{"id":29182,"date":"2022-09-24T13:10:07","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:10:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-215\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T13:10:07","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:10:07","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-215","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-ephesians-215\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 2:15"},"content":{"rendered":"

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

15<\/strong>. having abolished<\/em>, &c.] Lit., The enmity, in His flesh, the law of the commandments in decrees, annulling<\/strong>. In this difficult verse our best guide is the Ep. to the Romans, esp. Rom 7:1-6<\/span>, Rom 8:2-3<\/span>, passages very possibly in mind when this was written. See also the closely parallel passage, Col 1:21-22<\/span>. With these in view we may interpret this to teach that the Lord, by His death (Col 1:22<\/span>), “in the likeness of the flesh of sin” (Rom 8:3<\/span>), broke (“annulled”) for all believers their condemning relations with the Law (in the highest sense of the word Law), as a preceptive code, prescribing but not enabling, a code imposing absolute decrees as the absolute condition of acceptance; and thereby, ipso facto<\/em>, brought to an end the Mosaic ordinances with their exclusions, which existed mainly to prefigure this Work, and to enforce the fact of its necessity, and incidentally to “fence in” the race through whom the Messiah, as the Worker, was to come.<\/p>\n

The passage thus teaches that Christ has “annulled” the old antipathy between Jew and Gentile, by what He did in dying. But it cannot teach this without teaching also the deep underlying truth that He did it by effecting relations of acceptance and peace between Man and God; not putting aside the Preceptive Law as a thing obsolete, but so “going behind it” in his Atonement as to put believing man in a different relation to it, and so, and only so, removing the external hedges of privilege and exclusion. Comparing Col 1:21-22<\/span>, it is plain that this greater reconciliation lies, in the Apostle’s thought, behind the lesser, though the lesser is more immediately in point.<\/p>\n

“ The commandments in decrees<\/em> ” are, doubtless, in part, the “touch not, taste not,” of ceremonial restrictions; but not these only. They are the whole system of positive edict, moral as well as ceremonial, taken apart from enabling motive, and viewed as the conditions of peace with God<\/em>.<\/p>\n

“ The enmity, even the law<\/em> &c.,” may be fairly paraphrased, “the enmity, expressed and emphasized (under the circumstances of the Fall) by the Law, by its existence and claims as preceptive Law.”<\/p>\n

for to make<\/em> ] In order to create<\/strong>. “It is a new creation,” 2Co 5:17<\/span>; where the reference is to the regenerate individual, as here to the community of the regenerate.<\/p>\n

in himself<\/em> ] Perhaps, in Him<\/strong>. But the reference is in either case to Christ, the subject of the whole context. Cp. Col 1:16<\/span>, where “ In Him were created<\/em> ” is used of the First Creation. In both Creations, Old and New, Christ is the Cause and Bond of being. The New Man, like the Universe, exists and consists by vital union with Him.<\/p>\n

one new man<\/em> ] The phrase “new man” occurs only here and Eph 4:24<\/span>, where see note. Here the great organism of the saints, Jew and Gentile, is viewed as, so to speak, one Person; a view closely akin to that of the “One Body” of Christ; 1 Corinthians 12<\/span>, &c. “We are all in God’s sight but one in Christ, as we are all one in Adam” (Alford).<\/p>\n

The Old Race is solidaire<\/em> with its Head, Adam, by solidarity of Nature in itself and of standing towards God. So the New Race is solidaire<\/em> with its Head, Christ, in Whom, and at once, it both receives the standing of justified acceptance for His Merits, and derives “Divine Nature” by His Spirit. And solidarity with the Head seals the mutual solidarity of the members. As the Old Race is not only men, but Man, so the New Race is not only new men, but New Man.<\/p>\n

so making peace<\/em> ] Here, as just above, the immediate thought is of the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile in Christ, but behind it lies the thought of that greater reconciliation which is expressed fully Eph 2:18<\/span>; “access through Christ, for both, in one Spirit unto the Father;” and just below.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Having abolished – <\/B>Having brought to naught, or put an end to it – <\/SPAN><\/span> katargesas.<\/P>

In his flesh – <\/B>By the sacrifice of his body on the cross. It was not by instruction merely; it was not by communicating the knowledge of God; it was not as a teacher; it was not by the mere exertion of power; it was by his flesh – his human nature – and this can mean only that he did it by his sacrifice of himself. It is such language as is appropriate to the doctrine of the atonement – not indeed teaching it directly – but still such as one would use who believed that doctrine, and such as no other one would employ. Who would now say of a moral teacher that he accomplished an important result by his flesh? Who would say of a man that was instrumental in reconciling his contending neighbors, that he did it by his flesh? Who would say of Dr. Priestley that he established Unitarianism in his flesh? No man would have ever used this language who did not believe that Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin.<\/P>

The enmity – <\/B>Between the Jew and the Gentile. Tyndale renders this, the cause of hatred, that is to say, the law of commandments contained in the law written. This is expressive of the true sense. The idea is, that the ceremonial law of the Jews, on which they so much prided themselves, was the cause of the hostility existing between them. That made them different people, and laid the foundation for the alienation which existed between them. They had different laws; different institutions; a different religion. The Jews looked upon themselves as the favorites of heaven, and as in possession of the knowledge of the only way of salvation; the Gentiles regarded their laws with contempt, and looked upon the unique institutions with scorn. When Christ came and abolished by his death their special ceremonial laws, of course the cause of this alienation ceased.<\/P>

Even the law of commandments – <\/B>The law of positive commandments. This does not refer to the moral law, which was not the cause of the alienation, and which was not abolished by the death of Christ, but to the laws commanding sacrifices, festivals, fasts, etc., which constituted the uniqueness of the Jewish system. These were the occasion of the enmity between the Jews and the Gentiles, and these were abolished by the great sacrifice which the Redeemer made; and of course when that was made, the purpose for which these laws were instituted was accomplished, and they ceased to be of value and to be binding.<\/P>

