unity in Ephesians is often conceived of
in overly totalizing terms, interpreters can be too ready to appeal to the
1 The place of ongoing racial differences has been a longstanding issue in the history
of interpretation of Eph 2:11–22. For examples up to and including the mid-twentieth
century, see William H. Rader, The Church and Racial Hostility: A History of Interpre-
tation of Ephesians 2:11–22, BGBE 20 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1978). For further examples,
see the following section of this article.
2 A highly totalizing vision of unity in Ephesians is often connected to an understand-
ing of the letter’s situation in which Paul’s concrete struggles for unity between Jews
and gentiles are no longer a pressing concern, e.g., Andrew T. Lincoln, “The Church
and Israel in Ephesians 2,” CBQ 49 (1987): 605–24, here 619. While the arguments in
this article do not assume historical Pauline authorship of Ephesians, some of the
conclusions may be seen as consistent with it.
3 James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, 50th Anniversary ed. (Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 2018), 167.
76 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
concept of unity to rule out possible readings of the Greek text that might
otherwise suggest notions of plurality and diversity. This tendency has
also affected modern translations. I hope that by highlighting pluralistic
possibilities for reading certain aspects of the Greek text of Eph 2:11–22,
I may strengthen hitherto neglected interpretive options for reading the
entire passage—and the letter as a whole. This may enable interpreters and
readers to see how plurality and diversity may be more naturally integrat-
ed within the theme of unity in the letter.
The second motivation has modern concerns in view. I hope this study
may contribute to more pluralistic models of reconciliation for addressing
ethnic and racial tensions in church and society. By “pluralistic,” I mean an
approach that regards plurality—including the diversity of perspectives
arising from ethnic and racial differences—not merely as problematic, or
even as neutral, but as positive and worthy of engagement.
I will begin by examining the first explicit instance of the body met-
aphor in Ephesians (1:22–23). The use of the metaphor in this passage is
foundational for the development of the metaphor in the following dis-
course, hence it requires some scrutiny. The bulk of the article will con-
sist of an examination of the body, human, and temple metaphors in Eph
2:11–22, focusing on elements of these metaphors that assert or imply plu-
rality or diversity. At certain points, I will conduct a detailed examination
of aspects of the Greek text that, on purely grammatical considerations,
would usually suggest notions of plurality and diversity but which, based
on contextual factors, are often interpreted as expressions of an overarch-
ing, totalizing unity. Finally, I will highlight how the corporate plurality
described in Ephesians 2 is both consistent with and developed in the dis-
course of Ephesians 4, drawing out some further brief interpretive impli-
cations for the letter as a whole.

Plurality in Ephesians Scholarship

Discussions of corporate or ecclesiological plurality in Ephesians schol-

arship are themselves quite diverse. Nevertheless, there has been a broad
trend for plurality to be downplayed or problematized. There are various
reasons for this.
A significant factor is a common tendency in twentieth-century schol-
arship to interpret the “one new human” (Eph 2:15) in overtly racial terms
as a “third race” that replaces the former racial identities of Israel and the
gentiles. In earlier twentieth-century writings, third-race terminology
gained popularity through social Darwinian views of societal progress.4
4 Rader, Racial Hostility, 203–4. See, e.g., Adolf von Harnack, The Mission and Expansion
of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, trans. James Moffatt (London: Williams &
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 77
Other twentieth-century interpreters, while not necessarily subscribing to
social Darwinian ideas, nevertheless retained this language of the “third
race” (or “dritte Geschlect”).5
A very different—and entirely understandable—reason for emphasiz-
ing unity in Ephesians arose in Nazi Germany when racial distinctive-
ness was used to enforce segregation of Jewish Christians. Opponents of
segregation stressed the unity of humanity in Ephesians 2 but sometimes
went as far as declaring all ethnic or racial categories entirely obsolete.6
Opponents of racial segregation in the United States have also sometimes
downplayed the notion of difference in Ephesians 2, again for understand-
able reasons but sometimes with unfortunate implications.7
More recently, there has been a stronger tendency for scholars to af-
firm the value of corporate “unity in diversity” in Ephesians. Ephesians
4:11–16 is often cited as a critical text in this regard because it explicitly
describes a diversity of gifts in the body (vv. 11, 16; cf. v. 7). This diversity
is often described as manifesting primarily or exclusively within the local
congregation.8 However, while this affirmation of plurality in the local
congregation is valuable, it does not cover the full range of corporate con-
cerns found in Ephesians. The references to the “body” in the earlier parts
of Ephesians (1:23; 2:16; 4:4) are not depicting a local congregation but a
translocal entity. Hence, any affirmation of diversity in the body concept
in Ephesians seems to require a discussion of diversity beyond the local

Norgate, 1908), 240–79, esp. 243–44, 248; James Hastings, ed., The Speaker’s Bible: The
Epistle to the Ephesians (Aberdeen: The Speaker’s Bible Offices, 1925), 109.
5 E.g., Joachim Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief, 2nd ed., HThKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1977),
139; Lincoln, “Church and Israel”; Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, WBC (Dallas:
Word, 1990), 143–44, 163; Ralph P. Martin, Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon, In-
terpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1991), 31; Ernest Best, Ephesians, ICC (London:
T&T Clark, 1998), 269. The “third race” concept also appears in some twenty-first-cen-
tury scholarship, e.g.: Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 379–80; Benjamin H. Dunning, “Strangers
and Aliens No Longer: Negotiating Identity and Difference in Ephesians 2,” HTR 99
(2006): 1–16, here 14; Charles H. Talbert, Ephesians and Colossians, Paideia (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 82. While racial/ethnic reasoning also existed in ear-
lier Christian theology in various forms, it did not universally involve the replacement
views inherent in modern notions of a “third race”: see Denise Kimber Buell, Why This
New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2005).
6 Rader, Racial Hostility, 213–22.
7 Rader, Racial Hostility, 240–43. See, e.g., Everett Tilson, Segregation and the Bible: A
Searching Analysis of the Scriptural Evidence (Nashville: Abingdon, 1958), 88–91. In
opposing racial segregation in the US, Tilson denigrates Jewish identity and partic-
ularism, with (probably unintended) antisemitic implications.
8 E.g., Mark Stirling, “Temple and Body: Biblical Community in Ephesians,” Scottish
Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 37 (2019): 135–51, esp. 143–44; Lynn H. Cohick, The
Letter to the Ephesians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020), 182, 187–88, 264;
cf. Rader, Racial Hostility, 220, citing Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
78 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
congregation. Scholars sometimes assume that the referent of the term
“body” switches from a translocal entity in the earlier references to a local
entity in 4:11–16, but they do not always fully explain why this should be
the case.9
A minority of scholars make more of the concept of plurality beyond
the local congregation. Notably, post-supersessionist interpreters, who are
concerned with emphasizing the value of distinctive Jewish identity, often
regard the vision of plurality of the “body” in Ephesians as being mani-
fested in distinct—though not separate or segregated—congregations of
Jewish and gentile Christ-believers in fellowship with one another.10 Some
interpreters from a Catholic perspective also describe a form of worldwide
diversity in the “body” described in Eph 4:11–16, which they understand
to be a reference to the universal church.11 This emphasis on intergroup
diversity in Ephesians beyond the local congregation is promising for ex-
ploring notions of racial and ethnic plurality. This provides an impetus for
further investigation of notions of plurality in the corporate metaphors of
body, human, and temple.

