The article aims at an exegetical exploration of the theme of reconciliation in Eph 2:11-22. First it is argued that the passage has chiastic literary structure (ABCDD’C’B’A’). Reconciliation is in the structure a central (pivotal) theme around which go all other theo-logical motifs. The first element of pragmatic strategy of the author in Eph 2:11-22 is to show the condition of the addressee of the letter from the point of view of the Old Testament religion. As Gentiles they were deprived of God and His salvific promises. Thanks to the work of reconciliation accomplished by Christ’s death on the cross, both previously divided parts of the world (namely Gentiles and Jews) have become one. Christ’s work of reconcil-iation restores above all the relationship of each hostile group with God. The reconciliation between the two groups is a consequence of their prior reconciliation with God by Christ in the Holy Spirit (Trinitarian theology). Thanks to Christ’s work of reconciliation Gentiles are not strangers to God any more but together with the faithful Christians of Jewish origin form one “holy temple”, “Gods dwelling through the Spirit”, namely the Church.

The paper assumes that the modern period differs from earlier epochs in terms of thinking about universals: in the ancient and medieval dispute about universals, the general took precedence, and the subject of debates was the identity of what was individual. Ockham’s revolution of thinking in this area is one of the significant points of the beginning modernity. In this context, it is reasonable to ask to what extent classical soteriological concepts, created in the ancient climate marked by the primacy of universals, can be understood today, in an atmosphere of nominalism. After presenting the specificity of this issue, the article discusses three works of three authors, who are significant for the history of soteriology (Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm). The conclusions do not confirm the simple thesis about the indisputable primacy of thinking about “man as human nature” in the case of Athanasius and Augustine. But Anselm’s much later theory is consistently based on such thinking. Hence, the reflections of the first two authors, insofar as they emphasize the interpersonal salvific bond between God and man, seem to be still understandable today. On the other hand, Anselm’s conception, based on the perception of the work of salvation as an impact on human nature, easily exposes itself to narrow interpretations, which are inconsistent with the original intention of its author. Heil der Person oder der menschlichen Natur? Über ein Problem der heutigen Rezeption der traditionellen soteriologischen Motive.