Contained in ordinances – <\/B>In the Mosaic commandments. The word ordinance means, decree, edict, law; Luk 2:1<\/span>; Act 16:4<\/span>; Act 17:7<\/span>; Col 2:14<\/span>.<\/P>

For to make in himself – <\/B>By virtue of his death, or under him as the head.<\/P>

Of twain one new man – <\/B>Of the two – Jews and Gentiles – one new spiritual person; that they might be united. The idea is, that as two persons who had been at enmity, might become reconciled and be one in aim and pursuit, so it was in the effect of the work of Christ on the Jews and Gentiles. When they were converted they would be united and harmonious.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15<\/span><\/p>\n

Having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself of twain one new man.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Christ abolishing the enmity<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this difficult passage it will be well first to examine the particular expressions.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>The word rendered to abolish is the word often used by St. Paul for to supersede by something better than itself–translated to make void, in Rom 3:31<\/span>; to bring to nought, in 1Co 1:28<\/span>, and (in the passive) to fail, to vanish away, to be done away, in 1Co 13:8-10<\/span>. Now, of the relation of Christ to the Law, St. Paul says, in Rom 3:31<\/span>, Do we make void the Law? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. The Law, therefore, is abolished as a law in ordinances–that is, in the letter–and is established in the spirit.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>The law of commandments in ordinances. The word here rendered ordinance (dogma<\/em>)<\/p>\n

<\/em>properly means a decree. It is used only in this sense in the New Testament (see Luk 2:1<\/span>; Act 16:4<\/span>; Act 17:7<\/span>; Heb 11:23<\/span>); and it signifies expressly a law imposed and accepted, not for its intrinsic righteousness, but on authority; or, as Butler expresses it (Anal., <\/em>Part 2, chap. 1)<\/p>\n

, not a moral, but a positive law. In Col 2:14<\/span> (the parallel passage) the word is connected with a handwriting, that is, a legal bond; and the Colossians are reproved for subjecting themselves to ordinances, which are but a shadow of things to come; while the body, the true substance, is Christ (see verses 16, 17, 20, 21).<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Hence the whole expression describes explicitly what St. Paul always implies in his proper and distinctive use of the word law. It signifies the will of God, as expressed in formal commandments, and enforced by penalties on disobedience. The general idea, therefore, of the passage is simply that which is so often brought out in the earlier Epistles (see Rom 3:21-31<\/span>; Rom 7:1-4<\/span>; Rom 8:1-4<\/span>; Gal 2:15-21<\/span>, et al.<\/em>), <\/em>but which (as the Colossian Epistle more plainly shows) now needed to be enforced under a somewhat different form–viz., that Christ, the end of the law, had superseded it by the free covenant of the Spirit; and that He has done this for us in His flesh, especially by His death and resurrection.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>But in what sense is thin Law called the enmity, which (see verse 16) was slain on the cross? Probably in the double sense, which runs through the passage: first, as an enmity, a cause of separation and hostility, between the Gentiles and those Jews whom they called the enemies of the human race; next, as an enmity, a cause of alienation and condemnation, between man and God–the commandment which was ordained to life, being found to be unto death through the rebellion and sin of man. The former sense seems to be the leading sense here, where the idea is of making both one; the latter in the next verse, which speaks of reconciling both to God, all the partitions are broken down, that all alike may have access to the Father. Compare Col 1:21<\/span>, You, who were enemies in your mind, He hath reconciled; and Heb 10:19<\/span>, Having confidence to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated to us, through the veil, that is to say His flesh. (A. Barry, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Abolition of the ceremonial, but not of the moral, law<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>As Gods people, in covenant with Him, ought to be highly incensed against and averse from any voluntary entire fellowship with those who neglect and contemn the ordinances of worship prescribed by God in His Word; so those who are without the Church, yea, and all unregenerate men, do look upon the ordinances of Gods worship as base, ridiculous, and contemptible, and carry a kind of hatred and disdain to all such as make conscience of them: for so the ancient worship, prescribed in the ceremonial law, was the occasion of hatred and enmity betwixt the Gentile, who contemned it, and the Jew, who made conscience of it. And, therefore, is here called the enmity; having abolished the enmity.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>As the moral law, contained in the Ten Commandments, was no part of that mid-wall of partition between Jew and Gentile, seeing some of the drafts and lineaments of that law are upon the hearts of all by nature (Rom 2:15<\/span>); so there was no necessity to abrogate this law at Christs death, in order to the uniting of Jew and Gentile, neither was it at all abolished; for the law abolished was the law, not simply, but the law of commandments, and these not all, but such commandments as were contained in ordinances, to wit, the ceremonial law; even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, saith he.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>As God only hath power and liberty to prescribe what manner of worship He will be served by, so He did once give a most observable evidence of this His power and liberty, by changing that external way of worship which was prescribed by Himself, under the Old Testament, unto another under the New; although the internals of His worship, to wit, the graces of faith, love, hope, joy in God, do remain the same in both (Mat 22:37<\/span>; Mat 22:39<\/span>); for He did abolish the law of commandments contained in ordinances, even all the ancient worship consisting in rites and ceremonies, sensibly and fleshly observations, which God did then prescribe, not as simply delighted in them, but as accommodating Himself to the childish condition of the Church in those times; and hath now appointed a more spiritual way of worship, as more suitable to the grown age of the Church (Joh 4:21<\/span>; Joh 4:23<\/span>).<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>It was Christs sufferings and death which put an end to the law of ceremonies, and made the binding power thereof to cease; for seeing His sufferings were the body and substance of all those shadows, they neither did nor could evanish until Christ had suffered, but then they did; it being impossible that a shadow, and the body, whereof it is a shadow, can consist in one and the same place; Having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances. (James Fergusson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

