Tet-Lim N. Yee, Lecturer at the Theological Centre for Asia (Singapore) believes that insights from the ‘New Perspective on Paul’ can be applied to the book of Ephesians and can contribute to a better understanding of the social and political factors that revolve around the identity of the author and the recipients as well as shedding light on the purpose(s) of the letter. This slightly revised doctoral dissertation under James D.G. Dunn at the University of Durham seeks, beyond simply setting Ephesians within a Jewish context, to highlight the themes of estrangement and enmity between Jews and Gentiles and how the Jewish author ‘re-presents what the Jews perceived about the Gentiles’ as outsiders and intends to ‘underscore the exclusivistic Jewish attitude which has led to ethnic alienation’ (32). In the first chapter, Yee introduces his argument and provides the justification for his study as well as previewing his major aims. The next chapter contains as analysis of the Jewish milieu of the letter with a particular interest in Ephesians 2:1–10. He concludes that ‘the author’s ethnicity and … his thought processes are impregnated with characteristic Jewish thought and manner of speech’ (45).

Chapter three focuses on Ephesians 2:11–13 where the problem of the alienation and separation between Jews and Gentiles can best be explained by covenantal ethnocentrism with the result that the author must ‘construct a new “space” for the Christian Gentiles who had been marginalised by the Jews’ (73). In this portion of the epistle, Yee argues that concepts such as the ‘body politic of Israel’ and the language of being ‘near’ and ‘far off’ serve to reinforce the author’s purpose of demonstrating typically Jewish attitudes of intentional separation from Gentiles. In chapter four, Yee pays particular attention to Ephesians 2:14–18 where Christ is extended as the solution to this problem of ethnic hostility and enmity. Serious consideration is given to the role of the law and the interpretation of the concept of the ‘one new man’ (Eph. 2:15). Yee’s final chapter of exegesis (covering Eph. 2:19–22) deals particularly with temple imagery whereby the epistolary writer is able to ‘transpose the Gentiles from the periphery to the centre of the Jewish symbolic world while sustaining the traditional notion that the “temple” is still the holy space of God’s presence’ (210). The final chapter is, of course, devoted to summarizing the research, discussing implications of the study, and introducing some questions for further analysis.

A few critiques are worthy of mention. First, the subtitle, Paul’s Jewish Identity and Ephesians, suggests that Yee considers the apostle to be the author of this epistle. However, he makes a point of stating that he does not presume that position and employs and designation ‘author’ throughout the book. Although this is tolerable, it does seem a bit misleading. Second, the purpose of the text, as stated in the introduction, is to frame Ephesians within the ‘New Perspective on Paul’, but given the controversy over how to define this ‘school’, more clarity would have been useful since it would seem that Yee simply means that he wishes to highlight the Jewish background and content of the letter. Finally, Yee clearly argues that the author of Ephesians re-present the perception of the Gentiles as ‘other’ from a Jewish perspective and provides much evidence for this, but does not sufficiently explain why a Gentile audience would need this message, even if the chapter ends with Christ as the sociological solution. Put another way, a more satisfactory rhetorical analysis of this chapter would have added weight to his overall argument.

Aside from these minor issues, this monograph on Ephesians is well-written with excellent summaries on and interactions with scholarly discussions of exegetical issues. Yee is to be commended for demonstrating an impressive knowledge of classical literature, Biblical Greek and, of course, the sociological and political nature of second temple Judaism and early Christianity.