Gaudium nostrum, pax nostra, requies nostra, finis
omnium molestiarum, non est nisi deus

(en. Ps., 84, 10) (CCSL 39, 1171).

Introduction

Most non-Christians will be at least vaguely aware that the Christian New Testament has a lot to say about peace and its pursuit, whether the peace being sought is between family members, between community members, between neighbors, between nations, or between God and his creation.

It is doubtful, however, whether even most Christians have seriously considered the claim that can be found in the first half of 2: 14 of Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, namely, that “Christ himself is our peace” (ipse enim est pax nostra). This chapter, although not an exegetical study of Ephesians 2: 14 in se, aims to assist just such a consideration by elucidating Augustine’s reading and application of this verse,¹ and will do so via a particular focus upon the ways in which the Bishop of Hippo incorporated this phrase into his homiletical compositions, that is, his sermones ad populum and Enarrationes in Psalmos (cited hereafter, en. Ps.). The methodology employed in this study is relatively straightforward. Drawing upon the work of H. J. Frede,² it has endeavored to corroborate his results via computerized searches of the available (mostly) critical editions of Augustine’s compositions in order to generate an exhaustive list of places in Augustine’s extant works where Ephesians 2, 14 is cited, alluded to, or otherwise referenced.³

The Text of Ephesians 2: 14 in Context

Again, although what follows will not be an exegetical study, it seems helpful to supply the reader with the broader context of our verse. Table 1 supplies Ephesians 2: 11-18 in Greek,⁴ in Latin,⁵ and in the relatively literal NASB English translation.⁶

Table 1

11 Διὸ μνημονεύετε ὅτι ποτὲ ὑμεῖς τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, οἱ λεγόμενοι ἀκροβυστία ὑπὸ τῆς λεγομένης περιτομῆς ἐν σαρκὶ χειροποιήτου, 12 ὅτι ἦτε τῷ καιρῷ ἐκείνῳ χωρὶς Χριστοῦ, ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι τῆς πολιτείας τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ καὶ ξένοι τῶν διαθηκῶν τῆς ἐπαγγελίας, ἐλπίδα μὴ ἔχοντες καὶ ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ. 13 νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 14 Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, 15 τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην 16 καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι τῷ θεῷ διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ, ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ. 17 καὶ ἐλθὼν εὐηγγελίσατο εἰρήνην ὑμῖν τοῖς μακρὰν καὶ εἰρήνην τοῖς ἐγγύς• 18 ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ ἔχομεν τὴν προσαγωγὴν οἱ ἀμφότεροι ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύματι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα.

11 propter quod memores estote quod aliquando vos gentes in carne qui dicimini praeputium ab ea quae dicitur circumcisio in carne manufacta 12 quia eratis illo in tempore sine Christo alienati a conversatione Israhel et hospites testamentorum promissionis spem non habentes et sine Deo in mundo 13 nunc autem in Christo Iesu vos qui aliquando eratis longe facti estis prope in sanguine Christi 14 ipse est enim pax nostra qui fecit utraque unum et medium parietem maceriae solvens inimicitiam in carne sua 15 legem mandatorum decretis evacuans ut duos condat in semet ipsum in unum novum hominem faciens pacem 16 et reconciliet ambos in uno corpore Deo per crucem interficiens inimicitiam in semet ipso 17 et veniens evangelizavit pacem vobis qui longe fuistis et pacem his qui prope 18 quoniam per ipsum habemus accessum ambo in uno Spiritu ad Patrem

11 Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the socalled “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 and he came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.

Contemporary biblical scholars, even those who accept that Ephesians was written by Paul, typically expend both ink and energy on the degree to which 2: 14-18 may or may not reflect adaptation by the author of traditional materials, and, as a result, are want to limit the application of 2: 14 to the peace that Christ imparted in order to bring about reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles,⁷ as well as to generate a single, trans-temporal people of God.⁸ Tet-Lim Yee even goes so far as to claim that “the author’s utmost concern is to redefine the identity of the people of God for the Gentiles for whom he wrote,” before going on to assert that this concern is betrayed in the very language that he used “to reframe the notion of the people of God and to undercut the old ethnic forms of self-identification,” in order to “replace them with a new community-identity in Christ” (126). At the same time, contemporary biblical scholarship can assert that “2:11-21 is the key and high point of the whole epistle,” and that 2: 14-18 “praises the eternal, personal union of Christ and peace” that “is a present, not only a past reality” since “Jesus Christ is still active as a peacemaker” (Barth 275 and 295). Much contemporary biblical scholarship also concludes that the claim “[Christ] is our peace” is solely rooted in his death as an atoning sacrifice for sin,” and ought not to be read in incarnational or sacramental terms. Markus Barth (298), for example, argues that Ephesians 2: 14-18 highlights “the means by which Christ made peace” and identifies it “with the price he paid.”⁹ Others go so far as to characterize the equivalence between Christ and peace that is both made and praised here as “not primarily… the peace he brings to individual souls,” but, rather, as the peace he brings socially and politically.¹⁰

In what follows, we shall see that, to one degree or another, Augustine’s reading and application of Ephesians 2: 14 is frequently at odds with these assertions, arguments, and conclusions.

Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s Polemical Works

The only explicitly anti-Pelagian composition to make reference to our verse is the De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo paruulorum (cited hereafter, pecc. mer). It is also Augustine’s first anti-Pelagian treatise, having been written in late 411 or early 412. In book 1 at 27.46 (CSEL 60, 44-45), Augustine offers a long quotation of Ephesians 2: 8-10 and 12-20, in support of his larger claim that Paul, just as do the other authors of scripture, offers ample testimony about both the fact and the nature of Christ’s incarnation. At the most fundamental level, the incarnation was salvific, redemptive, and enlightening. Nevertheless, in this context, Augustine offers neither an exegesis nor a specific application of our verse.

Augustine made yet another formal polemical use of Ephesians 2 some six or eight years later when he penned the two books of the Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum. The identity of Augustine’s opponent is as unknown to us today as it was to him. Writing in his Retractations (cited hereafter, retr.) approximately a decade later, Augustine speculates that his opponent might have been a latter-day Marcionite before noting that, whoever he was, he seemed to want Christians to stop identifying the true God with the creator of this world and to stop believing that the “god” behind Jewish scriptures is in any sense the true God since it is impossible that this “god” could be anything more than a “most wicked demon” (pessimus daemon) (CCSL 57, 136).

Similar to what he did in pecc. mer. 1, 27, 46, Augustine opens Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum (2, 2, 5) with a long quotation of Ephesians 2, though this time he quotes 2: 11-20 in its entirety (CCSL 49, 92-94). Here, however, the point of the quotation is to demonstrate that Paul had an exceedingly high opinion of the Jews, of their covenant with God, and of their privileged position relative to Gentiles. After all, if the Jews were in fact serving a demon, why would Paul describe them as being “near” (prope) (2: 13) to God relative to the Gentiles? And “how can [Paul] say that [the Gentiles] were separated from the company of Israel and strangers to the covenants and the promise and that they were without hope and without God in this world, unless Israel was (erat) the people of God and of Christ?” (WSA I/18, 413) (CCSL 49, 93, 2, 189-192). In short, according to Augustine, in Ephesians 2, Paul, who as a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (Phil. 3: 5) knew and served the God of Israel, proclaimed this same God, the same law, and the same prophets to the Gentiles, even as he quotes directly from one of the Jews’ prophetic scriptures (Isaiah 28: 16) in order to give meaning to his equation of Christ and the “cornerstone” (summo angulari lapide), just as Peter would do elsewhere (1 Peter 2: 6).

In order to complete the picture of Augustine’s polemical uses of Ephesians 2 in general and of 2: 14 in particular,¹¹ it will be helpful to notice how he employed it in the so-called Tractatus adversus Iudaeos. This composition or, better, sermon,¹² is one of his primary and (probably) chronologically final efforts to clarify his vision of the relative positions of those Jews who had rejected Jesus, that is “Israel according to the flesh” (secundum carnem), and those, whether Jew or Gentile, who had accepted Jesus as the Messiah and, as a result, had been incorporated into “spiritual Israel” (israel spiritualem), the true people of God.¹³ It bears noting that scholars find it highly unlikely that any actual Jews were present when this sermon was preached (Fredriksen 310 and 330).¹⁴ As will become clear in what follows, the most direct connection between the use of Ephesians 2: 14 in the Adversus Iudaeos and that which occurs in Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum 2, 2, 5 is the Book of Isaiah.