One new man in Christ<\/strong><\/p>\n

In this clause and the following verse the two senses, hitherto united, are now distinguished from each other. Here we have the former sense simply. In the new man there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ is all and in all Col 3:12<\/span>). This phrase, the new man (on which see Eph 4:24<\/span>; Col 2:10<\/span>), is peculiar to these Epistles; corresponding, however, to the new creature of 2Co 5:17<\/span>; Gal 6:15<\/span>; and the newness of life and spirit of Rom 6:4<\/span>; Rom 7:6<\/span>. Christ Himself is the second man, the Lord from Heaven (1Co 15:47<\/span>). As we have borne the image of the first man, of the earth, earthy, and so in Adam die, we now bear the image of the heavenly, and not only shall be made alive, but already have our life hid with Christ in God (Col 3:3<\/span>). He is at once the seed of the woman and the seed of Abraham; in Him, therefore, Jew and Gentile meet in a common humanity. Just in proportion to spirituality or newness of life is the sense of unity, which makes all brethren. Hence the new creation makes peace–here probably peace between Jew and Gentile, rather than peace with God, which belongs to the next verse. (A. Barry, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Union in the Church<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>Union in the Church of Christ is a thing which ought to be prized by us highly, and sought after earnestly; and so much, as there is nothing in our power which we ought not to bestow upon it, and dispense with for the acquiring and maintaining of it; for so much was it prized by Christ, that He gave His own life to procure it, and did beat down all His own ordinances which stood in the way of it; He even abolished in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make of twain one new man.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>There are no divisions more hardly curable, than those which are about the religion and worship of God, in so far as they engage not only the credit, but also the consciences of the divided parties; hence one party, so engaged, doth pursue what they maintain, as that wherein Gods honour and their own salvation are most nearly concerned, and doth look upon the other party as an adversary, in so far at least, to both of those; for the apostle, speaking of Christs uniting the Jew and Gentile in one Church and religion, maketh use of a word which showeth this was a task of no small difficulty, even such, that no less than creating power was required to it, while He saith, for to make in Himself (the word signifieth to create in Himself) of twain one new man.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>So strict and near is that conjunction and union which is especially among true believers in the Church, that all of them, how far soever dispersed through the world, do yet make up but one man and one body; as being all, whatever be their other differences, most strictly united, as members under one head, Christ (1Co 12:27<\/span>), and animated, as to the inward man, by the same Spirit of God residing and acting in them (Rom 8:9<\/span>); for the apostle showeth that all of them, whether Jew or Gentile, were made, not only one people, one nation, one family, but one new man; For to make of twain one new man.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>As the essential unity of the invisible Church, without which the Church could not be a Church, doth of necessity depend upon and flow from that union which every particular member hath with Christ, as head, seeing the grace of love (whereby they are knit one to another (Col 3:14<\/span>) doth flow from faith (Gal 5:6<\/span>), whereby they are united to Him (Eph 3:17<\/span>), so the more our union with Christ is improved unto the keeping of constant communion and fellowship with Him, the more will be attained unto of harmonious walking among ourselves, suitable unto that essential union which is in the Church of Christ; for the apostle maketh the conjunction of Jews and Gentiles in one Church to depend upon Christs uniting of them to Himself; For to make in Himself of twain one new man, saith He.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>The peace which ought to be, and which Christ calleth for in His Church, is not a simple cessation from open strife, which may take place even when there remaineth a root of bitterness in peoples spirit (Psa 55:21<\/span>); but it is such an harmonious walking together in all things as floweth from the nearest conjunction of hearts, and the total removal of all former bitterness of spirits; for the peace which Christ did make betwixt Jew and Gentile did follow upon His abolishing the enmity, and making them one man; so making peace, saith he. (James Fergusson.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The use of the law<\/strong><\/p>\n

The wife of a drunkard once found her husband in a filthy condition, with torn clothes, matted hair, bruised face, asleep in the kitchen, having come home from a drunken revel. She sent for a photographer, and had a portrait of him taken in all his wretched appearance, and placed it on the mantel beside another portrait taken at the time of his marriage, which showed him handsome and well dressed, as he had been in other days. When he became sober he saw the two pictures, and awakened to a consciousness of his condition, from which he arose to a better life. Now, the office of the law is not to save men, but to show them their true state as compared with the Divine standard. It is like a glass, in which one sooth what manner of man he is.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 15. Having abolished in his flesh<\/B><\/I>] By his incarnation<\/I> and death<\/I> he not only made an atonement for sin, but he appointed the doctrine of reconciliation<\/I> to God, and of love to each other<\/I>, to be preached in all nations; and thus glory was brought to God in the highest, and on earth, peace and good will were diffused among men.<\/P>

<\/P>

The enmity<\/I> of which the apostle speaks was reciprocal among the Jews<\/I> and Gentiles<\/I>. The former<\/I> detested the Gentiles<\/I>, and could hardly allow them the denomination of men<\/I>; the latter<\/I> had the Jews<\/I> in the most sovereign contempt, because of the peculiarity of their religious rites and ceremonies, which were different from those of all the other nations of the earth.<\/P>

<\/P>

The law of commandments<\/B><\/I>] Contained in, or rather concerning<\/I>, ordinances<\/I>; which law was made merely for the purpose of keeping the Jews a distinct<\/I> people, and pointing out the Son of God till he should come. When, therefore, the end<\/I> of its institution was answered, it was no longer necessary<\/I>; and Christ by his death abolished it.<\/P>

<\/P>

To make in himself<\/B><\/I>] To make one Church out of both people, which should be considered the body<\/I> of which Jesus Christ is the head<\/I>. Thus he makes one new man<\/I>-one new Church; and thus he makes<\/I> and establishes peace<\/I>. I think the apostle still alludes to the peace-offering<\/I>, shalom, among the Jews. They have a saying, Sephra<\/I>, fol. 121: Whosoever offers a peace-offering sacrifice,<\/I> brings peace to the world<\/I>. Such a peace-offering was the death of Christ, and by it peace<\/I> is restored to the earth.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Having abolished; <\/B>abrogated, taken away the power of binding men. <\/P>