The Body in Ephesians 1:22–23:

An Earthly Entity with a Heavenly Purpose

The first explicit reference to the body metaphor in Ephesians occurs in

1:22–23. Here, the risen and exalted Christ has just been described as seat-
ed at God’s right hand “in the heavenly places” (v. 20), with authority over
all powers across time (v. 21). In v. 22, the exalted heavenly Christ is said
to be given to the corporate ekklēsia, which is further described using the
body metaphor.12 The language is rich yet complex:

9 See, e.g., Cohick, Ephesians, 250, 264.

10 E.g., William S. Campbell, “Unity and Diversity in the Church: Transformed Iden-
tities and the Peace of Christ in Ephesians,” Transformation 25 (2008): 15–31, here
22; Mark Kinzer, Searching Her Own Mystery: “Nostra Aetate,” the Jewish People, and
the Identity of the Church (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2015), 73–79; Andrew Remington
Rillera, “Tertium Genus or Dyadic Unity? Investigating Sociopolitical Salvation in
Ephesians,” BR 66 (2021): 31–51.
11 E.g., Annemarie C. Mayer, Sprache der Einheit im Epheserbrief und in der Ökumene,
WUNT 2/150 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 60–61, 69; Christopher Tuckett, “The
Church as the Body of Christ,” in Paul et l’unité des chrétiens, ed. Jacques Schlosser,
Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 19 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 161–91, here 188;
Aby Thomas Puthukulangara, Ecclesia in Ephesians: A Theology of an Undivided Ap-
ostolic Church in the Letter to the Ephesians, Forum Fundamentaltheologie 11 (Berlin:
Lang, 2021), 178–82.
12 I will use the transliteration ekklēsia throughout this article rather than the common
translation “church,” since the latter risks anachronism.
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 79
And [God] subjected all things under his feet and gave him, [as] head
over all things, to the ekklēsia [ἐκκλησία], which is his body [σῶμα], the
fulfillment/fullness [πλήρωμα] of the one who fills/fulfills [for himself]
all things in every way.13 (Eph 1:22–23)

In Greco-Roman and Jewish use, ἐκκλησία was used to designate a con-

crete “assembly,” i.e., a meeting occurring at a specific time and place for
a particular purpose, such as civil decision-making.14 As Ralph J. Korner
argues, early Christ-followers, especially Paul, transformed this term
for an occasional meeting into a “permanent group identity,” with some
Jewish precedent (cf. Philo, Virt. 108).15 In the undisputed Pauline letters,
ἐκκλησία usually refers to a local congregation (e.g., 1 Cor 1:2). Neverthe-
less, the various ἐκκλησίαι were not isolated but “translocal” in the sense
that each ἐκκλησία belonged to a connected network of communities (e.g.,
1 Cor 7:17).16 Hence it was possible to use the singular noun ἐκκλησία in a
broader sense to refer to the extended network of (plural) ἐκκλησίαι (e.g.,
Acts 9:31; also probably Acts 8:3 [cf. v. 1]; Gal 1:13; 1 Cor 12:28; 15:9; Phil
3:6). This “universal” rather than local sense appears to be the meaning of
the singular, articular term ἐκκλησία in Eph 1:22.17 Hence the entity being
referred to is at least implicitly pluriform since it is envisaged as a single
network of multiple congregations.
The pluriform possibilities for the ekklēsia appear to be strengthened by
its metaphorical designation as a “body” (σῶμα; v. 23). The body metaphor
is naturally suited for conveying the idea of unity in diversity. Paul had pre-
viously used it for such a purpose in his undisputed letters with reference

