Ephesians 2:15

τὴν ἔχθραν : to wit the enmity. Many (Luth., Calv., De Wette, etc.) take this to be a figure for the Mosaic Law. But the ἔχθρα is in antithesis to the εἰρήνη of Ephesians 2:14, and the specification of the Law comes in later. It is better, therefore, to take the ἔχθρα here in the abstract sense of hostile, separating feeling. But is it the enmity of Jew and Gentile to God (Chrys., Harl., etc.) or the enmity between Jew and Gentile? The statement of the μεσότοιχον as a mid-wall between τὰ ἀμφότερα decides for the latter. The argument in favour of this view is stronger still when the former view is connected with the idea that the ἔχθρα is the Mosaic Law. For the Mosaic Law could not be said to have been the cause of hostile feeling on the part of Gentiles to God. ἐν τῇ σαρκί αὐτοῦ : in His flesh. The term σάρξ is taken by some (Stier, etc.) in a sense wide enough to cover Christ's incarnation and His entire incarnate life. But, apart from other difficulties, this is inconsistent with the definite mention of His blood and His cross. The term refers, therefore, to His death, and means His crucified flesh (cf. Colossians 1:22). The great difficulty here, however, is the connection. Some attach the phrase immediately to τὴν ἔχθραν (Chrys., etc.), “the enmity which was in His flesh,” as if the idea were “the hatred in the human race generally” or “the national hatred,” the hatred in the Jewish people. But this would require τήν before ἐν σαρκί, and furnishes at best a forced meaning. Most commentators connect it with καταργήσας, supposing it to be put emphatically first. So it is taken, e.g., by Meyer, who makes ἐν σαρκί begin the new clause. The RV takes the same view, but brings the ἔχθραν under the regimen of the καταργήσας “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law”. There is much to say in support of this, especially in view of the Pauline statements in Romans 3:21; Romans 10:14; Galatians 3:13; Colossians 2:14, etc. On the other hand there is an awkwardness in bringing in the predication before the verb, and the parallelism is broken (cf. Alf.). It is best, therefore, to attach the ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ to the λύσας (Calv., Rück., Alf., etc.). The form of the sentence is better kept in this way. The appropriateness of the use of λύσας is then seen; for the verb λύειν (= subvert, dissolve), is equally applicable to the μεσότοιχον and to the ἔχθραν, the phrase λύειν ἔχθραν being common in ordinary Greek. On the other hand καταργεῖν is much less applicable to ἔχθραν. So the sense is “who in His crucified flesh (i.e., by His death on the cross) broke down the middle-wall of the partition, to wit the enmity” (i.e., the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile). τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας : having abolished (or, in that He abolished) the law of commandments (expressed) in ordinances. Further statement of the way in which Christ by His death on the cross removed the separation and the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile viz., by abrogating the dividing Law itself. The Law is now introduced, and the term ὁ νόμος is to be taken in its full sense, not the ceremonial law only, but the Mosaic Law as a whole, according to the stated use of the phrase. This Law is abolished in the sense of being rendered inoperative (as καταργεῖν means), and it is defined as the Law τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν. What is the point of the definition? The article, which is in place with the ἐντολῶν, is omitted before the δόγμασιν, as the latter makes one idea with the former and further is under the regimen of a prep. (cf. Win.-Moult., pp. 139, 149, 151, 158). The Law is one of “commandments-in-decrees”. What is in view is its character as mandatory, and consisting in a multitude of prescriptions or statutes. It enjoined, and it expressed its injunctions in so many decrees, but it did not enable. The Law was made up of ἐντολαί and these ἐντολαί expressed themselves and operated in the form of δόγματα, ordinances. The word δόγμα in the NT never means anything else than statute, decree, ordinance (cf. Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4; Acts 17:7; Colossians 2:14; in Hebrews 11:23 it is a variant for διάταγμα). Hence it cannot have any such sense here as doctrines, evangelical teaching (Theod.), evangelical precepts (Fritz.), the faith (Chrys.). Some taking the ἐν as the instrumental ἐν make it = “having abolished the law by injunctions” (Syr., Vulg., Arab., Grot., Beng., etc.). But the NT uniformly speaks of the abrogation of the condemning law as being effected by Christ's death, never by His teaching, or by evangelical precepts. Another turn is given to the sentence by taking ἐν in the sense of “in respect of,” “on the side of” (Harl.), as if the idea were that the abrogation of the Law was limited to its mandatory side, to the orders contained in it. But this would require τοῖς before the δόγμασιν; nor is it the way of the NT to speak of the Mosaic Law as done away by Christ only on one side. ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον : that He might create in Himself the two into one new man. Statement of the object of the καταργεῖν. The masc. δύο is introduced now, instead of the ἀμφότερα, with a view to the ἄνθρωπον. One man was to be made out of the two men. The κτίσῃ is better rendered create with the RV than make with the AV. A new creation is in view. For ἐν ἑαυτῷ of the TR (with [160] [161] [162] [163], etc.) αὐτῷ is to be preferred as the reading of [164] [165] [166] [167], etc. (LTTrRV); WH gives αὑτῷ. In either case the sense is “in Himself”; not “by it” (Grot.) as if the reference were to Christ's doctrine, nor “through Himself” as if it were διʼ αὐτοῦ. The new creation and the new union have their ground and principle in Christ. What was contemplated, too, was not simply the making of one man (ἕνα ἄνθρωπον) where formerly there were two, but the making of one new (καινὸν) man. The result was not that, though the separation between them was removed, the Jew still remained Jew and the Gentile still Gentile. It was something new, the old distinctions between Jew and Gentile being lost in a third order of “man” the Christian man. ποιῶν εἰρήνην : making peace. The εἰρήνη is still peace between the estranged Jew and Gentile, and the ποιῶν (pres., not aor.) belongs to the object expressed by the ἵνα. In carrying out that purpose He was to make peace the one with the other.

[160] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[161] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.

[162] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

[163] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[164] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[165] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[166] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[167] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.