In his flesh; <\/B>not the flesh of sacrificed beasts but his own flesh: before he mentioned his blood, and now his flesh, to imply the whole sacrifice of Christ, comprehending his flesh as well as blood. The ceremonies had their accomplishment in Christ, and so their abolishment by him. <\/P>

The enmity; <\/B>by a metonymy he so calls the ceremonies, which were the cause and the sign of enmity between Jew and Gentile: the Jews hated the Gentiles as uncircumcised, and the Gentiles despised the Jews for being circumcised. <\/P>

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances:<\/B> either, by <\/P>

the law of commandments, <\/B>the apostle means the law of ceremonial rites, and by the word which we render <\/P>

ordinances, <\/B>he means doctrine, and then (the word contained<\/I> not being in the Greek) the sense is, that Christ, by his doctrine or commandments, abolished those ceremonial rites: the word commandments<\/I> seems thus to be used, Deu 16:12<\/span>; 1Ki 2:3<\/span>; Eze 18:21<\/span>. Or else (which yet comes to the same) the word rendered ordinances<\/I> signifies such ordinances as depended upon the sole will of the lawgiver; and is, Col 2:14<\/span>, taken for ceremonial ones, and so is to be taken here. This the apostle seems to add, to show what part of the law was abrogated by Christ, viz. nothing of the moral law, but only the ceremonial. <\/P>

For to make, <\/B>or create, or form, in opposition to abolish. <\/P>

In himself; <\/B>by union with himself, as the Head, in which the several members agree. <\/P>

Of twain; <\/B>two bodies, or two people, Jews and Gentiles. <\/P>

One new man; <\/B>i.e. new body, or new (viz. Christian) people. As the body of a commonwealth is one civil person, so the body of the church is in a like sense one person. <\/P>

So making peace, <\/B>between Jew and Gentile, having taken away those ceremonial laws, which were the cause of the difference between them. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

15.<\/B> Rather, make “enmity”an apposition to “the middle wall of partition”; “Hathbroken down the middle wall of partition (not merely as EnglishVersion,<\/I> ‘between us,<\/I>‘ but also between all men andGod<\/I>), to wit, the enmity (Ro8:7<\/span>) by His flesh” (compare Eph 2:16<\/span>;Rom 8:3<\/span>). <\/P>

the law of commandments<\/B>contained<\/B><\/I> in<\/B>Greek,<\/I> “the lawof the commandments (consisting) in ordinances.” This law was”the partition” or “fence,” which embodied theexpression of the “enmity” (the “wrath” of Godagainst our sin, and our enmity to Him, Eph2:3<\/span>) (Rom 4:15<\/span>; Rom 5:20<\/span>;Rom 7:10<\/span>; Rom 7:11<\/span>;Rom 8:7<\/span>). Christ has in, or by,His crucified flesh, abolished it, so far as its condemning andenmity-creating power is concerned (Col2:14<\/span>), substituting for it the law of love, which is theeverlasting spirit of the law, and which flows from the realizationin the soul of His love in His death for us. Translate what follows,”that He might make the two (Jews and Gentiles) into one newman.” Not that He might merely reconcile the two to each other,but incorporate the two, reconciled in Him to God, into one new man;the old man to which both belonged, the enemy of God, having beenslain in His flesh on the cross. Observe, too, ONE new man; we areall in God’s sight but one in Christ, as we are but one in Adam[ALFORD]. <\/P>

making peace<\/B>primarilybetween all and God, secondarily between Jews and Gentiles; He being”our peace.” This “peace-making” precedes itspublication (Eph 2:17<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity<\/strong>,…. The ceremonial law, as appears by what follows,<\/p>\n

even the law of commandments contained in ordinances<\/strong>; which consisted of many precepts, and carnal ordinances; and is so called because it was an indication of God’s hatred of sin, by requiring sacrifice for it; and because it was an occasion of stirring up the enmity of the natural man, it being a burden and a weariness to the flesh, by reason of its many and troublesome rites; and because it was the cause of enmity between Jew and Gentile: the Jews say g, that Sinai, the mount on which the law was given, signifies “hatred”; and that it is so called because from it descended , “hatred” or “enmity” to the nations of the world: now this Christ abolished, “in his flesh”, or by it; not by his incarnation, but by the sacrifice of his flesh, or human nature, and that as in union with his divine nature; but not until he had fulfilled it in himself, which was one end of his coming into the world; and then he abolished it, so as that it ought not to be, and so as that it is not, and of no use and service; and that because it was faulty and deficient, weak and unprofitable, as well as intolerable; and because there was a change in the priesthood; and because it was contrary to a spirit of liberty, the great blessing of the Gospel; and that there might be a reconciliation and a coalition between Jew and Gentile, as follows:<\/p>\n

for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace<\/strong>; which explains what is meant before by making both one; and expresses the strictness of the union between Jew and Gentile, they became as one man; and points at the manner in which they became so strictly united; and that is by being made new men, or new creatures, by having a work of grace upon their souls, and so baptized into one body, and made to drink of one and the same Spirit; the foundation of which union is in himself; for Jew and Gentile, male and female, bond and free, are all one in Christ Jesus; he is the cornerstone in which they all meet, and the head to which the whole body is joined.<\/p>\n

g T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 89. 1. Shemot Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 92. 4.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Having abolished <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to make null and void.<\/P>