Throughout this sermon’s first seven chapters, quotations from the Hebrew scriptures abound, with the majority being drawn from the Book of Psalms. In Chapter 8, Augustine engages explicitly with what he perceives to be the standard Jewish mindset regarding their identity. He acknowledges both that all Jews are of Israel in the sense that they are literally “descendants of the patriarch” (ex quo patriarcha propagati sumus) and that, according to straightforward reading of Genesis 32: 28,¹⁵ Jacob and Israel “are one and the same [person]” (unus homo erat iacob et israel). But then he transitions to a consideration of Isaiah 2: 2-3 and reminds his audience that Isaiah had prophesied that “the Law and the Word of God was going to proceed from Sion and Jerusalem to all nations (omnibus gentibus), not… to one nation” (non… uni genti), before going on to assert that this prophecy is one that “we see most obviously fulfilled (manifestissime… impletum) in Christ and the Christians.”¹⁶ Augustine then skips to Isaiah 2: 6 and observes that the prophet also teaches that the Lord has “abandoned (dimisit) his people, the house of Israel.” Then, in what amounts to this chapter’s final exegetical move, Augustine, having assumed that God’s abandonment of Israel was due to that house’s lack of faith, appeals to Matthew 19: 28 to support a further prophecy regarding the destiny of that house’s unfaithful members:

[The Lord] abandoned those whom you imitate by your unbelief [non credendo], and by imitating them you are lingering in the same danger of destruction… See what you are, not what you boast to be (esse iactatis)… [to the faithful from that house] he makes this promise: “you shall also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28). [the faithful] will sit to judge the house of Israel, that is, the people of that house whom he abandoned. How is it that, according to the same prophet: “The stone which the builders rejected: the same is become the head of the corner” (Ps. 118:22),¹⁷ unless because circumcised and uncircumcised meet and unite in the keystone, like the union of two adjacent walls, as it were in the kiss of peace. That is the reason that the Apostle says: “For he himself is our peace, who has made both one” (Eph. 2:14). They who have followed his call—whether from the house of Jacob or from the house of Israel—are clinging to the cornerstone… they, however, whom he abandoned from the house of Jacob or from the house of Israel are the ones building destruction and the ones rejecting the cornerstone.¹⁸

At first, it appears that this use of our verse and that which we find in Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum are contradictory or, at least, are in tension: in this use, the Jews are taken to task for having ceased to believe and, thus, to participate in God’s relatively inclusive plan of salvation; in Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum, however, the Jews are praised for their faithfulness to God’s revelations to them and for their part in ushering in God’s relatively inclusive plan of salvation. Nevertheless, the tension resolves, at least according to Augustine, if one understands that God’s relatively inclusive plan of salvation has always been about Christ and has always been dependent upon faith in Christ’s faithfulness in bringing about an ultimate reconciliation between both God and humanity in all of its various factions.

Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s Exegetical Works

The assertion that “Christ is our peace” appears in several of Augustine’s works that are explicitly exegetical and that aim to elucidate the Christian scriptures. In addition to a clear and detailed use of our text in In Iohannis euangelium tractatus CXXIV (77, 3) (CCSL 36, 521) (cited hereafter, Io. eu. tr.), Augustine made recourse to Ephesians 2: 14 in no less than nine different Enarrationes in Psalmos (cited hereafter, en. Ps.)¹⁹

In Io. eu. tr. 77

Tractatus 77 is a relatively brief reflection on John 14: 25-27.²⁰ Significantly, it is 14, 27’s report that Christ promised to leave his peace with the disciples that draws Augustine’s attention; indeed, this promise occupies him for more than half of the tractate. Following a series of comparisons between what we might expect from this promise in this age and what we might expect from it in the age to come, e.g., in this age it enables us to love one another, in the age to come it will guarantee that we “shall never be able to disagree,” Augustine reminds his hearers that all true peace has only one source since it is “in [Christ] and from him [that] we have peace.” This is because, even for the remainder of this age, Christ has left himself with us,²¹ a thought that, in turn, compels Augustine to invoke Ephesians 2: 14:

“For he himself is our peace, who has made both one” (Eph. 2:14). Therefore (ergo) he himself is our peace for us both [et] when we believe that he is and [et] when we shall see him as he is (cf. 1 John 3:2). For if as long as we are in the corruptible body …when we walk by faith, not by sight, he does not abandon those who are pilgrimaging apart from him [a se] (cf. 2 Cor. 5:5-8), how much more, when we have come to the sight itself, shall he fill us out of himself [ex se]!²²

This passage is also remarkable for how, within it, Augustine has so deftly harmonized the perspective of John with that of Paul: in it he used a reference from 1 John and multiple references from Paul in order to make Christ’s words clearer.

Ever attentive to the presence and absence of even the smallest textual detail, Augustine continues his discussion of John 14: 27 by asking why Christ did not modify the first reference he made to peace with the possessive pronoun “my” (meam), despite having done so with the second reference to peace.²³ In continuation with his theme of the stark difference between our experience in this age and that of the age to come, he explains that this is exactly how it should be since, despite the gracious gift of peace that Christ has given already, our peace in this life will not and cannot be exactly like Christ’s own since, unlike Christ, we are direct descendants of the post-lapsarian Adam and inheritors of his conflicted, sin-infected nature. We may have been forgiven this inheritance in baptism, but its effects remain with us for this rest of this life and make it a near-constant struggle. Yet again, he employs Paul to explain what he means. The peace that Christ,

leaves with us in this age must be called ours rather than his. For indeed, nothing in himself does battle against him who has no sin at all; but we now have such a peace as that in which we will say, “Forgive us our debts” (cf. Matt. 6:12). Therefore, we have some peace (pax aliqua) since we are delighted with the law of God according to the inward man, but it is not full because we see another law in our members doing battle against the law of our mind (cf. Rom. 7:22-23).²⁴

For Augustine, then, it is certainly true that Christ is our peace, but the reality of sin demands that we also admit that he will only be fully so via the consistent exercise of the humility to confess our sins and transgressions, of the hope that faith requires, and of the faith that has always been necessary for a relationship with God.²⁵

Enarrationes in Psalmos

As noted above, Augustine makes significant use of Ephesians 2: 14 in nine different Enarrationes in Psalmos. Given that there is substantial thematic repetition among these nine uses, it seems preferable to discuss them under three (occasionally overlapping) rubrics instead of discussing all nine individually. These three rubrics are: 1. Comparisons between King Solomon and Christ as purveyors of peace; 2. Israel’s “true” identity; and 3. Assertions against the Donatists.

Ephesians 2: 14 appears in sections of two different Enarrationes in which Augustine’s purpose would seem to be to exalt Christ via comparison with one of ancient Israel’s greatest kings, King Solomon. In enarratio 71, which is of course dedicated to exegeting Psalm 71 in Augustine’s Bible (Ps. 72 according to the numbering of modern Bibles), Augustine begins by discussing the fact that the Psalm is “for Solomon” (in salomonem), a detail that he, in fact, dismisses: the words of Psalm 71 “cannot refer to the Solomon who was King of Israel” since they do not “correspond” (non possint… advenire) with how King Solomon is depicted elsewhere in the Bible. And this observation leads Augustine to search for the “figurative” referent of the name Solomon. Augustine quickly expresses the conviction that “we must take it to indicate Christ.” Expressing no surprise at finding the Psalm’s true referent to be Christ, Augustine continues by noting that “this is entirely suitable, because the name ‘Solomon’ is interpreted as ‘Peacemaker’” (pacificus). From this assertion, according to Augustine, several things follow, all of which are taught more or less explicitly by the Bible:

Hence (ac) it can most fittingly be used of the mediator through whom we, who were formerly God’s enemies, are reconciled to him and granted forgiveness for our sins… He certainly is our Peacemaker [ipse est ille pacificus], since he united Jews and Gentiles, and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility by his own flesh, annulling the law with its rules and regulations, to create from the two of them one new man in himself, thus making peace (cf. Eph. 2:14-15)… Christ himself declared in the gospel, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you (cf. John 14:27). Many other scriptural passages reveal our Lord Jesus Christ as the peacemaker, though the peace he imparts is not that which this world knows and seeks, but that of which it is said in a prophetic text, “I will give them true comfort, peace upon peace” (cf. Isa. 57:18-19 LXX) (WSA III/17, 452) (CCSL 39, 971).

It is not without significance here that Augustine felt confident enough with his understanding of what Ephesians 2: 14-15 teaches that he could alter the text of 2: 14 from “ipse est… pax nostra” to “ipse est ille pacificus.” Making this alteration allowed him to apply Ephesians 2: 14-15 to his larger point that Solomon never quite lived up to his name and that, therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to apply the name Solomon to Christ. Indeed, here, Augustine is claiming that Christ, having served perfectly as the mediator between God and human beings, has obtained for us the only peace that truly matters, namely the peace of immortality that is rooted in the peace that his work of reconciliation made possible. Ergo, given that we have now “discovered who is the true Solomon” (invenimus verum Salomonem), we now also know the best way to read the remainder of this Psalm.²⁶

A similar but not identical application of our verse that includes a contrast between Solomon and Christ is made in paragraph 2 of enarratio 126. It is similar in that it again asserts that Solomon never actually lived up to his “peacemaker” moniker, though Christ surely did. It is different in that, here, Augustine offers a further contrast between them by noting that, while both Solomon and Christ built temples, the temple that Christ built is far greater precisely because it is the “true” spiritual temple of his body, the Church. According to Augustine, Christ’s claim in John 2: 19 that if anyone dares to “destroy this temple… in three days I will raise it up” proves this. Working backwards from the clarification offered by John 2: 21, namely that Jesus was “speaking of the temple of his body,” Augustine next claims that Solomon’s temple, although it was dedicated to the Lord, was actually “a type and figure of the church and of the body of the Lord.” Moreover, “in building this temple Solomon himself prefigured our Lord Jesus Christ, the true Solomon, who built the true temple, and who was the real man of peace.” Indeed, “the true peacemaker is he of whom the Apostle says, ‘he is himself our peace, since he united the two’” (Eph. 2: 14). Augustine pursues the building metaphor in order to explain why this is. Christ,

is the true peacemaker because he is the cornerstone (cf. Eph. 2:20) who joined in himself the two walls that came from different directions. One was that of the Jews who believed in him, the other was that of the Gentiles, believers also. The circumcised and the uncircumcised, two peoples, were united into the church, and Christ was made the cornerstone (WSA III/20, 84) (CCSL 40, 1857).

