Ephesians 2:14-16

‘For he himself is our peace, who has made both one, and broke down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, that he may create in himself one new man, so making peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.'

Indeed God has united both Jews and Gentiles who come to Christ Jesus into one body. Peace is made between them and they are one. And through the cross He has reconciled both as one body in His own body, to God, by means of His sacrifice on the cross.

‘He Himself.' The pronoun is emphatic and should be in italics for emphasis. ‘Is our peace.' This means ‘has brought about and maintains peace', making both one. They are made one with each other and at one with God.

‘Broke down the middle wall of partition.' He has, as it were, torn down the wall in the Temple that separates the believing uncircumcised Gentiles from the Jews and their holy place. Copies of the actual inscription forbidding any foreigner on pain of death to ‘enter within the barrier which surrounds the Temple and enclosure' have been found in the neighbourhood of the one time Temple. It was thus a serious barrier to oneness. But that barrier has now been torn down (even before the Temple was torn down). For all are now His in Christ on equal terms.

‘Having abolished in His flesh (that is, His flesh offered on the cross, compare ‘in the blood of Christ' - Ephesians 2:13, and Colossians 1:21) the enmity, even the Law of commandments contained in ordinances.' The major hindrance to their being one, and a cause of enmity between them, was the ceremonial and ritual requirements which were found in ‘the Law of Moses'. This was why there had to be a wall in the Temple so that the Gentiles could not enter and make the inner part of the Temple ‘unclean'. But through the offering of the flesh of Christ, and the shedding of His blood, the sacrifices and rituals of the Temple are no longer necessary. In Christ and through His sacrifice that Law has been done away as far as it deals with ordinances. Its requirements are no longer binding because Christ's offering of Himself is all sufficient (Hebrews 10:11). All can now enter fully into the presence of God. Paul does not otherwise explain here how this is achieved, so it would seem that it was seen as a settled issue by this time. We can find part of the answer in Galatians 3.

In Galatians 3 Paul tells us that no man can be reckoned as righteous by the Law, for no man can fully observe it, and that through His death Christ has removed the curse of the Law by being made a curse for us, taking our curse on Himself (Galatians 3:10). Thus the Law no longer has power over us to condemn us. He also tells us that the promises to Abraham, which include blessing to the Gentiles, are superior to the Law, being applied through the Spirit by faith (Galatians 3:1; Galatians 3:14) and that the Law, which was short term, has now been replaced, as its function is now over (Galatians 3:15).

‘Having abolished.' The Greek word is difficult to translate. It can mean ‘to make of no effect', ‘to do away with' or ‘to take away the power of', thus to abolish, invalidate. But its main meaning is clear. All the Jewish rites and ordinances have been done away as far as approach to God is concerned. They are no longer necessary. They have been replaced by something greater.

Thus the enmity and cause of division being removed, Jews and Gentiles who come to Christ become one new man in Christ. United with Him and in Him they are seen as a corporate unity along with Him, ‘in Him'. The idea of the ‘new man' may be to suggest a new Adam composed of believing Jews and believing Gentiles, a new ‘mankind'. Jesus Christ is ‘the last Adam' (1 Corinthians 15:45).

‘And might reconcile them both in one body.' This is an interesting use of body which combines two ideas. The prime emphasis is on the fact that His one human body was offered on the cross, thus He offered Himself in one body. But this is then seen as a unifying factor so that they too are seen as ‘one body' in His body which is why they are ‘one new man'. It thus illuminates the meaning of ‘His body' in Ephesians 1:23. There is no suggestion here of the one body as a body in contrast with Him as the head. It represents Christ fully and signifies the one corporate entity represented by the one new man, which is both head and body, united with Him as the body. The later emphasis (Ephesians 1:20) is indeed on one Temple as cementing the unity. The main point is that the two are united as one man, one body, united with His body, so that as one they can be reconciled to God through the cross, the enmity between them having been slain.

This is symbolised for us by the bread at the Lord's Table. The bread represents the body of Christ offered up for us but it also represents us as the one bread, the one body, incorporated in Christ, ‘seeing that we who are many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread' which is ‘a communion, a continual relationship, with the body of Christ' (1 Corinthians 10:16).