The enmity <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). But it is very doubtful if <\/SPAN><\/span> (old word from <\/SPAN><\/span>, hostile, Lu 23:12<\/span>) is the object of <\/SPAN><\/span>. It looks as if it is in apposition with to <\/SPAN><\/span> and so the further object of <\/SPAN><\/span>. The enmity between Jew and Gentile was the middle wall of partition. And then it must be decided whether “in his flesh” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) should be taken with <\/SPAN><\/span> and refer especially to the Cross (Col 1:22<\/span>) or be taken with <\/SPAN><\/span>. Either makes sense, but better sense with <\/SPAN><\/span>. Certainly “the law of commandments in ordinances ( <\/SPAN><\/span>) is governed by <\/SPAN><\/span>.<\/P>

That he might create <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Final clause with first aorist active subjunctive of <\/SPAN><\/span>.<\/P>

The twain <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The two men (masculine here, neuter in verse 14<\/span>), Jew and Gentile.<\/P>

One new man <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Into one fresh man (Col 3:9-11<\/span>) “in himself” ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Thus alone is it possible.<\/P>

Making peace <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Thus alone can it be done. Christ is the peace-maker between men, nations, races, classes. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Having abolished in His flesh the enmity [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The enmity immediately follows the middle wall of partition, and should be rendered in apposition with and as defining it, and as dependent on brake down, not on abolished : the middle wall which was the enmity. It is used abstractly, as peace in ver. 14. The enmity was the result and working of the law regarded as a separative system; as it separated Jew from Gentile, and both from God. See Rom 3:20<\/span>; Rom 4:15<\/span>; Rom 5:20<\/span>; Rom 7:7 – 11<\/span>. For abolished, see on cumbereth, Luk 13:7<\/span>, and make without effect, Rom 3:3<\/span>. <\/P>

The law of commandments contained in ordinances [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The law, etc., depends in construction on having abolished, and is not in apposition with the enmity, as A. V. The middle wall of partition, the enmity, was dissolved by the abolition of the law of commandments. Construe in His flesh with having abolished. Law is general, and its contents are defined by commandments, special injunctions, which injunctions in turn were formulated in definite decrees. Render the entire passage : brake down the middle – wall of partition, even the enmity, by abolishing in His flesh the law of commandments contained in ordinances. <\/P>

For to make [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Rev., that He might create. See on created, ver. <\/P>

Eph 2:1<\/span>0The work was to be a new creation on a new foundation. <\/P>

In Himself. As the medium of reconciliation. <\/P>

Of the twain one new man [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. The Greek is livelier : make the two into one new man. Kainon new, emphasizes the new quality; not newness in point of time. See on Mt 26:29<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity”<\/strong> (ten echthan en te sarki autou) “The enmity (having abolished) in the flesh.” The term “enmity” or hostility of Jews toward Gentiles and Gentiles toward Jews existed, not only because of the Mosaic law of worship, but also because of their enmity against God, Rom 8:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2) “Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances”<\/strong> (ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin katargesas)” (Which is) the law of the commandments in decrees having abolished.” Enmity of Jews and Gentiles, neither right with God by nature, expressed that eternity toward each other through Jewish pride of heart toward the law of -commandments and through Gentile resentment of the law because of their standing under it, Rom 3:9<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “For to make in himself of twain one new man”<\/strong> (hina tous duo ktise en auto eis hena kainon anthropon) “in order that He might create (form) the two in Himself into one new man.” Though all men have been made new creatures in Christ Jesus alike, when saved by faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish law program of distinction of position and service in worship was an occasion of breach expressing their hostility to God’s law through enmity toward each other, as Jews and Gentiles. These two in Christ, as new creatures, have equality in worship and service through the church body and program of worship and work, Act 10:43<\/span>; Mat 20:25-26<\/span>.<\/p>\n

4) “So making peace”<\/strong> (poion eirenen) “Progressively making peace.” That in the new nature, new spiritual birth in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Gentile; and that positions of worship ‘and service in His new body, the church, make no distinction of race, progressively makes for peace and harmony in the church’s activities, Eph 4:1-5<\/span>. Through our Lord’s death on the cross, in the flesh, He not only provided reconciliation for all kinds of sinner to God, but also purchased the church body with His blood, providing a worship body institution void of racial distinction in positions of worship and service, Col 1:20-21<\/span>; 1Pe 2:24<\/span>; Act 20:28<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity. The meaning of Paul’s words is now clear. The middle wall of partition hindered Christ from forming Jews and Gentiles into one body, and therefore the wall has been broken down. The reason why it is broken down is now added — to abolish the enmity, by the flesh of Christ. The Son of God, by assuming a nature common to all, has formed in his own body a perfect unity. <\/p>\n

Even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. What had been metaphorically understood by the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through Christ. What were circumcision, sacrifices, washings, and abstaining from certain kinds of food, but symbols of sanctification, reminding the Jews that their lot was different from that of other nations; just as the white and the red cross distinguish the French of the present day from the inhabitants of Burgundy. Paul declares not only that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews admitted to the fellowship of grace, so that they no longer differ from each other, but that the mark of difference has been taken away; for ceremonies have been abolished. If two contending nations were brought under the dominion of one prince, he would not only desire that they should live in harmony, but would remove the badges and marks of their former enmity. When an obligation is discharged, the handwriting is destroyed, — a metaphor which Paul employs on this very subject in another Epistle. (128) (Col 2:14<\/span>.) <\/p>\n

Some interpreters, (129) — though, in my opinion, erroneously, — connect the words, in ordinances, with abolished, making the ordinances to be the act of abolishing the ceremonies. This is Paul’s ordinary phrase for describing the ceremonial law, in which the Lord not only enjoined upon the Jews a simple rule of life, but also bound them by various statutes. It is evident, too, that Paul is here treating exclusively of the ceremonial law; for the moral law is not a wall of partition separating us from the Jews, but lays down instructions in which the Jews were not less deeply concerned than ourselves. This passage affords the means of refuting an erroneous view held by some, that circumcision and all the ancient rites, though they are not binding on the Gentiles, are in force at the present day upon the Jews. On this principle there would still be a middle wall of partition between us, which is proved to be false. <\/p>\n