13 Unless otherwise indicated, all English translations of the Greek text of Ephesians
are my own.
14 Ralph J. Korner, The Origin and Meaning of Ekklēsia in the Early Jesus Movement, An-
cient Judaism and Early Christianity 98 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 22–80.
15 Korner, Ekklēsia, 259. Elsewhere Korner adds, “Only in Philo (Virt. 108) and in New
Testament writings is ekklēsia used as a permanent, ongoing group designation even
when they disperse at the conclusion of their ekklēsia (‘assembly’)” (Ralph J. Korner,
“Post-Supersessionism: Introduction, Terminology, Theology,” Religions 13.12 [2022]:
1195).
16 Korner, Ekklēsia, 194–201. On translocal connectivity of early Christ-associations,
see further Richard S. Ascough, “Translocal Relationships among Voluntary Asso-
ciations and Early Christianity,” JECS 5 (1997): 223–41; Benedikt Eckhardt, “Asso-
ciations beyond the City: Jews, Actors and Empire in the Roman Period,” in Private
Associations and Jewish Communities in the Hellenistic and Roman Cities, ed. Benedikt
Eckhardt, JSJSup 191 (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 115–56; John S. Kloppenborg, Christ’s As-
sociations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2019), 202–3.
17 So, e.g., Cohick, Ephesians, 68, 132–33; Lincoln, Ephesians, 67; cf. Douglas A. Camp-
bell, Framing Paul: An Epistolary Biography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 327–29.
Note that describing the ekklēsia body as “universal” does not necessarily mean that
it is to be understood as a single organization, like a multinational corporation.
80 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
to local settings (Rom 12:4–5; 1 Cor 10:17; 12:12–27). The body metaphor
was also used as a picture of unity in diversity in contemporary discussions
of the city-state as the body politic (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant.
rom. 6.86; Livy, Ab urbe cond. 2.32.7–12) and the Stoic notion of universal
humanity (e.g., Seneca, Ep. 95.51–53).18
However, understanding the ekklēsia body in Eph 1:22–23 in this earth-
ly universal sense is not as straightforward as it may seem. This is because
it is not merely a body, but “his body” (τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ), i.e., the body of
the risen and exalted Christ who is the “head [κεφαλή] over all things” (v.
22). Christ, the head, is now located “in the heavenly places” (v. 20). This
may imply that the ekklēsia body is located, not on earth, but in the same
place as its head, i.e., in the heavenly places (cf. the location of believers
in 2:6).19 If the body is regarded as a heavenly rather than an earthly enti-
ty, this may distance the concerns of the discourse from present earthly
realities. In such a case, earthly contingencies—including plurality and
diversity—may not be relevant to the body metaphor.
Therefore, it is essential to examine the metaphor’s development in this
context closely.20 The “body” is further described as Christ’s πλήρωμα, a
term that can be translated as “fullness” or “fulfillment.” While the mean-
ing of this term is subject to much debate,21 it is worth noting that the same
word has previously appeared in a similar formulation with reference to
the fulfillment of God’s temporal plans for Christ: “the fulfillment of the
times” (τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν) is “to bring to a head all things in
Christ” (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ πάντα ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ; 1:10). This earlier
use of πλήρωμα alongside a cognate of κεφαλή and a reference to τὰ πάντα
suggests that the subsequent use of πλήρωμα in combination with κεφαλή
and a further reference to τὰ πάντα (v. 23) should be understood in a sim-
ilar sense. In other words, πλήρωμα in Eph 1:23 is more likely conveying
not a spatial sense (“fullness”) but a temporal or teleological sense (“ful-
fillment”).22 In this case, it is not necessary to push the metaphor so far as
18 Michelle V. Lee, Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ, SNTSMS 137 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2006), 9, 43, 57; Cohick, Ephesians, 135–36.
19 Peter T. O’Brien, “The Church as a Heavenly and Eschatological Entity,” in The
Church in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson (Exeter: Paternoster, 1987), 88–119,
here 109–10.
20 For further methodological considerations concerning the interpretation of the body
metaphor, see Gregory W. Dawes, The Body in Question: Metaphor and Meaning in the
Interpretation of Ephesians 5:21–33, BibInt 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 25–78; Alta Vrey,
“The Body Metaphor Reinforcing the Identity of the In-Group in Ephesians,” Neot 53
(2019): 375–93.
21 Hoehner, Ephesians, 294–304.
22 There are two options for understanding πλήρωμα in the temporal or teleological
sense of “fulfillment,” depending on whether πλήρωμα is taken in an active or passive
sense. Either (1) the ekklēsia body fulfills (active) God’s plans for the heavenly Christ-
head, or (2) God’s plans for the ekklēsia body are fulfilled (passive) by the heavenly
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 81
to conclude that the universal body is entirely located along with the head
in the heavenly places (any more than it is necessary to conclude that be-
lievers’ being seated in the heavenly places with Christ (2:6) removes their
earthly particularity).23 The primary purpose of the use of the body meta-
phor in Eph 1:22–23 is not to distance the body from earthly contingencies
but to demonstrate that the ekklēsia body, while consisting of an earthly
network of associations, nevertheless has a heavenly and eschatological
purpose and significance in relation to Christ.24
Therefore, the application of the body metaphor to the ekklēsia net-
work in Eph 1:22–23 is at least open to notions of diversity and plurality
within unity; indeed, it may be intentionally used to imply such concepts.
Whether or not it actually does so can only be seen by investigating the
subsequent discourse.

Ephesians 2:11–18: Duality of Israel and the

Nations in One Humanity and One Body

The second cluster of corporate metaphors occurs in Eph 2:14–18. Here,

the reconciliation between Israel and the nations is described using the
language of “one human” and “one body”:
For he himself is our peace, who made both one [ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα
ἓν] and broke down the dividing wall, the hostility, in his flesh, having
Christ-head. Both of these senses, or a combination of the two, are somewhat analo-
gous to the political use of the head-body metaphor to describe the interdependent
relationship between emperor and state: each needs the other to fulfill its purpose
(e.g., Seneca, Clem. 1.4.3; cf. 1.3.5; 1.5.1; Tacitus, Ann. 1.12–13). See Frederick J. Long,
“Ἐκκλησία in Ephesians as Godlike in Heavens, in Temple, in Γάμος, and in Armor:
Ideology and Iconography in Ephesus and Its Environs,” in The First Urban Churches
3: Ephesus, ed. James R. Harrison and L. L. Welborn, WGRWSup 9 (Atlanta: Soci-
ety of Biblical Literature, 2018), 193–234, here 216. Pace P. D. Overfield, “Pleroma: A
Study in Content and Context,” NTS 25 (1979): 384–96, who argues that the term is
being used in a personal sense derived from a purported “Jewish doctrine of Inclusive
Personality” (393). Nevertheless, the political use of the metaphor is at most only a
partial parallel to the use in Eph 1:22–23. The political use has only two entities in
view: the “head” as the political ruler and the “body” as the ruled state. In Eph 1:22–23,
however, there is a third entity: “all things.” The ἐκκλησία is the body of Christ (ἥτις
ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ; 1:23), but Christ is head over all things (κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα).
Hence Christ is not the political ruler of the body—he is the ruler of creation. The
body fulfills/completes his rule, but it is not necessarily placed among the ruled. This
is confirmed in the following chapter, which describes God having “raised us and
seated us with him in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus” (2:6); i.e., the ekklēsia consists of
believers who are with Christ in the heavenlies, above “all things” that are ruled. See
further Dawes, The Body in Question, 141, cf. 147; Cohick, Ephesians, 133.
23 Cf. O’Brien, “The Church,” 110.
24 Cf. Philo’s description of the human being as a creature whose body is rooted in the
earth but whose head is directed towards the heavens (Det. 85).
82 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
abolished the law of the commandments in decrees, so that he might
create the two [τοὺς δύο] in himself into one new human [εἰς ἕνα
καινὸν ἄνθρωπον], making peace, and reconcile both in one body [τοὺς
ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι] to God through the cross, having killed the
hostility by it. (Eph 2:14–16)