In case anyone in the audience might still be confused about how much respect he or she owes to the all-too-human Solomon, Augustine furthers the contrast between him and Christ by using the words of this same Psalm to remind the audience who really built the actual physical temple. Augustine quotes part of verse 1, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it,” and then points out that, from this principle, it follows that not only did the Lord build the physical temple in Jerusalem that bore Solomon’s name, but this same Lord Jesus Christ is also the one who “builds his own house” (aedificat domum suam), the Church.

Ephesians 2: 14 also appears in several enarrationes in contexts where the chief concern is to establish the “true” identity of Israel. Of these, the one that is both the most interesting and the most complex is enarratio 78 (Ps. 79 in the numbering of modern Bibles).²⁷ This Psalm, which is traditionally attributed to the mysterious Asaph, is actually a lamentation over the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of foreign nations, i.e., the Gentiles. Verse 1 includes the heartbroken prayer that “O God, the Gentiles have invaded your inheritance; they have defiled your holy temple.” In seeking to apply this verse, Augustine, who is convinced that this Psalm is simultaneously “a telling and a foretelling,” or a “recounting of disasters” and “a prophecy,” not unreasonably asks how Christ’s advent, death, resurrection, and ascension might have changed the identity of “[God’s] inheritance.” Augustine goes on to point out that “there were some from that Israelite people who believed in Christ,” before going on to catalogue them on the basis of the Gospels and the Book of Acts: Joseph and the Virgin Mary; John the Baptist; Zechariah and Elizabeth; the “great number” who were baptized following Peter’s Pentecost sermon; Stephen, the Protomartyr; and Paul himself. “All these were from the Jewish people, and they were God’s inheritance.” And this in turn leads Augustine to offer an explanation of Paul’s own words from Romans 11: 1-7, where, inter alia, he rhetorically asks “Surely God has not cast off his people?” before rejecting this idea in the strongest terms. Augustine takes this to mean that “the people who came from that nation to unite themselves to the body of Christ are God’s inheritance,” and that the relatively small number of Jews who came to faith in Christ are the precise identity of “remnant” that has been elected from Israel by God’s gratuitous grace.

This rationale then leads Augustine to a definition of the Church. He notes that “this church (haec… ecclesia), this inheritance of God, has been assembled from both the circumcised and the uncircumcised, that is, from the people of Israel and from other nations” (ex populo israel et ex ceteris gentibus).²⁸ And it is precisely Christ, the cornerstone, who has brought them all together. Indeed, he has joined these two groups “in” himself, “for he is himself our peace, since he united the two, to create from the two of them one new man in himself, so making peace… in one body” (Eph. 2: 14-16). Interestingly, Augustine then retreats back to Romans (and/or Galatians) in order to further explain this composite body. For him, all who belong to this body are “children of God, crying ‘Abba, Father!’ (cf. Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:6). And the very reason that God’s children all address him in this apparently redundant way is that ‘we cry ‘Abba’’ because that is [the Jews’] language, and ‘Father’ because it is our language.” In other words, according to Augustine, the composite nature of the true people of God is both consciously reflected and consciously preserved in the composite way that all of them, regardless of ethnic origins, are encouraged to address God as their heavenly father. As we shall see, this insight is one that Augustine uses with some frequency.²⁹

The most overtly polemical use of Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s en. Ps. is easily the handful of times that he invokes the verse and its wider context in order to challenge both Donatist exegesis and Donatist ethics.³⁰

Like enarratio 78, enarratio 94 (Ps. 95 in the numbering of modern Bibles) employs our verse in a context that offers both an expanded exegesis of Romans 11: 1-7, and a discussion of the identity of God’s “remnant” that is found there.³¹

Interestingly, enarratio 94 seems to have been preached ex tempore by Augustine while he was in Carthage and in obedience to the command of “our father” (patrem nostrum) Aurelius, the Primate of Carthage.

Throughout Paragraph 7, Augustine carefully argues that the proof that God did not in fact reject his people is to be found in the facts that the Jewish nation, like a wheat harvest, has already been “threshed,” that this threshing yielded some “grain” in the form of those who have accepted Christ as Messiah, and that this grain is also the prophesied “remnant.” Those Jews who did not accept Christ, by contrast, are simply the “chaff” that is “left lying” (palea iacet), which, apparently, is Augustine’s way of affirming their rejection.

In Paragraph 8, the phrase “because all the ends of the earth are in his hand” from verse 4 allows Augustine to discuss Christ’s reconciling role explicitly. This is because the aforementioned phrase allows us to “recognize (agnoscimus) the cornerstone,” which is Christ. And this, in turn, pushes Augustine to invoke Ephesians 2:

[Christ] can be the corner only because he has tied two walls together in himself; they come from different directions, but in the corner they are not opposed to each other. The circumcised come from one direction, the uncircumcised from another, but in Christ the two peoples are at peace (concordauerunt), because he has become the cornerstone (cf. Eph. 2:14-15; 19), he of whom it was written, “The stone rejected by the builders has become the headstone of the corner” (cf. Ps. 117(118): 22) (WSA III/18, 416-417) (CCSL 39, 1337).

In Augustine’s view, the former “diversity” (diversitatem) of these two people groups is now irrelevant. The only thing that truly matters now is that they have both developed a “close kinship” (propinquitatem) by having embraced Christ, a detail that, furthermore, allows us to see how God’s promise not to reject his people might have been fulfilled. It is fulfilled insofar as one of the two walls that were joined in and by Christ the cornerstone was comprised of a remnant chosen from out of Israel.

Augustine then considers the other wall, a consideration that also allows him to contrast God’s recently-formed people with the heretical Donatists:

All the Gentiles (omnes gentes) too have come to the cornerstone, there to receive the kiss of peace; they have come to this one Christ who has made one people out of two, not like the heretics (haeretici) who have made two out of one. This is exactly what the apostle says about Christ our Lord: “he is himself our peace, since he united the two” (cf. Eph. 2:14) (CCSL 39, 1337).³²

Since it is obviously not true that literally “all” the Gentiles have come to Christ for reconciliation, here Augustine probably means—but does not explicitly say—that God is also at work with a remnant of all the gentile nations insofar as at least some members of each and every gentile nation will eventually be incorporated into God’s people.³³ In any case, Augustine says no more about the “heretics” in this context. The negative comparison between them and the true people of God is made en passant. But, if this identification between the heretics and the Donatists is correct, it is one of several places in which a consideration of Ephesians 2 compels Augustine to contrast the true Church with the Donatist community.

A final but still instructive example of a use of our verse in the en. Ps. occurs near the end of Augustine’s comments on the relatively brief Psalm 124 (125 in the numbering of modern Bibles). Here, many of the same themes that appeared in the en. Ps. 94(95) reappear, although in a less than identical form.

Near the very end of the enarratio and in connection with the final and prayerful words of the Psalm that “[Let] peace upon Israel,”³⁴ Augustine exhorts his audience to be peacemakers by reminding them that their identity as the true and final Israel of God is dependent upon their obedient fulfillment of Israel’s charge: “Let us be Israel (simus israel) and embrace peace, because Jerusalem is the ‘vision of peace,’ and we are Israel” [nos israel; emphasis added].

Also interesting is how, in the immediately preceding paragraph, Augustine has again chosen to use the Donatists as an example of how not to embrace peace.³⁵ Not only are the Donatists thoroughly hypocritical insofar as they claim to love what they actually hate, according to Augustine, their hypocrisy and, by extension, their self-condemnation even extends into the (pseudo-) liturgy that they, following their thoroughly corrupt leadership, attempt day after day. The Donatists are,

Those who hate Jerusalem [i.e., God’s true people] and hate peace [qui oderunt pacem], those who want to rend our unity apart, those who do not believe in peace,³⁶ who mouth words of false peace among the people and have no peace in themselves. They say, “Peace be with you,” and people reply, “[And] with your spirit,” but they are responding with a lie and hearing a lie [falsum dicunt et falsum audiunt]... As for [the Donatist leadership], if peace really were present in their spirits, would they not commit themselves in love to our unity and abhor schism? Of course they would; and so they are mouthing a dishonest greeting and accepting a dishonest response.³⁷

Our verse is featured most explicitly a few lines before this—albeit with several notable differences. Here, Augustine begins by bypassing the logic that he used elsewhere (and that has been discussed supra) to explain how Christ is the true Solomon by simply asserting that “peace is the name of Christ himself” (ipsa est christus), a claim that is supported by an explicit reference to Ephesians 2: 14 and that, presumably, has been derived from subtly omitting the “nostra” from that verse. Nevertheless, in the lines that follow, he introduces a different logical equation even as he explains how he can legitimately assert that “Israel” means “vision of peace.” He walks his audience through his logic step by step:

If the name Israel is said to mean “one who sees God” (videns deum), and the name Jerusalem means “vision of peace” (visio pacis), what does the comparison of the two suggest?… [it suggests that] those who dwell in the “vision of peace” will not be displaced for ever. …[and that] the Israel that sees God sees peace. And this Israel is also Jerusalem, because God’s people is the same as God’s city. If, then, the people that sees peace thereby also sees God, we are right to infer that God himself is peace [deus ipse est pax].³⁸

Interestingly, this final inference is followed immediately in the text by the words “Christ, the Son of God, is peace,” a claim that in addition to once again invoking our verse is, in context, clearly meant to remind the audience of the inseparability of the persons of the Trinity and of their shared attributes.

Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum

Not surprisingly, our phrase turns up in many of Augustine’s sermones for both Christmas and for Epiphany, celebrations that typically incorporate biblical promises (or wishes) for peace.³⁹

Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s Sermones on Christmas

Some thirteen Augustinian sermons preached in connection with the Feast of Christmas are extant.⁴⁰ And, of these thirteen, two, that is s. 185 and 193, make clear and significant use of Ephesians 2: 14.

Sermo 185 was actually preached on Christmas Day.⁴¹ From its opening lines, it reminds the audience (and its readers) that, with Christmas, the main theological point is always the miracle of God’s Wisdom and Word manifesting himself to us as an infant (se demonstravit infantem). Becoming a human being is something that he did entirely for us. And, in the process, he fulfilled the “prophecy” of Psalm 85: 11, which, in Augustine’s Latin version, tells us that “truth has sprung from the earth, and justice has looked forth from heaven.”⁴²

One of the several ways in which this verse was fulfilled was precisely when Christ, “who said ‘I am the truth’ (cf. John 14:6)” was “born of the virgin.” Moreover, the line “and justice has looked forth from heaven” is fulfilled whenever a human being “by believing in the one who was so born, has been justified not by herself but by God” [adjusted for accuracy] (WSA III/6, 22).⁴³ In a real sense, justification by means of faith proves to be a major theme of this brief sermon. At the beginning of its third and final paragraph, Augustine quotes Romans 5: 1-2, which opens with the declaration that “having, therefore, been justified by faith,” and which is followed by the exhortation “let us have peace with God,” before expressing the desire to “mix a few words of [Psalm 85:11]” (pauca verba psalmi huius admiscere) with Paul in order “to discover their harmony [with each other]” (consonantiam reperire). They fit together in the sense that this justice, which Augustine is careful to reaffirm has come from heaven and “has not proceeded from us” (non de nobis processit), is precisely what the angels were describing when they were manifested to the shepherds:

Thus is was… that the voices of the angelic choir sang the praises of the Lord born of the virgin, whose birthday we are celebrating today: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will” (Luke 2:14). Why “peace on earth,” …unless because “Truth has sprung from the earth,” that is, Christ has been born of flesh? And he is our peace, who has made the both into one” (Eph. 2:14), that we might be people of good will (homines bonae voluntatis), agreeably (suaviter) linked together by bonds of unity (vinculis unitatis) (WSA III/6, 22).⁴⁴

With these comments, Augustine expands upon the “fulfillment” of Psalm 85 :11 yet further. Not only does Paul’s teaching of justification by faith explain this verse from the Psalter, but so also do Luke 2: 14 and Ephesians 2: 14. Significantly, in this context Augustine chose not to elaborate upon the exact identity of the two who were “both” made “into one.” Apparently, Augustine was less concerned to describe the precise groups to which the fundamental claim of our verse ought to be applied than he was to make plain that peace, goodwill, and genuine unity are available to those who believe upon Christ and all that his incarnation achieved.

In s. 193, which was also preached on Christmas Day,⁴⁵ Augustine also calls upon Ephesians 2: 14—even though Luke 2, which had been the gospel reading for the day, is referenced in the sermon’s opening lines. In fact, here, Augustine explicitly combines the two, using Ephesians 2: 14 to explain and exegete Luke 2: 14: “[Christ], you see… is ‘peace on earth to people of good will,’ because (quoniam) ‘he is our peace, who has made the two into one’” (WSA III/6, 51).⁴⁶

The section of this sermon is also significant pastorally because in the immediate context, Augustine has also invoked Psalm 33: 12-14 (Psalm 34 in the numbering of modern Bibles), Romans 7: 18-25, and Galatians 5: 17 to exhort his audience to pursue peace on both the external and the internal front. Externally, following the advice of Psalm 33(34): 12-14, Augustine reminds his hearers that they are obligated to “seek peace and pursue it” and that a major part of how to do this is to “turn aside from evil and do good,” especially by keeping one’s “tongue from evil and [one’s] lips from speaking deceit.” In other words, Augustine clearly reminds this part of his flock that obtaining and maintaining peace must include maintaining peace with one’s neighbors especially through a firm commitment to honesty. Immediately on the heels of this exhortation, Augustine assumes the role of a member of his audience in order to raise a skeptical objection regarding the consistent disconnect that exists—even for Christians—between willing and doing. That is, Augustine assumes that at least some in his audience will claim that the peace that he has just exhorted them to will exceed their grasp precisely because of “another law in [their] members” (Rom. 7: 23) and how, within each of them, “the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh” (Gal. 5: 17). Reverting back to his role as preacher, Augustine exhorts them to “stand firm against [their] evil desires” (persistat… adversus concupiscentias malas), but he is careful to be clear that this resistance is not up to them and their own will power. On the contrary, he reminds them that their ability to resist is contingent upon not being “too proud to confess” (non dedignetur esse confessa) and not trusting in their “own powers” (non fidat viribus suis) or, in other words, their persistence “in imploring the help of God’s grace” (imploret auxilium gratiae dei).

Though such a discussion of this internal struggle might initially strike the modern reader as an odd theme to include in a Christmas sermon, it need not ultimately be taken that way. In a larger sense, this theme fits together well with Christmas in that, within Augustine’s theology, internal peace in the sense of experiencing a gradual “healing” from the “disease” of disordered desires is a major part of what Christ’s incarnation, which, of course, should be the focus of all Christmas liturgy and worship, was intended to achieve—even if, in that same theological schema, we all remain thoroughly dependent upon God’s gratuitous grace for both the will and the ability to begin that process.

Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s Sermones on Epiphany

Interestingly, no less than ten Augustinian sermons preached in connection with the Feast of Epiphany have come down to us.⁴⁷ As preserved, almost all of these sermons are relatively brief and, not surprisingly, are relatively similar in content.⁴⁸ Like most preachers, Augustine did not hesitate to recycle comments and exegetical material for prominent annual feasts, especially when that material had proven effective. Several of these sermons include the following: 1. That Epiphany is Greek word that, in this context, means “a manifestation [manifestatio] of the Lord”; 2. That this manifestation was to the Magi, who, of course, were Gentiles (Matt. 2: 1-12); and 3. Given that Epiphany has this connection to the Gentiles, that Epiphany may, in a sense, be contrasted to Christmas, which, because it involved a manifestation of the Lord to Jewish shepherds via angels (Luke 2: 8-20), has a connection to the Jews. As we shall see, the fact that these two manifestations had Christ in common would seem to be the detail that drove Augustine to incorporate Ephesians 2: 14 into his sermons on Epiphany so frequently. It also bears noting that both the celebration of and preaching about Epiphany were by definition anti-Donatist activities since although “the Donatists celebrated Christmas,” they “rejected Epiphany as an innovation of the Oriental Church” (Lawler 10).⁴⁹

For example, in s. 373 our verse is used in the Augustine’s opening remarks as he reminds his audience of exactly what it is that Christ’s birth as a man had accomplished for all who would believe in and worship him:

He [ille] is that cornerstone who coupled together, as it were, in his own unity [in sua unitate] the two walls, coming from different angles, of the circumcision and of the uncircumcision, of the Jews… and of the Gentiles, and who thus “became [factus est] our peace, who made both into one” (Eph. 2:14). Therefore, that he might be announced to the Jewish shepherds, angels came from heaven;and that he might be worshiped by the Gentile Magi, a star shone brilliantly from the sky. So whether by means of angels or of a star, “the heavens declared [enarrauerunt] the glory of God” (Ps. 19:1) (WSA III/10, 320) (PL 39, 1663-1664).⁵⁰

A different and, if anything, more explicitly reconciliatory set of opening remarks can be found in s. 199. Exceptionally for the Epiphany sermons that clearly reference Ephesians 2: 14, this sermon also incorporates John 4: 22 and Isaiah 49: 6, in addition to the standard passages of Matthew 2, Luke 2, and Ephesians 2. Augustine begins by noting that:

Recently we celebrated the day on which the Lord was born of the Jews; today we are celebrating the one on which he was worshiped by the Gentiles; because “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22); but this “salvation reaches to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6).

