The Epistle to the Ephesians has long been a focal point for discussions about Paul’s theology of Jewish-Gentile unity and divine covenant faithfulness. While scholars have extensively analyzed the letter’s themes of reconciliation, ecclesiology, and cosmic Christology, the role of pronoun usage in shaping these arguments remains underexplored. This study offers a detailed exegetical and discourse analysis of the first and second-person pronouns in Ephesians 1–2, positing that Paul’s intentional shifts between “we/us” (first-person) and “you” (second-person) are not merely stylistic but theologically charged. By interrogating the specific referents behind these pronouns, I contend that Paul’s linguistic strategy is central to his argument: God’s covenantal faithfulness to Israel is not negated but fulfilled through the inclusion of Gentiles as equal members of God’s people, without requiring adherence to Jewish proselytization practices.
The first-person plural (we/us) in Ephesians 1–2 referent remains acutely focused, denoting Paul (the apostles) and possibly, at times, his Jewish contemporaries (e.g., 1:12, where “we who were the first to hope in Christ” reflects a Jewish perspective). Conversely, the second-person (you) consistently addresses the Gentile recipients, emphasizing their former alienation (2:11–12) and their present incorporation into Israel’s blessings through Christ (2:13, 19). A critical turning point occurs in 1:13, where Paul abruptly transitions from “we” to “you,” marking a deliberate rhetorical pivot. This shift underscores the distinction between Jewish believers, who inherited covenantal promises through pistis, and Gentiles, who are brought into these promises through pistis. By maintaining this distinction, Paul safeguards God’s faithfulness to Israel while simultaneously dismantling ethnic barriers, presenting Gentile inclusion as an expansion rather than a replacement of Israel’s covenantal identity.
This study contributes to existing scholarship in three key ways. First, it challenges interpretations that flatten Pauline pronoun usage into a generic “Christian ‘we,’” arguing instead that Paul’s careful delineation of referents preserves the historical particularity of Israel’s covenant and chosenness. Second, it refines debates about supersessionism (or any form of the connotation) in Ephesians by demonstrating that Gentile inclusion does not erase Israelite identity but fulfills God’s promise to bless all nations through Abraham’s offspring (Gen 12:3). Third, it engages with recent linguistic and narrative-critical approaches to Paul’s letters, illustrating how micro-level grammatical choices (e.g., pronoun shifts) advance macro-level theological claims. By situating Ephesians within Second Temple Jewish debates about Gentile inclusion, this paper also bridges the gap between historical-critical and theological readings, offering a paradigm for understanding the letter’s pastoral and polemical aims.