The term “human” (v. 15) is being used as a metaphor for “humanity,” ei-
ther a new “type of humanity” (cf. 4:24) or a new “corporate person.”25 The
term “body” recalls the ekklēsia body of Eph 1:22–23 and is thus a metaphor
for the Pauline network of ekklēsiai.26 Both metaphors are modified by
the term “one,” which clearly expresses a concept of unity. The question,
however, is whether the concept of unity expressed here excludes any no-
tions of plurality. There are several indications in the context that this is
not the case.
In 2:1–10, two groups are marked out: “you” (ὑμᾶς; v. 1) and “also we
all” (καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες; v. 3). Although both groups are subject to a com-
mon plight involving sin and wrath and united in a common salvation and
life in Christ (vv. 4–10), nevertheless the delineation of the two groups is
marked.27 The language of the section alludes to the prophetic distinction
between Israel and the nations that is equalized but not dissolved by God’s
judging and saving activity (e.g., Ezekiel 36–37).28
In 2:11–13, the nature of the distinction becomes more apparent. The
section begins with a command for the gentile readers to “remember” their
status as “you, the nations/gentiles” (ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη; v. 11). This invokes an
Israel-centered viewpoint, implying that gentile status in relation to Israel
has some continuing relevance for their present situation (cf. 3:1, 6, 8).29 The
problem described in this section is not distinctiveness per se but attitudes
of hostility arising from this distinctiveness.30
In 2:14–18, Christ is described as bringing “peace” (vv. 14, 15, 17) in the
place of such “hostility” (vv. 14, 16). The unity described in this passage is

25 Best, Ephesians, 261–63, quoting 261. Best prefers the former option.
26 Cohick, Ephesians, 188.
27 This markedness can be seen in the fact that the phrases “you” (ὑμᾶς; v. 1) and “also
we all” (καὶ ἡμεῖς πάντες; v. 3) both appear in prominent preverbal positions, and “we”
(ἡμεῖς) is syntactically redundant since it is already implied in the verb ἀνεστράφημεν
(v. 3).
28 Cf. David I. Starling, Not My People: Gentiles as Exiles in Pauline Hermeneutics, BZNW
184 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 191–92.
29 Stephen E. Fowl, Ephesians: A Commentary, NTL (Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2012), 101.
30 See further Lionel J. Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians after Supersessionism:
Christ’s Mission through Israel to the Nations, New Testament after Supersessionism
(Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017), 118–29.
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 83
opposed to hostility, not plurality.31 In fact, the repeated use of the term
“both” (ἀμφότεροι) confirms that plurality is not simply a feature of the
past; it continues to be a feature of the new situation in Christ. “Both” are
made “one” (v. 14). “Both” are the object of reconciliation “in one body”
(v. 16). This reconciliation is put into effect through gospel-preaching
missionary activity directed to both groups: far and near (v. 17).32 Finally,
“both” are the subject of the present-tense expression “we both have ac-
cess” (ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι; v. 18). The unity described
in this passage, therefore, involves two groups who retain their identity as
“both” even in their present reconciled state.
This notion of plurality within unity is somewhat obscured by some En-
glish translations of the metaphor for humanity in v. 15. A fairly literal ren-
dering of the phrase ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον
would be “to create the two, in himself, into one new human.” Christ is
described as undertaking a divine creative process (κτίζω; cf. v. 10). The
duality, “the two,” is the accusative object of the creative process—i.e., the
two is what Christ has created. The goal of the creative process, expressed
with the prepositional phrase (εἰς), is a unified humanity.33 Several English
translations, however, use phraseology that implies that the duality is re-
placed with singularity, e.g., “that he might create in himself one new man
in place of the two” (Eph 2:15 RSV, emphasis added; cf. NRSV, ESV). This is
an over-translation that obscures the fact that “the two” here is the object
of the creative process, not its antithesis. Indeed, the expression is in sev-
eral ways parallel to the expression used later of marriage in the context of
creation: “the two shall become one flesh” (ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν;
5:31). Just as the one-flesh marriage union does not destroy the individual
identities of the two marriage partners, so the one new kind of humanity
does not destroy the social identities of the two ethnic groupings.

31 Markus Barth, Ephesians, 2 vols., AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), 1:310;
O’Brien, “The Church,” 112; Tet-Lim N. Yee, Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation:
Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians, SNTSMS 130 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2004), 143; Campbell, “Unity and Diversity,” 18; Fowl, Ephesians, 90; Justin K.
Hardin, “Equality in the Church,” in Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial
Context and Biblical Foundations, ed. Joel Willitts and David Rudolph (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2013), 224–34, here 231; Kinzer, Searching Her Own Mystery, 77.
32 The explicit subject of this missionary activity is “Christ” (v. 17), but presumably the
apostles are implied as human agents of Christ’s preaching (cf. 1:13; 3:7, 8): see Karl
Olav Sandnes, Paul—One of the Prophets? A Contribution to the Apostle’s Self-Under-
standing, WUNT 2/43 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991), 228–29.
33 The object of κτίζω is consistently expressed using the accusative, not with εἰς (BDAG,
s.v. “κτίζω”).
84 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)

Ephesians 2:19–22: Plurality in Temple Worship

The following paragraph (2:19–22) introduces a further corporate meta-

phor: the notion of a “holy temple” (ναὸν ἅγιον; v. 21).34 It is almost univer-
sally assumed that this paragraph describes a single temple. This temple, as
a single structure, is usually identified with the one universal “body” in v.
16.35 Most modern translations of this passage tend to solidify this idea of
a single temple, using phraseology that cannot be read any other way, e.g.,
“members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19 RSV), “Gottes Hausgenos-
sen” (Eph 2:19 Schlachter); “the whole structure” (Eph 2:21 RSV), “der
ganze Bau” (Eph 2:21 Schlachter).
However, the Greek expressions are more ambiguous than these trans-
lations imply. In fact, several elements of the grammar in this paragraph
suggest that the temple concept here is inherently plural. Centuries of
translation and commentary have conditioned interpreters to eliminate
readily certain exegetical options that imply plurality or diversity because
such possibilities are assumed to be incongruous with the overriding vi-
sion of “unity” in the passage. However, if we put to one side the assump-
tion that unity is necessarily opposed to plurality, the grammatical ele-
ments implying plurality can be considered afresh.
Unity of Kinship, Not Dwellers in a Single Structure
The first phrase that needs to be considered is οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ (v. 19). Un-
like English translations such as “members of the household” (RSV) or
German translations such as “Gottes Hausgenossen” (Schlachter), the
Greek term οἰκεῖοι does not necessarily denote people living together in a
single structure. The term has a wide range of meanings, from “pertaining
to the house, domestic” to “pertaining to the family, relative,” “kinship,”
“family member, friend, supporter,” etc.36 It can, in other words, be used to
refer to people related by kinship dwelling in multiple structures.
An apposite example is found in Leviticus 25 LXX. There, the word
οἰκεῖος is used to denote a member of one’s own tribe in Israel (v. 49; cf.
Num 27:11 LXX) in contrast with the “resident alien” (πάροικος; v. 47).