He then goes on to contrast the shepherds and the Magi by reiterating the difference in how their respective revelation were made, i.e., angels in contrast to a star, before reconciling them with the observation that both groups learned about Christ “from heaven (de coelo), when they saw the king of heaven on earth, so that there might be (ut esset) ‘glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will’” (Luke 2: 14).⁵¹

Significantly, it is this reference to Luke that compels Augustine to introduce Ephesians 2: 14; indeed, no words intervene between the two quotations. More interesting, however, is the way in which Augustine attributes the peaceful reconciliation that Christ achieved between believing Jews and believing Gentiles, a fact that is underlined by employing additional verses from Ephesians 2:

“For he is our peace, who made both into one” (Eph. 2:14). Already from this moment (iam hinc), by the way the infant was born and proclaimed, he (ille) is shown to be that cornerstone; already from the first moments of his birth he appeared as such (iam in ipso primordio natiuitatis apparuit). He began at once (iam coepit) to tie together in himself (in se) two walls coming from different directions, bringing the shepherds from Judea, the Magi from the East; “so that he might establish the two in himself as one new man, making peace; peace for those who were far off, and peace for those who were near” (Eph. 2:15 and 17).⁵²

Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s “Regular” Sermones ad Populum

Augustine also uses Ephesians 2: 14 both in sermons intended to educate or encourage particular congregations and in sermons directly addressing the problems raised by such dissident groups as the Donatists and the Pelagians.⁵³

In fact, our verse is employed in what is arguably the most famous sermon that Augustine preached concerning the Donatists, the “Sermon to the People of the Church in Caesarea” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae Plebem).⁵⁴ In addition to knowing where it was preached, we know that this sermon was offered—apparently ex tempore—on September 18, 418 to a (largely) Donatist crowd gathered inside the Catholic basilica.⁵⁵ Caesarea was the capital city of Mauretania, important in its own right, and “a major center for Donatism” (Tilley 770).Caesarea’s Donatist bishop, a man named Emeritus, was in the audience and was personally invited by Augustine to embrace the Catholic cause and ecclesial unity.⁵⁶ Not surprisingly, Emeritus did not accept the offer.

One of this sermon’s themes is that of family and how, from Augustine’s perspective, all Donatists were estranged family members with whom he longed to be reconciled. This theme was augmented by offering them praise for their faith and for the other goods that they, as Christians, possessed. Other important themes within this sermon include unity, charity or love, and peace. The claim that all three of these are supposed to mark all relations between Christians is supported via references to scripture. John 14: 27, which Augustine discussed in great detail in Io. ev. tr. 77, is repeatedly referenced in support of peace; 1 Corinthians 13 is also repeatedly referenced in support of the necessity of charity; and Psalm 132: 1 (133 in the numbering of modern Bibles) is referenced in support of the need for unity.⁵⁷ Interestingly, it is the use of the latter in the fourth paragraph that offers Augustine an opening to employ Ephesians 2: 14.⁵⁸

Therefore, when I am casting out discord and bringing in peace, how am I forfeiting the titles of peace? Assuredly I plead with my Lord: “O Christ, you who are our peace, you who have made both one (cf. Eph. 2:14), make us one so that we might honestly sing: ‘Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to live in unity’ (Ps. 132:1). Please bring in concord, please drive out discord.⁵⁹

Here Augustine is attempting to assume the moral high ground. Not only does he claim that, as a Catholic bishop, he is blameless for the divisions that remain between the two communities, but he is also claiming that he regularly implores Christ to reunify them, even as he implicitly asserts that either the Donatists are unwilling to pray for reunification or that their relationship with Christ is so derelict that they are unable to do so.⁶⁰ More striking still is how, despite the fact that he is well aware that, in context, Ephesians 2: 14 is referencing the reconciliation that Christ brought about between believing Jews and believing Gentiles,⁶¹ Augustine here applies it directly to the possible reconciliation that Christ might yet bring about between Catholics and Donatists. The repeated use of our verse in this painstaking sermon preached in the presence of many Donatists clearly played an important role in Augustine’s attempt both to educate and to convict that (presumably) hostile audience.

A good example of how Augustine incorporated our verse into a sermon that was more simply educational is sermo 25. This is a relatively brief sermon that was preached during the winter and, possibly, on a weekday before Augustine’s home congregation of Hippo.⁶²

Ephesians 2: 14 appears in paragraph 7, a section in which Augustine’s educational aim is to demonstrate to his flock that, via a regular encounter with Christ through the Mass, they can have something close to the very thing that all of us desire above all else: peace. A few lines into the paragraph, Augustine quotes an exhortation from Psalm 33: 14b (Ps. 34 according to the numbering of modern Bibles), namely, to “Seek peace and pursue it” (quaere pacem, et sequere eam), before asserting that it is peace “which we all long for even in this mortal flesh, even in this fragile state of the flesh, even in this most illusory condition of vanity.” He then begins to address the obvious concerns of: 1. If peace is to be sought, knowledge of its location will be required; and 2. If peace is to be pursued, knowledge of which way it has gone will be required.

Before addressing these concerns, however, Augustine observes that a third bit of knowledge will also be required, namely knowledge about exactly what peace is:

First see what peace is, then see where it has gone, then follow it. What is peace? Listen to the apostle, he was talking about Christ: “he is our peace, who made both into one” (Eph. 2:14).So peace is Christ. Where did [peace] go? He was crucified and buried, he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven. There you have where peace went [ecco quo iit pax] (WSA III/2, 85) (CCSL 41, 338).

The very next lines go on to address how all who desire peace, which, again, according to Augustine, includes every human being, ought to go about pursuing that which we desire. We ought to pursue this thing we desire above all via the Eucharist and via a clear recognition of the implications of being incorporated into Christ:

Listen how you should follow; every day you hear it briefly when you are told “Lift up your heart.” Think about it more deeply, and there you are, following. Listen also, however, more widely, in order to follow true peace… listen to the apostle: “If you have risen with Christ, seek the things that are above where Christ is, seated at God’s right hand; savor the things that are above, not those that are on earth. For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ appears, your life, then you too will appear with him in glory (cf. Col. 3:1-4) (WSA III/2:, 85-86) (CCSL 41, 338).

In s. 25, Augustine is intent to educate his congregation regarding their deepest wants. He does this by first asserting that he (as well as they, if they will just be honest with themselves) already knows that what they want above all is peace. He then demonstrates that they also need to be reeducated regarding precisely what peace is before, finally, reminding them that the way to obtain it is twofold: both by a healthy realization of the identity that they possess through faith in Christ and by a healthy participation in the Sacrament as regularly celebrated by those who, by being in Christ, comprise his body, the Church.

Conclusion

Despite the brevity and relative straightforwardness of the actual text of Ephesians 2: 14, this study has demonstrated that Augustine has a rather complex relationship to it. Not only does he employ it with substantial frequency, but he also employs it in an impressive variety of contexts and in works of various genres. This verse appears in polemical compositions, in overtly exegetical compositions, and in homiletical compositions.

Ephesians 2: 14 appears relatively rarely in Augustine’s polemical works. It is used substantially only in works such as Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum and the Tractatus adversus Iudaeos.⁶³ His common concerns in the sections of these two works in which Ephesians 2: 14 appears are the status of the Jewish people (both past and present) and the nature and object of true salvific faith. For Augustine, God’s relatively inclusive plan of salvation has always been about Christ and has always been dependent upon faith in Christ’s faithfulness in bringing about an ultimate reconciliation between both God and humanity, regardless of which group one belonged to or identified with.

The true import of Ephesians 2: 14a for Augustine is most clearly seen, however, in his overly exegetical works such as the Io. ev. tr. and the en. Ps. In the former, Augustine invokes Ephesians 2: 14 as part of a larger claim (and amidst multiple scriptural references) regarding the necessity of faith in Christ if one is to experience his promise of peace –either in the here and now or in the age that is to come. In the latter, Ephesians 2: 14 is used in support of at least three sweeping claims: 1. That Christ is a better and truer source of peace—indeed, he is the only genuine pacificus—than any who have preceded him, including King Solomon; 2. That Israel’s “true” identity is only to be seen by observing the true remnant who, through faith in Christ, chose to unite themselves with Christ’s “body,” the trans-temporal Church; and 3. That the status of the “heretical” and hypocritical Donatists is made plain precisely by their divisiveness: because they have split the Church, they have made their own alienation from Christ, the great Uniter and great Peacemaker, obvious. In these contexts, Augustine would also seem to be implying that, by not pursuing Christ’s program of reconciliation, the Donatists actions cast more than a little doubt upon the genuineness of their claims to believe in Christ.

Several of Augustine’s sermones offered in celebration of Christmas and Epiphany also contain clear references to Ephesians 2: 14, although it plays a more prominent (and frequent) role in those sermons offered during Epiphany than it does in those offered during Christmas. In two of Augustine’s Christmas sermons, Ephesians 2: 14 is linked with Luke 2: 14 in order to explain exactly what it was that Luke wanted to communicate: according to Augustine, it is precisely by being united to Christ and, via Christ, to other believers in faith, i.e., in becoming one body, that it becomes possible to become a person of good will (Luke 2: 14), both externally in terms of one’s relationships and internally in terms of one’s disordered desires.

