I N D E X
was rectified by the reconciliation already noted in Romans and 1 and 2
Corinthians.
Alienation in the Prison Epistles arises either out of the dispensational
disability of being born a Gentile, without specific reference to sin, to the
alienation that arises out of a darkened understanding (Eph. 4:18), or through
the enmity consequent upon wicked works (Col. 1:21).  In the latter case, the
reconciliation effected presents such alienated ones `holy and unblameable and
unreproveable in His sight' (Col. 1:22); in the former case the reconciliation
cancels the original alienation that belonged to the Gentile, and reconciles the
two conflicting parties in one Body to God by the cross.  The reconciliation of
Ephesians 2 therefore is dispensational in character.
We next inquire what is the import of the added prefix apo in the word
`reconcile' found in Ephesians and Colossians.  One attempt suggests that the
lesser word used in Romans and Corinthians should be rendered `conciliation',
leaving the fuller word for `reconciliation'.  Unfortunately this creates a bias
in the mind, for accepting this, we naturally assume that the further
reconciliation of the later epistles is but the perfecting of the lesser
reconciliation of the earlier ones.  Strictly speaking there
is not this difference in the two English words that their adoption as above
indicated would justify.  Conciliation is the term generally used of men in
public stations of life, while reconciliation is indifferently employed for
those in public or private.
Apo means away from, and the condition from which the Gentile is brought
in Ephesians 2 is from the alienation of being a Gentile to the reconciled
position of being a fellow member, on equal terms with every other fellow member
of a newly created New Man, or of a newly formed `one Body'.  The prefix apo
belongs to both words, as can be seen: APallotrioo aliens, APOkatallasso
reconciled; the alienation was `from' the commonwealth of Israel, the
reconciliation was `from' the state of enmity thus induced.  Here in the church
of the One Body, we have no mere evolution from an existing but lower order;
rather we have an entirely newly created thing.  When God says that there is a
`new creation', old things pass away, new things come into being, and it is a
disaster for anyone to attempt to bring over the hope, the promises, the
constitution, the gifts and the ordinances of the earlier calling, which were
all related to a specific covenant and people, into this new creation where
there are no promises that were made to the Fathers, no covenants, no
supernatural and miraculous gifts, and a hope that is lifted from that of 1
Thessalonians 4 to the manifestation of Colossians 3.
One of the evidences of difference that we find in the period of the Acts
is that of `access'.  Peter and Cornelius may be saved by the same Saviour,
redeemed by the same precious blood, and look up to God as the same Father in
Christ; nevertheless Peter can pass the middle wall of partition, but if
Cornelius attempted to do so he would imperil his life.  Peter and Cornelius may
be saved by the same grace, may believe with the same faith, yet Peter will
withdraw himself from the table of the Gentile, Peter will even say `not so
Lord' to the vision of Acts 10; he will even tell Cornelius to his face that he
would not have hesitated to class him with the `common and unclean'!  The church
at Jerusalem was so surprised to hear that a Gentile had been saved, that they
actually called the apostle to account saying in shocked tones:
`Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them' (Acts
11:3),
203