34 Temple imagery may already have been present implicitly through the description
of the destruction of a dividing wall, which probably alludes to the Jerusalem temple
(2:14), and through the statement that believers have “access” (τὴν προσαγωγήν) to
God (v. 18). However, it is not until v. 21 that the term for “temple” appears explicitly.
35 E.g. O’Brien, “The Church,” 103; Raymond F. Collins, “Constructing a Metaphor:
1 Corinthians 3,9b–17 and Ephesians 2,19–22,” in Paul et l’unité des chrétiens, ed.
Jacques Schlosser, Colloquium Oecumenicum Paulinum 19 (Leuven: Peeters, 2010),
193–216, here 216; Stirling, “Temple and Body.”
36 Franco Montanari, The Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, ed. M. Goh, trans. R.​
Barritt-Costa (Leiden: Brill, 2015), s.v. “οἰκεῖος.”
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 85
The situation described in Leviticus is not one in which these “family
members” (οἰκεῖοι) are all residing in the same structure. Instead, they
are people related by kinship residing in various structures throughout
the tribal territory (e.g., vv. 29–33).
The usage in Ephesians 2 parallels that in Leviticus 25 in several ways.
Gentile Christ-followers are here told: “You are no longer foreigners and
resident aliens [πάροικοι], but you are fellow citizens of the holy ones and
family members [οἰκεῖοι] of God” (Eph 2:19). The contrast here is between
alien status and kinship status in God’s people. While the granting of kin-
ship status, drawing on imagery describing the holy land of Israel, is highly
significant for the vision of reconciliation in Ephesians (cf. 1:18), it does not
necessarily imply that all the participants reside in a single holy building.
Plurality of Construction
The second phrase that needs to be considered is πᾶσα οἰκοδομή (v. 21).
Textual witnesses for the inclusion of an article (ἡ) between πᾶσα and
οἰκοδομή are fewer, later, and less widely distributed than witnesses for
its omission.37 The article, therefore, is almost certainly a later addition.38
Since the phrase with the article (πᾶσα ἡ οἰκοδομή) unambiguously means
“the whole building,” the addition of the article can be explained as a result
of ancient scribes (like modern interpreters) reading the text in terms of an
overarching ecclesiological unity and so intentionally or unintentionally
correcting it to conform the text to this vision of unity.
However, the phrase without the article has a distributive sense imply-
ing a plurality of constructions, i.e., “every building.” A variety of earlier
commentators did indeed understand the phrase in this way, e.g., “each
congregation”/“every congregation”;39 “all the ministries of life in the New
Order.”40 Some translations also render the phrase distributively, e.g.,
“each several building” (RV, ASV); “every structure” (JB, NJB). Strict
Greek grammar seems to require this distributive sense.41
More recently, however, there has been a strong tendency for commen-
tators to view unity as such a pervasive theme in the context of this phrase
37 According to NA 28, the article is omitted by ‫ *א‬B D F G K L Ψ 33. 104. 365. 630. 1175.
1241s. 1505. 1739*. 2464 𝔐; Cl Or. It is included by ‫א‬1 A C P 6. 81. 326. 1739c. 1881;
‫א‬