The more prominent (and frequent) role played by Ephesians 2: 14 in Augustine’s sermons for Epiphany is due in large part to Augustine’s belief that the “manifestation” that Epiphany celebrates can be seen as something that both Jews and Gentiles, i.e., the two groups that Ephesians 2: 14 is most obviously concerned with, experienced via their representative groups, with the shepherds representing the Jews and the magi representing the gentiles. More than a few of the sermones that incorporated Ephesians 2: 14 also allowed Augustine space to continue his anti-Donatist polemics. This is because the sermons for Epiphany were by definition anti-Donatist activities insofar as the Donatists rejected Epiphany as a recent innovation, and because one of Augustine’s most famous sermones, the Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae Plebem, despite being preached in the presence of some Donatists, was, at its heart, a plea for reconciliation between the two communions and, from Augustine’s perspective, a plea for the Donatists to more perfectly follow Christ’s reconciliatory lead.

Finally, this study has also demonstrated that Augustine did occasionally employ Ephesians 2: 14 in sermons that were explicitly didactic. In s. 25, for example, he used this verse in order to teach (a) that since everyone, despite being ignorant of where it is to be found or how to go about obtaining it, truly wants peace, and (b) that Christ alone is peace; from this teaching it follows (c) that, pursuing Christ is everyone’s best option for obtaining the one thing that he or she truly wants.

Footnotes

¹ While it may be explained—at least in part—by the fact that Augustine never penned a commentary on Ephesians per se, the relative dearth of scholarly attention to his exegesis and use of this letter remains surprising. The most prominent among the handful of articles dedicated to Augustine and Eph. include: Dupont “Habitare Christum” 367-376; Manrique 41–61; Rombs 321-327; Zumkeller 457-474; van Bavel 45-93; La Bonnardière “L’interprétation Augustinienne” 3-45; Doignon 201-211; La Bonnardière “Le Combat Chrétien” 235-238; and Lash 161-174. Unfortunately Nebreda “Un comentario de San Agustín, obispo de Hipona, a la carta de San Pablo a los Efesios” 287-298 and 367-378 remains unavailable to me.

² Augustine employed Ephesians 2: 14 more than sixty times throughout the course of his career in works of various genres and in response to a variety of contextual considerations. For an exhaustive list of his uses, see “Vetus Latina” 79-80; see 81 and 85 for the text of Eph. 2: 14. Of course, Augustine was far from the first Patristic author to make substantial use of Ephesians in general or of Eph. 2: 14 in particular. With regard to 2 14 in the Latin exegetical tradition, comments are extant from Origen, Marius Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Relevant bibliography on the use of Eph. 2: 14 by Augustine’s predecessors and contemporaries includes: Heine 132-37; for Marius Victorinus Edwards 138; “Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon” 40-41; and Greer 224-229.

³ For this study I have employed the CLCLT, also known as the “Library of Latin Texts” (Turnhout, Belgium, Brepols Publishers). Accessed via Villanova University’s Falvey Library at https://clt.brepolis.net.ezp1.villanova.edu/llta/pages/Search.aspx

⁴ This is the text of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28^th edition, provided by the German Bible Society and was taken from https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/59/20001/29999/ch/af17f2be751b9117f86277ad74a4a067/. Commentators are quick to note that neither the vocabulary nor the syntax of the Greek of Eph. 2,14-18 is straightforward. The text of 2: 14a (“αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν”), however, is esp. particular if one notes that the use of the emphatically positioned pronoun αὐτὸς “places the spotlight directly on Christ.” See Thielman 163. Also noteworthy, not least because it differs from the way this clause is usually rendered in Latin, is how the use of the genitive possessive pronoun “ἡμῶν” in the Greek “denotes that both the ‘circumcision’ and the ‘uncircumcision’ are recipients of the advantage which Christ brought.” See Yee 143 and n. 61. See also O’Brien 192, who emphasizes that vv.14-18 “is closely tied in with… vv.11-13… and is rounded out by an inclusio… in which the ‘we’ and ‘our’ now refer inclusively to both Jew and Gentile believers.”

⁵ This is the text of the Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem Editio Quinta, provided by the German Bible Society and was taken from: https://www.academic-bible.com/en/ online-bibles/biblia-sacra-vulgata/read-the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/59/ 20001 /29999/ch/af17f2be751b9117 f86277ad74a4a067/. Except for one minor bit of syntax, i.e., should it read “est enim” or “enim est”?, the text of Eph. 2: 14a in this critical edition of the Vulgate is not significantly dissimilar from the reconstructed text as found in the Beuroner edition of the Vetus Latina (n. 2).

⁶ This version of Eph. 2, which is the “updated” NASB published in 1995, was taken from: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202&version= NASB.

⁷ Yee argues that the author of Ephesians views the Gentiles from a decidedly Jewish perspective and, thus, “has brought to light the way in which the marginalized Gentiles could become one with the Jews ‘in Christ’” (133). See 126, 136, 140, 142-143, 146, 183, and 187-189. See also Fowl 83-84 and 89-90. On 90, Fowl makes it clear that, for the author of Eph., the Jews and Gentiles “are not dissolved into one. Peacemaking here is not homogenizing. Rather… it involves eliminating the hostility that divided them.”

⁸ This is in spite of the fact that some are also willing to label Eph. 2: 14-18 “as the locus classicus on peace in the Pauline letters.” For this see O’Brien 193, where he also points out that the term peace occurs in these five vv. no less than four times. For the view that that these verses are best seen as reflecting traditional and perhaps even older hymnic material, see, e.g., Barth 260-264 et passim. For the view that these verses are best seen as “encomiastic… via amplification,” see Yee 126-189, esp. 136ff. For a brief summary—but ultimately non-committal—discussion of the several alternatives, see Thielman 161-163.

⁹ See also Barth 302-305. He supports his position by distinguishing between the sacrificial, which he takes to be the Pauline sense, and the incarnational, which he sees as based on passages like Luke 2: 1-14. As we shall see, Augustine saw no need for such distinctions and often employs our v. and Luke 2: 14, which according to the NASB English trans. reads “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased” [emphasis added], in the same context.

¹⁰ As an example for this see Yee 180 and Barth 305. For the quotation, see Barth 262.

¹¹ Another important polemical use of our v. can be found in c. litt. Pet. 2, 70, 157-158. However, because this use is quite similar to what we find in anti-Donatist passages of the en. Ps. and the sermones ad populum it will not be treated in detail here. But see n. 31 infra.

¹² Particularly helpful by way of an orientation to this work is Harkins. For an older but still brief theological reflection see Bori 301-311.

¹³ Harkins dates Adversus Iudaeos 428-430 CE. Fredriksen 303, 310, 330, and 420-421 and nn. 8-9, is less precise. In the midst of a discussion of its contents and after noting the position of Lancel that it should be dated to 418-419, she claims only that this text “must date to sometime after” Augustine’s ep. 121, i.e., to “some point between 410 and 415.” See esp. 304 and 324.

¹⁴ On 310, Fredriksen rightly emphasizes that at Adversus Iudaeos 7, 9, Augustine tells his audience of his plans to “address [the Jews] as if [quasi] they were present” in the room. For this trans., see FOTC 27, 403. See PL 42, 57: “Quos paululum quasi praesentes alloqui libet.”

¹⁵ According to the NASB, this v. reads “[the man with whom Jacob had wrestled] said, ‘Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.’”

¹⁶ For this (slightly adjusted) trans., see FOTC 27, 407. For the Latin, see PL 42, 59.

¹⁷ Here Augustine may have in mind Isa. 28: 16, but the quotation he offers is significantly closer to Ps. 118: 22 (according to the numbering of modern Bibles).

¹⁸ For this (adjusted) trans., see FOTC 27, 408-409. For the Latin, see PL 42, 60.

¹⁹ See 33, s. 2, 19 (CCSL 38, 294); 47, 3 (CCSL 38, 540); 71, 1 (CCSL 39, 971); 78, 3 (CCSL 39, 1100); 94, 8 (CCSL 39, 1337); 106, 1 (CCSL 40, 1570); 119, 9 (CCSL 40, 1786); 124, 10 (CCSL 40, 1843); and 126, 2 (CCSL 40, 2, 1857).

²⁰ According to the New American Standard Bible (NASB), these verses read: “These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.” The use of John 14: 27 alongside Eph. 2: 14 is not, however, original to Augustine. See., e.g., Heine 134, where part of Jerome’s comment on 2: 14 runs: “He is our peace, who says, ‘my peace I give to you, my peace I leave with you,’” before adding that Christ “as peace, makes us to be peaceful.”

²¹ In the context of the tractate as a whole, it becomes clear that Christ has left all three persons of the Trinity with us, that is, with the Church. In paragraph 1, as he is recapitulating the verses that immediately precede John 14: 25-27, Augustine writes: “Iamuero et superius dixerat de spiritu sancto: ‘vos autem cognoscetis eum, quia apud vos manebit, et in vobis erit’; unde intelleximus in sanctis tamquam in templo suo simul manere trinitatem deum” (CCSL 36, 520).

²² Trans. Retting, FOTC 90: 103 (slightly modified). For the Latin see CCSL, 36 520.

²³ See. n. 20 supra.

²⁴ Trans. Retting, FOTC 90, 104. For the Latin, see CCSL 36, 521-522.