That he might make in himself. When the apostle says, in himself, he turns away the Ephesians from viewing the diversity of men, and bids them look for unity nowhere but in Christ. To whatever extent the two might differ in their former condition, in Christ they are become one man. But he emphatically adds, one new man, intimating (what he explains at greater length on another occasion) that <\/p>\n

“<\/p>\n

neither circumcision, nor uncircumcision, availeth anything,” (Gal 6:15<\/span>,) <\/p>\n

but that “a new creature” holds the first and the last place. The principle which cements them is spiritual regeneration. If then we are all renewed by Christ, let the Jews no longer congratulate themselves on their ancient condition, but let them be ready to admit that, both in themselves and in others, Christ is all. <\/p>\n

(128) ᾿Εν δόγμασι — “ Δόγμα is equivalent to the participial form — τὸ δεδογμένον, and has its apparent origin in the common phrases which prefaced a proclamation or statute— ἔδοξε τῷ λαῷ καὶ τὣ βουλὣ. In the New Testament it signifies decree, and is applied (Luk 2:1<\/span>) to the edict of Caesar, and in Act 17:7<\/span>, it occurs with a similar reference. But not only does it signify imperial statutes; it is also the name given to the decrees of the ecclesiastical council in Jerusalem. (Act 16:4<\/span>.) It is found, too, in the parallel passage in Col 2:14<\/span>. In the Septuagint its meaning is the same; and in the sense first quoted, that of royal mandate, it is frequently used in the book of Daniel.” — Eadie. <\/p>\n

(129) Theodoret, Theophylact, and others. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(15) The connection in the original is doubtful. The words the enmity in His flesh may be in apposition to the wall of partition in the previous verse; or, as in our version, to the law of commandments. The general sense, however, is but little affected in either case.<\/p>\n

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.<\/strong>In this difficult passage it will be well first to examine the particular expressions. (1) The word rendered to abolish is the word often used by St. Paul for to supersede by something better than itselftranslated to make void, in Rom. 3:31<\/span>; to bring to nought, in 1Co. 1:28<\/span>, and (in the passive) to fail, to vanish away, to be done away, in 1Co. 13:8-10<\/span>. Now, of the relation of Christ to the Law, St. Paul says, in Rom. 3:31<\/span>, Do we make void the Law? God forbid! Yea, we establish the Law. The Law, therefore, is abolished as a law in ordinancesthat is, in the letterand is established in the spirit. (2) The law of commandments in ordinances. The word here rendered ordinance (dogma<\/em>) properly means a decree. It is used only in this sense in the New Testament (see Luk. 2:1<\/span>; Act. 16:4<\/span>; Act. 17:7<\/span>; Heb. 11:23<\/span>); and it signifies expressly a law imposed and accepted, not for its intrinsic righteousness, but on authority; or, as Butler expresses it (Anal., <\/em>Part ii., Ephesians 1<\/span>), not a moral, but a positive law. In Col. 2:14<\/span> (the parallel passage) the word is connected with a handwriting that is a legal bond; and the Colossians are reproved for subjecting themselves to ordinances, which are but a shadow of things to come; while the body, the true substance, is Christ. (See Eph. 2:16-17<\/span>; Eph. 2:20-21<\/span>.) (3) Hence the whole expression describes explicitly what St. Paul always implies in his proper and distinctive use of the word law. It signifies the will of God, as expressed in formal commandments, and enforced by penalties on disobedience. The general idea, therefore, of the passage is simply that which is so often brought out in the earlier Epistles (see Rom. 3:21-31<\/span>; Rom. 7:1-4<\/span>; Rom. 8:1-4<\/span>; Gal. 2:15-21<\/span>, et al.<\/em>), <\/em>but which (as the Colossian Epistle more plainly shows) now needed to be enforced under a somewhat different formviz., that Christ, the end of the law, has superseded it by the free covenant of the Spirit; and that He has done this for us in His flesh, especially by His death and resurrection. (4) But in what sense is this Law called the enmity, which (see Eph. 2:16<\/span>) was slain on the Cross? Probably in the double sense, which runs through the passage: first, as an enmity, a cause of separation and hostility, between the Gentiles and those Jews whom they called the enemies of the human race; next, as an enmity a cause of alienation and condemnation, between man and Godthe commandment which was ordained to life, being found to be unto death through the rebellion and sin of man. The former sense seems to be the leading sense here, where the idea is of making both one; the latter in the next verse, which speaks of reconciling both to God, all the partitions are broken down, that all alike may have access to the Father. Comp. Col. 1:21<\/span>, You, who were enemies in your mind, He hath reconciled; and Heb. 10:19<\/span>, Having confidence to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated to us, through the veil, that is to say His flesh.<\/em><\/p>\n

For to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.<\/strong>In this clause and the following verse the two senses, hitherto united, are now distinguished from each other. Here we have the former sense simply. In the new man there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but Christ is all and in all (Col. 3:12<\/span>). This phrase, the new man (on which see Eph. 4:24<\/span>, Col. 3:10<\/span>), is peculiar to these Epistles; corresponding, however, to the new creature of 2Co. 5:17<\/span>, Gal. 6:15<\/span>; and the newness of life and spirit of Rom. 6:4<\/span>; Rom. 7:6<\/span>. Christ Himself is the second man, the Lord from Heaven (1Co. 15:47<\/span>). As we have borne the image of the first man, of the earth, earthy, and so in Adam die, we now bear the image of the heavenly, and not only shall be made alive, but already have our life hid with Christ in God (Col. 3:3<\/span>). He is at once the seed of the woman and the seed of Abraham; in Him, therefore, Jew and Gentile meet in a common humanity. Just in proportion to spirituality or newness of life is the sense of unity, which makes all brethren. Hence the new creation makes peacehere probably peace between Jew and Gentile, rather than peace with God, which belongs to the next verse.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