Orcom 1739mg.
38 Best, Ephesians, 286; J. William Johnston, The Use of Πᾶς in the New Testament, SBG
11 (New York: Peter Lang, 2004), 165–66.
39 Heinrich A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Ephesians,
trans. Maurice J. Evans and William P. Dickson, rev. ed. (New York: Funk & Wagnalls,
1884), 395–96; C. Leslie Mitton, Ephesians, NCB (London: Oliphants, 1976), 115.
40 Brooke F. Westcott, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians: The Greek Text with Notes and
Addenda (1855; repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 41.
41 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research, 4th ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 772.
86 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
that they are committed to seeing a single temple here.42 This commitment
to a single temple has led to many creative grammatical arguments as to
why the phrase could be read wholatively as “the entire structure.” These
arguments begin with the observation that the adjective πᾶς with a noun
and no article can be understood in a wholative sense when the noun is
clearly definite or well-known for some other reason and therefore does
not require the article to be definite.43 Various examples of this kind have
been suggested as parallels to πᾶσα οἰκοδομή in Eph 2:21.44 However, upon
closer examination, none of these parallels is valid. It is worth examining
each possibility in turn:
1. Πᾶς without the article can be wholative when it is used with proper
nouns since proper nouns are inherently definite, e.g., πᾶς Ἰσραήλ (all Isra-
el; 3 Kgdms 8:65; 11:16; 1 Esd 5:45, 58; Jdt 15:14; Rom 11:26). However, these
are not valid parallels to Eph 2:21 since οἰκοδομή is not a proper noun.
2. Πᾶς without the article can be understood as wholative when it is
used with a noun that is rendered definite by a genitive modifier, e.g., πάσης
ἐκκλησίας κυρίου (the entire assembly of the Lord; 1 Chr 28:8 LXX); πᾶς
οἶκος Ἰσραήλ (the entire house of Israel; Acts 2:36); ἐπὶ παντὸς προσῶπου
τῆς γῆς (upon the whole face of the earth; Acts 17:26); ἐν παντὶ θελήματι
τοῦ θεοῦ (in the entire will of God; Col 4:12).45 However, these are not
valid parallels to Eph 2:21 since οἰκοδομή has no genitive modifier here.
3. Πᾶς without the article can be understood as wholative when it is
used with a noun that could be understood as “one of a kind,” e.g., πᾶσα
γραφή (the entirety of Scripture; 2 Tim 3:16). However, this is not valid a
parallel to Eph 2:21 since οἰκοδομή is not one of a kind.
4. Πᾶς without the article can be understood as wholative when it is
used with a noun clearly identified as definite or well-known in the pri-
42 This argument was present among earlier commentators, e.g., John Eadie, A Com-
mentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Glasgow: T&T Clark,
1883), 200; Thomas K. Abbott, The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, ICC
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1897), 74–75. It has become almost universal among more
recent commentators, e.g., Barth, Ephesians, 1:271–72; Gnilka, Der Epheserbrief, 159;
Lincoln, Ephesians, 156; Best, Ephesians, 286; Hoehner, Ephesians, 407–8; Gerhard
Sellin, Der Brief an die Epheser, KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008),
239–40; Frank Thielman, Ephesians, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 183. Cf.
translations: KJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NET, NIV, CSB, NASB, NKJV, Luther,
Schlachter.
43 For a detailed discussion see Robertson, Grammar, 772; Johnston, Use of Πᾶς, 165–73.
44 Often cited is Charles F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed.
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 94–95.
45 See also an instance where the phrase ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ could be understood to mean
“during the whole time” rather than “at every time” because it is modified by a rela-
tive clause that might render it definite: ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ ᾧ εἰσῆλθεν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἐφ᾿
ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς (“during the whole time in which the Lord Jesus came in and
out among us”; Acts 1:21). However, the phrase could equally be understood in this
context to mean “at every time.”
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 87
or discourse. For example, at certain places within the Pentateuch, the
wholative phrase πᾶσα συναγωγὴ [υἱῶν] Ισραήλ (“the entire congregation
of [the children of] Israel”) appears (e.g., Lev 4:13; 16:17; Num 15:33 LXX).
When πᾶσα συναγωγή subsequently appears with no article or other mod-
ifier, the noun is to be understood as definite from its prior usage, and so
the phrase without the article should be rendered “the entire congrega-
tion” (e.g., Lev 9:5; 16:33; Num 27:2, 19; 31:27 LXX).46 However, these are
not valid parallels to Eph 2:21 since οἰκοδομή has not yet been used in
Ephesians, nor has there been an unambiguous reference to the concept
of a single building or structure before this point (see above).47
5. Πᾶς without the article can be understood as elative when it is used
with an abstract noun, e.g., πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην (“all righteousness”; Matt
3:15); πᾶσα ἐξουσία (“all authority”; Matt 28:18); πᾶσαν σάρκα (“all flesh”;
Acts 2:17); πάσῃ συνειδήσει ἀγαθῇ (“all good conscience”; Acts 23:1); πάσῃ
ἀναστροφῇ (“all conduct”; 1 Pet 1:15). However, these are not valid parallels
to Eph 2:21, since οἰκοδομή is not an abstract noun. This is confirmed by
the fact that it is modified by the participle συναρμολογουμένη (“being
combined together”), which implies a concrete idea.
6. Sometimes parallels to πᾶσα οἰκοδομή in Eph 2:21 are cited that, on
closer examination, are just as easily—and probably more easily—under-
stood as distributive rather than wholative. Examples cited by Charles F.
D. Moule include πάσης φυλῆς (Amos 3:1 LXX), which probably means
“every tribe” rather than “the whole tribe” (cf. 2 Chr 6:5 LXX); πὰσης
ἐντολής (Heb 9:19), which probably means “every commandment” rather
than “the whole commandment”; and πὰσα πατριά (Eph 3:15), which prob-
ably means “every family.”48
On purely grammatical grounds, then, there is no good reason to reject
the distributive sense “every construction” for πᾶσα οἰκοδομή in Eph 2:21.
The Nature of the Construction
A second exegetical question concerns the nature of this “construction.”
The word οἰκοδομή could refer either to a construction process (cf. the
translation “edification”) or to the result of a construction process, i.e., a
“structure” (cf. the translation “edifice”).49 It is notable that all the other
uses of οἰκοδομή in Ephesians, and by far the majority of the instances in
the undisputed Pauline epistles, denote a process of construction rather
than a structure (Eph 4:12, 16, 29; cf. Rom 14:19; 15:2; 1 Cor 14:3, 5, 12, 26;

46 Johnston, Use of Πᾶς, 173. Note that the MT includes the article: ‫( כל העדה‬Lev 9:5;
Num 27:2, 19; 31:27 MT); ‫( כל עם הקהל‬Lev 16:33 MT).
47 Pace Johnston, Use of Πᾶς, 173.
48 For the citations see Moule, Idiom Book, 94–95.
49 Montanari, Dictionary, s.v. “οἰκοδομή.”
88 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
2 Cor 12:19; 13:10).50 It is also notable that the cognate verbal expressions
in the immediate context of the reference in Eph 2:21 explicitly refer to
construction processes (ἐποικοδομηθέντες, v. 20; συνοικοδομεῖσθε, v. 22).51
This evidence suggests that the term here is more likely to refer to a con-
struction process than to a structure, despite the common tendency to
translate the term as “structure” (e.g., Eph 2:21 RSV).
The noun οἰκοδομή is further modified by the compound participle
συναρμολογουμένη. If οἰκοδομή were referring to a single structure, this
participle would be describing the structure as “being joined together.”
However, the existence of the συν– prefix suggests otherwise. The word
ἁρμολογέω without the συν– prefix already means “to put together, con-
struct.”52 Hence the use of the συν– prefix is marked, implying that it adds
further meaning to the participle. The addition of the συν– prefix elsewhere
in Ephesians typically implies that the subject, object, or agent shares an
action or state “along with” another party or parties (2:5–6, 19; 3:6; 4:3;
5:7). The other party or parties need not be specified explicitly (e.g., Eph
3:6).53 Therefore, the addition of the συν– prefix to ἁρμολογουμένη in Eph
2:21 appears to be more than stylistic; it implies being combined with oth-
ers. Taken by itself, it is most likely that συναρμολογουμένη means “being
joined together with [others].”
The verb used is αὔξει, a variant of αὐξάνω. While it is possible to under-
stand this verb in an intransitive sense (“to grow”), the verb in the active
voice often takes a transitive sense (“to increase, augment [something]”).54
Indeed, in the undisputed Pauline letters, the verb in the active voice is
always transitive (1 Cor 3:6–7; 2 Cor 9:10). The object may be implied rath-
er than explicit, e.g., “God was effecting growth [of believers]” (ὁ θεὸς
ηὔξανεν; 1 Cor 3:6); “God who effects growth [of believers]” (ὁ αὐξάνων
θεός; 1 Cor 3:7). On purely grammatical grounds, therefore, it is entirely