²⁵ A very similar assertion is made in paragraph 19 of sermo 2 of en. Ps. 33 (Ps. 34 in the numbering of modern Bibles). In commenting on verse 15, which includes the exhortation to “seek peace and pursue it,” Augustine reminds his audience that: “The righteous themselves groan here below… to make it clear to you that we seek peace here, but will obtain it only at the end. Yet we do have peace in some degree here, in order that we may deserve to have it totally there.” For this trans. see WSA III/16, 38; for the Latin, see CCSL 38, 294-295. Modern Bibles follow the numbering system established by the Hebrew tradition of the Masoretic Text, while the ancient Latin Psalter followed the numbering system established by the Greek translation tradition, and by the so-called Septuagint in particular. In order to avoid undue confusion, whenever a psalm is discussed in what follows, its number in modern editions will also be supplied.

²⁶ In fact, Augustine transitions to his exegesis of the Psalm proper by exhorting his audience to “concentrate next on what this Psalm teaches us about [Christ]” (quid deinde psalmus ipse de illo doceat adtendamus).

²⁷ See also the briefer and simpler portion of en. Ps. 47, 3 where our verse is invoked to help explain why Ps. 47: 3, when discussing Jerusalem and Zion, mentions the “mountains of Zion” in the plural. Augustine speculates that “perhaps” this is “because Zion embraces peoples coming from different quarters to meet each other and be joined to the cornerstone.” Indeed, the believing Jewish people and the believers who have been drawn from the Gentiles “are no longer averse even though diverse in origin; and once fitted into the corner they are diverse no longer. ‘He himself is our peace, since he united the two’ (cf. Eph. 2:14), says scripture. Christ is the cornerstone.” The clear implication here is that, in this age, it is belief that has established the metes and bounds of “true” Israel. For this trans., see WSA III/16, 337; for the Latin, see CCSL 38, 540.

²⁸ For this (modified) trans. see WSA III/18, 129; for the Latin, see CCSL 39, 1100.

²⁹ For an additional homiletic efforts that invokes this insight while also combining Eph. 2: 14 and Rom. 8: 15 (and/or Gal. 4: 6), see en. Ps. 106, 1 (CCSL 40, 1570) and s. 156,15 (CCSL 41Ba, 158-159). In par. 1 of en. Ps. 106, despite not clearly defining “the people of God” for his audience as those who “have been freed from a vast, widespread Egypt” until par. 3, Augustine has already made the move that will allow him to define the true people of God as “the whole church of God spread throughout the world.” This move is based upon his belief that, “although [Ps. 106] was sung about the people of Israel,” it is “evident” (quantum apparet) from its content that this much broader definition of God’s people is required. Most important for our purposes is that, in this same context, Augustine also asserts that “it is hardly surprising that we sing the Alleluia twice, since we also cry out, ‘Abba, Father!’,” before going on to claim that we all use this redundant address because both of the composite parts, i.e., the remnant of the Jews who believe and those who have been called from out of the Gentiles, of the true people of God “cry out in that cornerstone who is our peace and builds the two into one” (Eph. 2: 14). In s. 156, 15, the point about the redundancy of Paul using both “Abba” and “Father” is made in similar terms. “From one direction the circumcision, from the other the uncircumcision” have both been reconciled and made into one people by that one who is “our peace” (Eph. 2: 14) since in him “the walls [are] harmonized (concordia), [and] the corner [is] glorified (gloria)” (CCSL 41Ba, 159).

³⁰ For a use of our v. in an expressly anti-Donatist work, see c. lit. Pet. 2, 70, 157 (CSEL 52, 101). In par. 155, Petilian has quoted Eph. against Augustine. In par. 157, Augustine returns the favor and, following two rhetorical questions (“But when the prophet says to you: ‘Peace, peace, and where is there peace?,’ what will you show the prophet? Will it be the part of Donatus (partem donati), unknown to the innumerable nations to whom Christ is known?”), Augustine cites Eph. 2: 14 to demonstrate that “For he is our peace, the one who made us both one, not Donatus who made one into two.”

³¹ Also, all but identical to en. Ps. 78, is en. Ps. 94, 7’s discussion of how all of the earliest Christians had been Jews first. Here, however, it is a discussion of the meaning of Romans 11: 16-24’s metaphors of “wild” olive branches being engrafted into domesticated olive trees. See WSA III/18, 416: “There stands the tree, then. Some (aliqui) of its branches have been broken off, but not all (non omnes). If all the branches had been removed, where would Peter have come from? Or John? Or Thomas? Or Matthew? Or Andrew? Or any of the apostles? Where would the apostle Paul himself have sprung from, he who was speaking in these passages and bore witness to the good olive tree by his fruit? Were not all these branches of the same tree? And where did the five hundred brethren come from, the ones to whom the Lord appeared after his resurrection?What about those many thousands who were converted by Peter’s address when the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke in the tongues of all nations—those who at their conversion were so eager to praise God and accuse themselves?” (CCSL 39, 1336).

³² “Venerunt etiam omnes gentes ad lapidem angularem, ubi osculum pacis agnouerunt; in illum unum qui de duobus fecit unum, non quemadmodum haeretici, qui de uno fecerunt duo. hoc enim idem ait apostolus de domino christo: ipse est enim, inquit, pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum.”

³³ See Paragraph 9 where, with help from Ps. 85(86): 9, the gentes are discussed both in terms of a possible source of fear for believers and as collectively under God the Creator’s sovereign control (CCSL 39, 1338): “A gentibus times scandala? et ipsas gentes ipse fecit; non permittet illas ultra eam saevire quam novit ille mensuram, ex qua proficias. nonne dicit alius psalmus: ‘omnes gentes quotquot fecisti, venient et adorabunt coram te, domine?’”.

³⁴ Here the Latin text omits any form of “to be,” reading “pax super israhel.” The form must be supplied by the reader. Boulding, the translator for the WSA series, opted for the straightforward “is.” See WSA III/20, 67. Given that this is a decision that must be made via the context, other options such as “[Let] peace be upon Israel,” or “[May] peace [be] upon Israel” are also possible.

³⁵ For still more similar (but, yet again, not identical) assertions about the Donatists, see en. Ps. 119, 9 (CCSL 40, 1786) (WSA III/20, 508-509). Inter alia, here they are upheld as those who “tear our unity apart,” as those who “hate peace,” and as those who still need to be urged to love Christ. It is their very choice for schism that proves that they are in the wrong and deserve to be numbered among the haters of peace.

³⁶ Given that Eph. 2: 14 and the equation of Christ and peace has so recently and repeatedly been made explicit in this context, a strong case could be made that, via the phrase “qui non credunt paci,” Augustine is implicitly asserting that the Donatists, or at least their leadership, do not truly believe in Christ.

³⁷ For this (adjusted) trans., see WSA III/20, 66-67 (CCSL 40, 843-1844).

³⁸ For this (adjusted) trans., see WSA III/20, 66 (CCSL 40, 1843).

³⁹ For a recent discussion of the issues surrounding these two series, see Drobner “Weihnachten, Neujahr” 221-242. For a general introduction, Latin texts, and a German trans. of the Christmas sermons, see Drobner “Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Weihnachfest.” And for the same treatment of the sermons on Epiphany, see Drobner “Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Neujahr.”

⁴⁰ These are ss. 184 to 196 inclusive.

⁴¹ Some scholars are confident that this sermon was preached in the initial years of the first phase of the Pelagian Controversy, i.e., from 412 to 416. Drobner “Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Weihnachfest” 42 and 106-107, however, argues that it is impossible to assign it a date, though in “Weihnachten, Neujahr” 226 (cf. 241), he does highlight Augustine’s efforts to guarantee that “das Datum des 25. Dezember begründen.”

⁴² Normally, this would be Psalm 84: 12 in the numbering of modern Bibles. However, in this case, Augustine’s text, which is based upon the Greek tradition, differs substantially from the Hebrew or MT reading. According to Augustine, this verse reads: “Veritas de terra orta est, et iustitia de caelo prospexit.”

⁴³ For the Latin, see Drobner “Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Weihnachfest” 112: “Christus qui dicit: ‘ego sum veritas,’ de virgine natus est… credens in eum qui natus est, non homo a se ipso, sed a deo iustificatus est.”

⁴⁴ For the Latin, see Drobner “Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Weihnachfest” 114.

⁴⁵ Scholars have proposed dates for this sermon ranging from 410 to 425, holding open the possibility that it may have been preached in almost any year of that sixteen year span. Drobner “Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Weihnachfest” 42 and 224-225, however, argues that it is impossible to assign it a date.

⁴⁶ For the Latin, see Drobner “Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Weihnachfest” 229-230.

⁴⁷ These are ss.199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 204A, 373, 374 (cf. s. Dolbeau 23), and 375. For a brief English introduction to six of these sermones, i.e., ss. 199-204, see Lawler 3-19; for his trans. of these six, see 154-182. They do not, however, all make clear reference to our verse. See n. 50 infra.

⁴⁸ S. Dolbeau 23, which is a full-length version of s. 374 is a notable exception. It seems likely that most of these sermons were radically condensed as they were copied and transmitted. As a result, barring new discoveries similar to Dolbeau’s, their complete contents will never be known.

⁴⁹ This conclusion is partially based upon information Augustine himself supplied. See s. 202.1-2 (PL 38, 1033). More recently, Drobner “Weihnachten, Neujahr” 233 and 242 confirms this, though not without qualification. On 231-232 he also points out that, with regard to the actual celebration of Epiphany, “in Nordafrika aber stellen Augustins Predigten die frühesten Zeugnisse dar.”