15<\/strong>. <\/strong> In his <\/strong> sacrificial flesh <\/strong> on the cross. The <\/strong> triangular enmity <\/strong> above named. The <\/strong> Mosaic ritual law<\/strong>, consisting of a system of commandments<\/strong>, and comprised in a body of ordinances <\/strong> or statutory regulations. <\/p>\n

In himself<\/strong> As if embodying the twain <\/strong> into one new man<\/strong> his own mystical person. <\/p>\n

Peace<\/strong> Leading to the threefold peace <\/strong> by which Jew and Gentile, being one in Christ, are one with God, as next verse.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Having abolishedthe enmity,<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> It was the ritual law of the Jews which kept them and the Gentiles at an irreconcileable distance, so that they could come to no terms of a fair correspondence: the force whereof was so great, that even after Christ was come, and had put an end to the obligation of that law, yet it was almost impossible to bring them together; and this was that which in the beginning most obstructed the progress of the gospel, and disturbed the Gentile converts. The Apostle says, that Christ abolished that part of the law which consisted in positive commands and ordinances, that so he might make <\/em>or frame the two, <\/em>namely, Jews and Gentiles, into one new <\/em>society or body of God’s people, in a new constitution under himself,so making peace <\/em>between them. This appearing to be the Apostle’s meaning, it may not he amiss to look into the reason why he expresses it in this more figurative manner, To make in himself, of twain, one new man; <\/em>which being more suitable to the ideas that he had, was in fewer words more lively and express to his purpose. He always has the Lord Jesus Christ in his mind, as the head <\/em>of the church, <\/em>which was his body; <\/em>from and by whom alone, by being united to him, the whole body, and every member of it, received life, vigour, and strength, and all the benefits of that state: which admirably well shews that whoever were united to the head, <\/em>must needs be united to each other; and also that all the privileges and advantages they enjoyed were wholly owing to their union with and adherence to him, their head; which were the two things that he was here inculcating on the convert Gentiles of Ephesus, to shew them that now, under the gospel, men became the people of God, merely by living faith in Jesus Christ, and having him for their head, and not at all by keeping the ritual law of Moses, which Christ had abolished, and so had made a way for the Jews and Gentiles to become one in him; since now living faith in him alone united them into one body under that head, without the observance of the law, which is the meaning of so making peace. <\/em>This note may lead ordinary readers into an understanding of St. Paul’s style, and, by making them observe the reason, <\/em>give them an easier entrance into the meaning, <\/em>of his figurative expressions. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15<\/span> . ] This, still included in dependence upon , is now the broken down by Christ: (namely) the enmity<\/em> . It is, after the example of Theodoret (comp. in Chrysostom), understood by the majority (including Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Clarius, Grotius, Calovius, Morus, Rosenmller, Flatt, Meier, Holzhausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette) of the Mosaic law<\/em> as the cause of the enmity<\/em> between Jew and Gentile, in which case the moral law is by some included, by others excluded. But, in accordance with Eph 2:14<\/span> , the reader is led to nothing else than the opposite of , i.e.<\/em> to the abstract enmity<\/em> ; and in the sequel, indeed, the abolition of the law is very definitely distinguished from the destruction of the enmity (as means from end). Hence the only mode of taking it, in harmony with the word itself and with the context, is: the enmity which existed between Jews and Gentiles<\/em> , comp. Eph 2:16<\/span> . So Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, and others, including Rckert and Bleek; while Hofmann turns the notion of into the mere of Eph 2:12<\/span> , and, referring it to the estrangement on the part of the Gentiles towards the theocracy hated by them, removes the distinctive mark of reciprocalness<\/em> demanded by the context. Quite erroneously, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and lately Harless, hold that the enmity of the Jews and Gentiles towards God<\/em> is meant. In accordance with the context, Eph 2:14<\/span> , the can, in fact, only be one separating the Jews and Gentiles from each other<\/em> , and not something which separates both from God<\/em> ; and how mistaken is such a view also on account of what follows! for the Mosaic law might be conceived of as producing enmity towards God so far doubtless as the Jews<\/em> are concerned (1Co 15:56<\/span> ; Rom 5:20<\/span> ; Rom 7:13<\/span> ; Gal 3:19<\/span> ), but never as respects the Gentiles, who stood aloof from all relation to the Mosaic law (Rom 2:12<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

] does not belong (as Lachmann also punctuates it) to , so that “the national hatred in His people” would be meant (Chrysostom, Bugenhagen, Schulthess, Engelwelt<\/em> , p. 193); nor yet to (Oecumenius, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Rckert, and others), because in that case this mention of the death of Jesus would be irrelevantly dissevered from the modal definition , to which, in the nature of the case, it belongs as an essential element; but it stands with an emphasis suitable to the context (comp. , Eph 2:14<\/span> ) at the head of the specification that now follows, in what way<\/em> Christ has effected what was said in Eph 2:14<\/span> by : so that He by His flesh has done away with the law<\/em> , namely, when He allowed His flesh to be crucified (Col 1:21<\/span> f.), dissolved thereby the tie with the law that brought men under curse (see on Gal 3:13<\/span> ), and thus opened up the justification through faith (Rom 3:21<\/span> ff.), whereby the institute of the law was emptied of its binding power (comp. Rom 10:4<\/span> ff; Rom 7:1<\/span> ff.; Col 2:14<\/span> ). The moral<\/em> commands also of the law had thereby, while not ceasing to be valid, ceased to be held as constituent elements of the law-institute as such justifying in the way of compliance with it<\/em> ; and its fulfilment, and that in augmented power, now proceeds from the new vital principle of faith (Rom 8:4<\/span> ), on which account Christ, although He is the end of the law (Rom 10:4<\/span> ; comp. 2Co 3:11<\/span> ), could nevertheless say that He had come to fulfil the law (Mat 5:17<\/span> ), and Paul could assert: , Rom 3:31<\/span> . Hofmann imports into the the thought: in and with the doing away of His life in the flesh, in respect of which He was an Israelite<\/em> , Christ has rendered the appertaining to His community independent of the religious-legal status of an Israelite. As though the atoning<\/em> death of Christ, in the usual dogmatic<\/em> sense of the apostle, had not been most distinctly indicated already before by the , Eph 2:13<\/span> , as afterwards by the . . ., Eph 2:16<\/span> , and by the , Eph 2:18<\/span> ! This meaning is not here, any more than at Col 1:21<\/span> f., to be exegetically modified or explained away.<\/p>\n