50 Possible exceptions in the undisputed Pauline letters are 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 5:1, but even
these may be seen as processes; see J. Armitage Robinson, St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephe-
sians: A Revised Text and Translation with Exposition and Notes, 2nd ed. (London:
Macmillan and Co., 1904), 165.
51 Hoehner, Ephesians, 408–9.
52 Montanari, Dictionary, s.v. “ἁρμολογέω.” E.g., “The mason Architeles put together
[ἡρμολόγησε] a tomb for Agathanor his dead child with mourning hands” (Philippus
of Thessalonica, 7.554 [my translation]); “[E]ach of the Signs [of the Zodiac] is not a
continuous body [σῶμα], nor is it connected [συνῆπται], as though by joints [ὥσπερ
ἡρμολογημένον], with the one which precedes it and the one which follows it” (Sextus
Empiricus, Prof., 5.78, LCL).
53 For further consideration of the σύν– compounds in Ephesians and their relevance to
Jew-gentile relationships, see Carl B. Hoch, “The Significance of the Syn-Compounds
for Jew-Gentile Relationships in the Body of Christ,” JETS 25 (1982): 175–83; cf. Camp-
bell, “Unity and Diversity,” 21–22; Kinzer, Searching Her Own Mystery, 78–79.
54 Montanari, Dictionary, s.v. “αὐξάνω and αὔξω.”
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 89
possible that αὔξει in Eph 2:21 means “effects growth [of something].” The
implied object would be “each congregation” or something similar.
If we were to approach this paragraph with a prior commitment to re-
gard “unity” as an overarching theme that negates any notion of plurality,
these grammatical options implying plurality would not be persuasive.
However, if this common assumption does not bind us, we are open to
choosing the most likely grammatical option in every case. This leaves us
with the possibility—even the probability—that Eph 2:21 reads: “in whom
every construction [process], being combined with [the others], effects
growth [of each congregation] into a holy temple in the Lord” (2:21). In
this case, the text of Ephesians is describing plural local acts of construc-
tion into plural temples within a single universal body.
Connections with and Developments from 1 Corinthians 3
This idea of a plurality of local temple-construction activities connected to
others is not implausible. Indeed, it may be seen as a logical development
from Paul’s use of the same cluster of terminology to describe his ministry
in 1 Cor 3:9–17.55 In 1 Corinthians, Paul is writing in the context of a par-
ticular local ἐκκλησία (1 Cor 1:2). He affirms that there is only one possible
kind of “foundation” (θεμέλιος), i.e., Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11). He then
describes local ministry among the Corinthians as a particular instance
of construction upon this foundation (ἐποικοδομέω, vv. 10, 12, 14). He uses
the word οἰκοδομή in the context of an ongoing construction process (v. 9,
cf. vv. 10, 12, 14). He uses the word ἀυξάνω transitively without an explicit
object to mean “effect growth [of something]” (vv. 6, 7). He also describes
the local Corinthian congregation as a holy temple of God (ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε,
v. 16; ὁ … ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιός ἐστιν, v. 17). In doing so, Paul assumes the
existence of other congregations elsewhere (cf. 1:2; 4:17; 14:36). Presum-
ably, then, Paul would also have considered other congregations beyond
Corinth as holy temples. In other words, the discourse of 1 Corinthians
assumes a plurality in the temple concept rather than a single worldwide
temple.56
Since the same cluster of terminology is used in Eph 2:19–22, there is
no reason to assume it is not used in Ephesians to convey similar concepts.

55 Pace Collins, “Constructing a Metaphor”; Lincoln, Ephesians, 156.

56 Unlike the Qumran covenanters who saw themselves as replacing the Jerusalem tem-
ple, this view of the Corinthians as a temple is not supersessionist. On the contrary, it
“could just as readily have been a way for Paul to merge his Christ-followers with their
Jewish ethno-religious roots, rather than as a way to differentiate them from a Jewish
heritage” (Korner, Ekklēsia, 246–50, quoting 249); cf. Paula Fredriksen, “Judaizing
the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” NTS 56 (2010): 232–52, here 248;
Eyal Regev, The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred, AYBRL (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 57–58.
90 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
Admittedly, there are two main areas of development in the use of this
terminology from 1 Corinthians to Ephesians.
First, there is a different focus. Paul’s focus in 1 Corinthians 3 is on the
local congregation as a construction/temple. Ephesians 2:19–22, on the
other hand, focuses on the fact that various local constructions/temples
are joined with the others.
Second, the formulation of the foundation (θεμέλιος) metaphor in 1
Corinthians 3 is more compact, whereas it appears in Ephesians in a more
expanded form. In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul identifies the “foundation” simply
as “Jesus Christ” (v. 11). This is not a literal reference to the person of Jesus;
instead, it is a synecdoche for the gospel about Jesus Christ, as preached
by the apostle Paul (cf. 1 Cor 1:17; 3:10). In Eph 2:20, this concept is ex-
pressed in a more expanded form: the “foundation” is described as being
“of the apostles and prophets, the cornerstone being Christ Jesus” (τῶν
ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν, ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ).
Karl Olav Sandnes provides a strong argument that τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ
προφητῶν is a genitive of source, meaning the foundation laid by the apos-
tles and prophets.57 This explains why the person of Christ is named as the
“cornerstone” here; i.e., Christ provides the standard reference point for
the preached gospel about himself, which in turn is the common “founda-
tion” that underlies every legitimate construction process.
A Suggested Translation of Ephesians 2:19–21
This understanding would lead to the following translation:
So then, you are no longer foreigners and resident aliens, but you are
fellow citizens of the holy ones and family members of God, having
been built on the foundation laid by the apostles and prophets, the
cornerstone being Christ Jesus himself, in whom every construction
[process], being combined with [the others], effects growth [of each
congregation] into a holy temple in the Lord. (Eph 2:19–21)

In this view, the temple metaphor is not depicting a single universal or cos-
mic temple.58 This is not to deny that the temple imagery evokes a spiritual,
eschatological concept.59 However, as in 1 Corinthians 3, a spiritual and es-
chatological concept of the temple can be used in such a way that does not
necessarily imply a single cosmic temple (cf. 1 Cor 3:16–17; 2 Cor 6:16). The

57 Sandnes, One of the Prophets?, 227–29. The common alternative is a genitive of appo-
sition (the foundation consisting in the apostles and prophets), see Barth, Ephesians,
1:271; Lincoln, Ephesians, 152–53; Best, Ephesians, 280–81.
58 Pace Best, Ephesians, 288.
59 Thielman, Ephesians, 184.
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 91
thrust of the imagery in Ephesians is not the singularity of the structure,
but the common dwelling of God among his people throughout the world.
This understanding is strengthened further by the fact that the author
immediately affirms, “You also [καὶ ὑμεῖς] are being built together with
[the others] [συνοικοδομεῖσθε] into a dwelling-place for God by the Spir-
it” (Eph 2:22). If the author had just been affirming in vv. 20–21 that his
recipients are part of a single universal temple, this final statement would
be redundant. However, if he has just been affirming that there are plural
constructions and temples that are connected with one another, it is un-
derstandable that he would finish by reassuring his recipients that they,
too, are included in this plurality. This also explains why he uses a further
συν– prefix to affirm their commonality, i.e., they are “built together with”
others.
In summary: Even though Ephesians 2 affirms a single universal body, a
common foundation in the gospel of Christ, a united mission, and a com-
mon object of worship, it also affirms a plurality of constituent parts of the
body and a plurality of construction processes that give rise to a plurality
of temples within this united body.