‘And might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross having slain the enmity thereby.' Through their response to the shed blood of Christ both Jew and Gentile, the ordinances of the Law being abolished, are united and made one. And simultaneously, as they are being united in one corporate entity, ‘one body', they are reconciled to God through the cross, through the one body of Christ with which they are united. So oneness, reconciliation, is achieved with both man and God.

‘Reconcile.' Apokatallasso. An intensification of katallasso (Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 5:18), which also means ‘reconcile'. It is only found elsewhere in Colossians 1:20, 2 Peter 1:16), and that the manifestation of that coming will be made known in the events he has described (2 Peter 3:3), events which, having already once been demonstrated in the Flood, will be demonstrated further, indicating that God does ‘interfere' with His creation and is active with regard to it.

We are not of course suggesting for one moment that Peter did not believe in the second coming (for which see 1 Peter), only that it is not on its own his prime emphasis here. His prime emphasis here is on the total fact that the Christ (as ‘the Lord Jesus Christ') has come in the flesh in the last days, and that that coming in its entirety, as seen in both the first and second coming, will finally issue in the God's final judgment and the new creation.

Note on ‘Where Is The Promise Of His Coming?

It is always difficult to work out the details of false teaching when all we have are the defences against that false teaching put, not to the false teachers, but to the people who were in danger of being deceived.

The main doctrinal clues are that they ‘denied the Master Who bought them' (2 Peter 2:1) and that they asked,' Where is the promise of His coming'? (2 Peter 3:4), not in the light of His first coming but in the light of creation (2 Peter 3:4). The main ethical clues are that they engaged in lascivious living.

The whole basis of their teaching appears thus to have been that God does not interfere in this material world, and never has done, with the consequence that we can behave as we like without any fear of repercussions. But in view of the fact that they clearly made some profession to be teaching ‘Christ' we must assume that it was as a heavenly figure Who did not interfere in this world, the benefits from Whom were obtained by ecstatic rites, bringing ‘releases of their spirits' while they themselves were indulging in their revelry (compare Revelation 2:20). It would appear that they saw Him as in conflict with other heavenly figures, whom they themselves felt safe to abuse (2 Peter 2:10). Such a mixing of Christian teaching with hellenistic ideas was inevitable once the Gospel became of interest to people steeped in hellenistic ideas. The recognition that God had truly become man was not easy for them to grasp, and was contrary to their ideas.

Peter's reply is that the Christ has come in the flesh as ‘our Lord Jesus Christ', as is evidenced by the fact that he with others had seen His power and His glory manifested on earth and testified to by God (2 Peter 1:16) as was promised by the prophets (2 Peter 1:19). And that God does step in to ‘interfere with' and judge His creation as is evidenced by the fact that He did once judge the world at the Flood.

And in both cases what God has done will unravel into what He will do when the coming (parousia) of Christ is manifested in the parousia of the Day of God, in the Day when His final judgment on the world will come about. These will issue in the new heavens and the new earth, when all that opposes God both in heaven and on earth will have been done away.

End of Note.

Note the threefold reference to ‘promise' in 2 Peter 3:4; 2 Peter 3:9 and now here. ‘Where is the promise of His Presence?' (2 Peter 3:4). ‘The Lord is not slack concerning His promise' (2 Peter 3:9). ‘According to that promise we look for new heavens and a new earth'. This is the ultimate fulfilment of what Christ has and will come to do.

And it is because we have been brought to God through the Righteous One (1 Peter 3:18), and have been sanctified by the Spirit into the obedience of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:2), so that we have become the righteous (2 Peter 2:21; 2 Peter 2:21; 1 Peter 4:18), that we will be fitted for the righteous new heavens and new earth.

So ‘in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' (2 Peter 3:4; Genesis 1:1), after the Flood God brought forth ‘the heavens that now are, and the earth' (2 Peter 3:7), and after the destruction by fire He will bring forth ‘the new heavens and the new earth' (2 Peter 3:13). So will His work be brought to completion.