An Exegetical Analysis of Ephesians 2:15: The Creation of the New Humanity
This exegetical study of Ephesians 2:15 and the grammar of the ἵνα clause is based on a b-greek discussion from May 20, 1999. The initial query came from a beginning Greek student engaged in writing an exegetical paper on Ephesians 2:11-22. The student encountered difficulty with the grammar of verse 15, specifically concerning the ἵνα clause: ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. The primary question centered on how the phrases “the two” (τοὺς δύο) and “into one new man” (εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) relate grammatically to the verb “he might create” (κτίσῃ). The student initially considered a “double direct object” construction but found no clear support for this interpretation in common lexical resources or other New Testament occurrences of κτίζω. Further perplexity arose regarding whether the prepositional phrase εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον modified the verb or the noun ἄνθρωπον.
The main exegetical issue thus revolves around the precise grammatical function and semantic implication of the prepositional phrases ἐν αὐτῷ and εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον in relation to the verb κτίσῃ and its direct object τοὺς δύο within the purpose clause (ἵνα + subjunctive) of Ephesians 2:15. Specifically, it questions whether εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον functions as an adverbial modifier expressing result or goal for the verb, or as an adjectival modifier describing the direct object.
τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην, (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- Nestle 1904 reads ἐν ἑαυτῷ, while SBLGNT 2010 reads ἐν αὑτῷ. This is a common orthographic variation (the contracted form), not a substantive textual difference affecting meaning or grammatical analysis.
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
The textual tradition for Ephesians 2:15 presents no significant variants that alter the fundamental grammatical structure or meaning relevant to this exegetical discussion. The primary orthographic variation, ἑαυτῷ versus αὑτῷ, represents a minor scribal difference without theological or grammatical consequence. The Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28), like the SBLGNT, adopts αὑτῷ, reflecting a preference for the contracted form often found in early manuscripts.
Lexically, the verb κτίζω (to create, to found, to make) is central to this passage. According to BDAG (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature), κτίζω primarily means “to create, make, found,” often with God as the subject (BDAG, s.v. “κτίζω”). It can denote bringing something into existence, establishing, or founding. While it commonly takes a direct accusative object for the thing created (e.g., God created the heavens and the earth), its construction with εἰς (into, unto) followed by an accusative is crucial here. BDAG notes that εἰς can express result or goal, indicating what something is made or created *into*. This construction implies a transformative act, where an initial state (the “two”) is brought into a new state or identity (“one new man”).
KITTEL (Botterweck, G. J., Ringgren, H., & Fabry, H.-J., eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, or KITTEL, G., & FRIEDRICH, G., eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) highlights the theological profundity of κτίζω. It consistently refers to divine creation, encompassing both the original act of creation and, significantly in the New Testament, the concept of “new creation” (cf. 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15). In Pauline theology, this “new creation” often relates to humanity’s transformation in Christ, moving from old distinctions (like Jew/Gentile) to a unified, reconciled identity. The verb emphasizes an act of divine power that brings something entirely new into being, not merely a modification of what already exists. The addition of εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον thus underscores the specific and radical nature of this divine creative act by Christ: the two distinct groups are not just reconciled but are *created into* a fundamentally new entity, a “new man” or “new humanity,” embodying a novel form of existence.
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The initial query’s suggestion of a “double direct object” for κτίσῃ (one for τοὺς δύο and another for εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) is grammatically problematic. While some Greek verbs can take two accusatives (e.g., direct object and predicate accusative), κτίζω does not typically function in this manner, especially with a prepositional phrase expressing the second “object.” Lexical resources like BDAG do not support such a construction for κτίζω. The initial responses in the discussion correctly identified τοὺς δύο as the direct object of κτίσῃ, referring to the Jews and Gentiles mentioned in the preceding context (Eph 2:11-14).
The phrase ἐν αὐτῷ (or ἐν ἑαυτῷ in Nestle 1904) is consistently understood as an adverbial modifier of the verb κτίσῃ. It signifies the sphere or agency through which this creative act occurs – “in himself” or “in Christ.” This is a characteristic Pauline expression, emphasizing that Christ himself is the locus and agent of reconciliation and new creation.
The central point of contention and the primary grammatical challenge lies with the phrase εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. The discussion highlighted two main possibilities:
- Adverbial modifier of the verb (goal/result): This interpretation suggests that the phrase indicates the *purpose* or *outcome* of the creative act. The action of “creating the two” results “into one new man.” This aligns with the analogy offered: “Time changes the boy into a man,” where “into a man” is an adverbial modifier of the verb “changes.” This is the most widely accepted and grammatically sound interpretation. The preposition εἰς with the accusative here denotes the transformation or goal, a common function in Greek.
- Adjectival modifier of the direct object τοὺς δύο: This would imply that “the two” are somehow described *as* the “new man,” perhaps appositionally or resultatively. However, this is less straightforward grammatically, as εἰς generally functions with the verb to express direction, purpose, or result, rather than directly modifying a noun in an adjectival sense to describe a transformation in identity. The “new man” is the *result* of the creation, not merely another description of “the two” prior to the creative act.
Rhetorically, this construction powerfully conveys Paul’s theological message of radical transformation. Christ does not merely reconcile two existing, distinct entities; he performs a profound act of divine creation, forging a singular, unified “new man” out of the previously divided groups. This new man represents a completely new corporate identity, distinct from both Jew and Gentile as they were before Christ’s reconciling work. The use of κτίζω itself, rather than a less potent verb like “make” (ποιέω), underscores the divine, epochal nature of this act.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The most robust grammatical analysis concludes that τοὺς δύο functions as the direct object of the verb κτίσῃ, while ἐν αὐτῷ is an adverbial phrase of means or sphere, and εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον is an adverbial phrase of result or goal, modifying the verb κτίσῃ. This construction clearly indicates that Christ’s creative act transforms the two previously alienated groups (Jews and Gentiles) into a single, unified, and entirely new entity—the “new man” or “new humanity.” This “new man” is not merely a compromise between the old identities but a genuinely novel creation, reflecting the reconciling power of Christ’s cross.
- “in order that he might create the two into one new man in himself”
This translation maintains a literal rendering of the Greek syntax, emphasizing the creative act and the transformative goal. - “so that in himself he might form the two into one new humanity”
This version uses “form” to capture the nuance of creation leading to a new shape or identity and employs “humanity” for a broader, inclusive rendering of ἄνθρωπον. - “His purpose was to bring the two groups into existence as one new being within himself”
This dynamic equivalent focuses on the intentionality (purpose) of the action and clarifies “the two” as “groups,” while “being” effectively conveys the resulting unified identity.