Developments and Implications in Ephesians 4

I will now briefly highlight various ways in which the corporate plurality
described in Ephesians 2 is developed in Ephesians 4, drawing out some
further interpretive implications. Since the existence of corporate diversi-
ty and plurality in Ephesians 4 is more often recognized than in Ephesians
2, it does not need to be covered exhaustively here. However, it is worth
demonstrating how the previous investigation of Ephesians 2 is consistent
with and can shed further light on the notion of diversity in Ephesians 4.
The body metaphor is a key element in Eph 4:1–16 (vv. 4, 12, 16). As in
Eph 2:16, the assertion of unity in the phrase “one body” (ἑν σῶμα; v. 4)
does not negate plurality or diversity. The body’s unity is characterized
primarily by “peace” (v. 3), a term that recalls the threefold use in Ephe-
sians 2 (vv. 14, 15, 17). Peace is opposed to hostility, not diversity or plurality.
Furthermore, the most recent prior reference to the “body” was a word
with a συν– prefix: the gentiles/nations are “members of the body with”
(σύσσωμα) Israel (3:6). As we have seen, this prefix implies different peo-
ple sharing in something together without necessarily surrendering their
individual identities.60 Indeed, the notion of diversity becomes explicit in
the next section, which introduces the theme of the diversity of gifts given
“to each one” (ἑνὶ δὲ ἑκάστῳ; 4:7).

60 Hoch, “Syn-Compounds.”
92 Lionel J. Windsor Biblical Research 68 (2023)
The diversity of the body asserted in vv. 12, 16 need not be seen ex-
clusively or even primarily as a feature of the local ekklēsia. Instead, the
united-yet-diverse “body” in vv. 11–16 can be read consistently as the same
translocal network of ekklēsiai referred to previously in Ephesians (1:22;
3:10, 21).61 Indeed, Eph 4:11–16 recalls the combined organic and construc-
tion metaphors describing the “building” of the “body” introduced in Eph
2:19–22. Admittedly, in Eph 4:11–16, there is a more sustained and detailed
focus on the activity of “each individual part” (ἑνὸς ἑκάστου μέρους; v.
16). Nevertheless, the ultimate vision of a body that is united through the
combined building efforts of differing individual members is as applica-
ble to the translocal network of ekklēsiai, formed and united through the
gospel mission to different groups (2:17), as it is to any one local ekklēsia.62
It is in the following passage (4:17–32) that these ideas of corporate
unity in diversity begin to be developed more explicitly at the level of per-
sonal relationships. There is a further development here from Ephesians
2. In Ephesians 2, the concept that “the two” (τοὺς δύο) were “created”
(κτίσῃ) into “one new human” (ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον; v. 16) has a strong
corporate focus. In Ephesians 4, the same ideas are present, but the focus is
on personal relationships: the activity of putting on “the new human” (τὸν
καινὸν ἄνθρωπον), which has been “created” (κτισθέντα) according to
God (v. 24) leads to various, harmonious peace-making activities among
individuals who differ from one another in a variety of ways (vv. 25–32),
who “are members [μέλη] of one another” (v. 25). Later in the letter, there
are further explorations of the way unity in Christ may be appropriated
among people in different situations in the household (5:22–6:9; see, e.g.,
5:31; 6:9).

Conclusion

The corporate metaphors of body, human, and temple in Ephesians 2 are

presented as a prototype for the reconciliation of different groups of hu-
manity in Christ. The reconciliation of Israel and the nations described
here is critical for God’s eschatological purposes. It is grounded in Christ’s
sacrificial death for all, is effected through the apostolic preaching of the
gospel to all, brings peace between otherwise hostile groups, and leads to
common worship of God. An often-discussed feature of this reconciliation
61 Cf. Tuckett, “The Church as the Body of Christ,” 188.
62 Ephesians 4:12 introduces a variety of individuals who play their part “for construc-
tion of the body of Christ” (εἰς οἰκοδομὴν τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ). These individ-
uals, who are associated with “the holy ones” (cf. 2:19), may be a specific reference to
key figures in the early apostolic community in Jerusalem, figures with whom the
apostolic mission began. See further Windsor, Ephesians and Colossians after Super-
sessionism, 188–92.
Corporate Metaphors in Ephesians 2 as Models 93
in Ephesians is the theme of unity. Nevertheless, the purpose of this article
has been to emphasize a significant, neglected feature of the corporate
metaphors in Ephesians 2: plurality. This plurality is not only a feature
of local congregations but also of the translocal ekklēsia. Israel and the
nations are united in one body and one humanity but nevertheless retain
their distinct identities. The temple metaphor affirms a common founda-
tion in the gospel of Christ and a common object of worship, but it also
suggests a plurality of construction processes that give rise to a plurality
of temples within this united body.
Such pluriformity in the ekklēsia is consistent with the broader pur-
poses of Ephesians. In Ephesians 3, the author affirms that God’s “pluri-
form wisdom” (πολυποίκιλος σοφία) is made known to the cosmic powers
“through the ekklēsia” (v. 10). Pluriformity in the united ekklēsia is indeed a
fitting display of God’s pluriform wisdom. This vision of reconciliation in
Ephesians is consistent with the understanding of reconciliation promot-
ed by R. Kendall Soulen: “What the church rejects is not the difference of
Jew and Gentile, male and female, but rather the idea that these differenc-
es essentially entail curse, opposition, and antithesis.… Reconciliation
does not mean the imposition of sameness, but the unity of reciprocal
blessing.”63
Affirming and valuing this plurality in the corporate metaphors in
Ephesians will, I hope, be beneficial in promoting more pluralistic models
of reconciliation in the face of racial and ethnic tensions in our own time.

63 R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1996), 170.