⁵⁰ Opening remarks very similar to these may be found in s. 375.1 (PL 39, 1669), the authenticity of which has been repeatedly questioned, s. 201.1 (PL 38, 1031), s. 202, 1 (PL 38, 1033), albeit with a considerably longer quotation from Eph. 2, and in s. 203, 1 (PL 38, 1035). It is also notable that in s. 203 Augustine plays with the grammatical mood of Eph. 2: 14 by shifting from the indicative to the subjunctive: “… ut esset pax eorum.”

⁵¹ A similar contrast is made and reconciled a few lines later: although the shepherds were obviously “nearby” and able to worship Christ on the very day of their revelation, the Magi were compelled to travel from very “far away.” Nevertheless, both groups “saw the one light of the world” (unam… lucem mundi utrique uiderunt).

⁵² For this (modified) trans., see WSA III/6: 79; for the Latin, see PL 38: 1026.

⁵³ For a brief discussion of the way that Eph. 2: 14 is used in s.156, an overtly anti-Pelagian sermon that is part of a series of six that has been demonstrated to date with very high probability to October 17 of 417. See CCSL 41Ba, IX-XXVIII; see also n. 29 supra.

⁵⁴ For a similar and (most probably) anti-Donatist sermo that also uses Eph. 2: 14 to encourage the spiritual good of genuine unity both within and between Christian communities, see s. 360C (Dolbeau 27), esp. pars. 3-4. For the Latin text, see Augustine “Vingt-six sermons” 311-314.

⁵⁵ For a brief but helpful discussion of the background and context of this sermon, see Tilley. She points out that Augustine had traveled to Mauretania at the behest of Zozimus the Roman pontiff and that his main reason for the trip was to participate in a public debate with Emeritus, the Donatist bishop of Caesarea.

⁵⁶ In paragraph 6 (CSEL 53, 174), and in what must have been heard as an homage to St. Cyprian, the great 3^rd-century martyr-bishop of Carthage, Augustine goes so far as to claim that the salvation that God so graciously offers is something that one “non potest habere nisi in ecclesia catholica.”

⁵⁷ It is also true that, by invoking this v. from the Psalter, Augustine is underlining his belief that the Catholics and the Donatists are, or, at least, should be “brothers.” For Augustine’s Latin version of this v., see n. 59 infra.

⁵⁸ He also quotes our v. twice. The first is offered in the sermo’s second line (CSEL 53, 167): “Exultamus enim in domino deo nostro de quo apostolus ait: ipse est enim pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum.” Even the simplest member of the audience must have recognized from this that the sermon would amount to a major appeal for unity between the Donatists and the Catholics.

⁵⁹ Trans. is my own. For the Latin, see CSEL 53, 172: “Cum ergo discordiam excludo, pacem introduco, titulos pacis quare depono? dico plane domino meo: o christe, qui es pax nostra, qui fecisti utraque unum, fac nos unum, ut recte cantemus: ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum habitare fratres in unum. introduc concordiam, pelle discordiam.”

⁶⁰ See Origen’s comment on Eph. 2: 14a: “And the one who does not have peace, does not have Christ,” a sentiment that Jerome opted to retain in his commentary. For this see Heine 134.

⁶¹ For another sermo ad populum in which this is true, see, e.g., s.306E (Dolbeau 18), esp. par. 3, where the two “walls” (parietes) that have been unified in Christ, that is, “in the cornerstone” (in angulari lapide), are expressly called “the circumcision and the uncircumcision” (circumcisio et praeputium) and where their cleaving together is expressly said to “fulfill” (impletum est) what Paul wrote in Eph. 2: 14. For the Latin text, see Dolbeau 212.

⁶² The first line of Paragraph 8 makes it clear that it is winter (“ecce … hyems est”) (CCSL 41: 339). That it could have been preached on a weekday is less certain. That claim is based on Augustine’s comments in Paragraph 7 that “every day” (quotidie) in the Mass this particular congregation hears the exhortation to “Lift up your heart” (sursum cor), words that also fuel the claim that, at least during Augustine’s episcopacy, the church in Hippo celebrated Mass on a daily basis.

⁶³ Both of these works were composed within the final ten or twelve years of Augustine’s life.

Works cited

• Augustine of Hippo. Vingt-six Sermons au Peuple d’Afrique. Edited by François Dolbeau, Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 147, Paris, Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 1996.


• Barth, Markus. Ephesians: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary on Chapters 1-3. The Anchor Bible 34. Garden City, N. Y., Doubleday & Co., 1974.


• Van Bavel, Tarcisius J. “No One Ever Hated his Own Flesh: Eph. 5:29 in Augustine.” Augustiniana, vol. 45, 1995, pp. 45-93.


• Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem Editio Quinta. Stuttgart, Württembergische, Bibelanstalt, 2007.


• Commentaries on Galatians-Philemon. Ambrosiaster, edited and translated by Gerald L. Bray. Downer’s Grown, IL IVP, 2009.


• Doignon J., Jean. “Servi… Facientes Voluntatem Dei ex Animo Eph. 6: 6): Un Eclatement de la Notion de Servitude chez Ambroise, Jérôme, Augustin?” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, vol. 68, 1984, pp. 201-211.


• Drobner, Hubertus R. “Weihnachten, Neujahr und Epiphanie in Hippo (Nordafrika): Diskussionsbeiträge zu Festgehalt und-umständen (Sermones 184-204A, 369-370, 373-375).” Ministerium Sermonis: Philological, Historical, and Theological Studies On Augustine’s Sermones Ad Populum, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, and Mathijs Lamberigts. Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, vol. 53, Turnhout, Brepols, 2009, 221-242.


• -------------------------. Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Weihnachfest (Sermones 184-196): Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen (= Patrologia 11). Frankfurt, Lang, 2003.


• -------------------------. Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zu Neujahr und Epiphanie (Sermones 196A-204A): Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen (= Patrologia 22). Frankfurt, Lang, 2010.


• Dupont, Anthony. “Habitare Christum per Fidem in Cordibus Uestris (Eph. 3,17): Brève Présentation de l’Approche Biblique d’Augustin sur les Questions Doctrinales de ses Sermons.” Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, vol., 111, 2010, pp. 367-376.


• Edwards, Mark J. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VIII. Downer’s Grown, IL, IVP, 1999.


• Fowl, Stephen E. Ephesians: A Commentary. The New Testament Library, Louisville, KY, Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.


• Fredriksen, Paula. Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism. New York, Doubleday, 2008.


• Bori, Pier Cesare. “The Church’s Attitude towards the Jews: An Analysis of Augustine’s Adversus Iudaeos.” Miscellanea Historiae Ecclesiasticae, vol. 6, 1983, 301-311.


• Greer, Rowan A. Theodore of Mopsuestia: The Commentaries on the Minor Epistles of Paul. Leiden, Brill, 2011.


• Harkins, Franklin T. “Adversus Iudaeos.” Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, edited by Karla Pollmann and Willemien Otten, vol. 1, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.


• Heine, Ronald E. The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002.


• La Bonnardière, Anne-Marie. “Le Combat Chrétien; Exégèse Augustinienne d’Ephes. 6, 12.” Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, vol. 11, 1965, pp. 235-238.


• La Bonnardière, Anne-Marie. “L’Interprétation Augustinienne du Magnum Sacramentum de Ephés. 5, 32.” Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques, vol. 12, 1977, pp. 3-45.


• Lash, Christopher J. A. “Where Do Devils Live?” Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 30, 1976, pp. 161-174.


• Lawler, Thomas C., translator. St. Augustine Sermons for Christmas and Epiphany. ACW 15, Westminster, MD, The Newman Press, 1952.


• Manrique, Andrés. “Presencia de Cristo en los Corazones por la Fe (Ef. 3,17), según San Agustín.” Revista Agustiniana de Espiritualidad, 14, 1973, pp. 41-61.


• O’Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Ephesians. Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans, 1999.


• Rombs, Ronnie J. “Vinculum Pacis: Eph. 4:3 and Indications of a Pneumatology in St. Augustine’s Theology.” Studia Patristica 50, Including Papers presented at the National Conference on Patristic Studies held at Cambridge in the Faculty of Divinity under Allen Brent, Thomas Graumann and Judith Lieu in 2009, edited by Allen Brent and Markus Vincent, Leuven, Peeters, 2011, pp. 321-327.


• Thielman, Frank. Ephesians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker Academic, 2010.


• Tilley, Maureen A. “Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem.” Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, MI, William B. Eerdmans, 1999.


• Yee, Tet-Lim N. Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 130, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.


• Vetus Latina: Die Reste der Altlateinischen Bible Nach Petrus Sabatier Neu gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabeti Beuron, 24/1-2, Ad Ephesios, Ad Philippenses, Colossenses. Edited by Hermann Josef Frede, Freiburg im Breisgau, Herder, 1962-1971, pp. 79-80.


• Zumkeller, Adolar. “Eph. 5, 27 im Verständnis Augustins und Seiner Donatistischen und Pelagianischen Gegner.” Augustinianum, vol. 16, 1976, pp. 457-474.