] to be taken together<\/em> , yet not in such a way that stands for (Flatt) or (Koppe, Rosenmller), but as: the law of the commandments consisting in injunctions<\/em> , whereby the dictatorial<\/em> character of the legal institute (as a whole, not merely partially, as Schenkel imports) is exhibited. The genitive denotes the contents<\/em> of the law, and the essential form<\/em> in which the are given. The connecting link of the article ( ) before was not requisite, since we may correctly say: or , and therefore may be conjoined so as to form one<\/em> conception. [151] Comp. on Eph 3:13<\/span> ; Rom 6:4<\/span> ; Gal 4:14<\/span> ; Gal 3:26<\/span> . This view of the connection is adopted, after the precedent of many older expositors, by Rckert, Matthies, Meier, Winer, pp. 123, 197 [E. T. 169, 257], Bisping, Schenkel, Bleek. [152] Comp. also Buttmann, neut. Cr<\/em> . p. 80 [E. T. 92]. If one should, with the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, Pelagius, Chrysostom and his successors, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Holzhausen, and others, including Fritzsche, Diss. in<\/em> 2Co 2<\/span> . p. 168 f., refer . to <\/em><\/strong> , there would result even apart from the fact that with our mode of connecting <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , this construction is not even possible the wholly untrue and un-Pauline thought that Christ has through injunctions abolished the law<\/em> . No doubt some have imputed to the sense praecepta stabiliendo<\/em> (Fritzsche), in doing which they had in view the evangelical doctrine of faith and the gratia universalis<\/em> (see Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Theophylact, Estius, Bengel, and others). But even thus the sense remains untrue and un-Pauline, seeing that the doing away of the law has taken place not at all in a doctrinal way, but by the fact of the death of Christ<\/em> (Rom 7:1<\/span> f.; Gal 3:13<\/span> ; Col 2:14<\/span> ). And what a change would be made in the meaning of the word , which in the N.T. signifies throughout nothing else than injunction<\/em> (Col 2:4<\/span> ; Luk 2:1<\/span> ; Act 17:7<\/span> ; Act 16:4<\/span> ; comp. Plat. Legg.<\/em> i. p. 644 D; Xen. Anab.<\/em> iii. 3. 5, vi. 6. 8; Dem. 774. 19; Herodian, i. 7. 6; 4Ma 4:23 f.)! The distinction ought not to have been overlooked between and <\/em><\/strong> , which latter puts the meaning of the former into the more definite form of the enjoining decree<\/em> . A peculiar view is taken by Harless (followed by Olshausen) likewise connecting . with <\/em><\/strong> , and holding that <\/em><\/strong> denotes the “side on which that efficacy of the death of Christ exerts itself;” Christ did not render the law ineffectual in any such capacity as <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , or as <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , but on the side of the<\/em> (“in reference to the commanding form of its precepts,” Olshausen). Incorrectly, because <\/em><\/strong> must of necessity have had the article<\/em> , and because it is nowhere taught that the law is done away only in a single respect<\/em> . The Mosaic legal institute as such<\/em> , and not merely from a certain side, has in Christ its end (Rom 10:4<\/span> ); the in the law has only a transient typical destination (see on Col 2:17<\/span> ), and the work of the <\/em><\/strong> is at an end with the attainment of maturity on the part of his pupils (Gal 3:24<\/span> f.). Incorrect also is the view of Hofmann, p. 377, who, likewise taking <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> as modal definition to <\/em><\/strong> , and for the expression with <\/em><\/strong> comparing 1Co 2:7<\/span> , finds the meaning: by the very fact that Christ has put an end to precepts generally<\/em> , He has invalidated the O. T. law of commandments. The statement that Christ has put an end to generally<\/em> , i.e. to commanding precepts in general<\/em> , is at variance with the whole N.T., which contains numberless definite commands, and, in particular, with the teaching of Paul, who even places Christianity as a whole under the point of view, Rom 3:27<\/span> ; Rom 9:31<\/span> , Gal 6:2<\/span> , 1Co 9:21<\/span> , of a (which, without <\/em><\/strong> , is not at all conceivable [153] ), and specially with Col 2:14<\/span> . Paul would at least have made a limiting addition to , and have written something like <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> (comp. Rom 8:15<\/span> ; Gal 4:24<\/span> ; Gal 5:1<\/span> ).<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] a statement of the object aimed at in the just expressed abrogation of the law, which statement of aim corresponds to what has been said concerning Christ in Eph 2:14<\/span> , more precisely defining and confirming the same. Harless arbitrarily passes over what immediately precedes, and holds that <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> expresses the design of <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> , in which case too, we may add, there would result a tautological relation of the thought.<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] The Jews and Gentiles, who before were designated in accordance with the general category under a neuter<\/em> form, are here conceived of concretely<\/em> as the two men<\/em> under discussion, of whom the one is the totality of the Jews, and the other that of the Gentiles, out of which two men Christ has made a single new man. This is the collective subject of the , Gal 6:15<\/span> (the whole body of Christians).<\/p>\n

<\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ] is neither, with Grotius, to be taken as: per doctrinam suam<\/em> , nor, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others, as equivalent to (Oecumenius: <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> ), but it affirms that the unity to be brought about out of the two by the new creation was to be founded in Christ Himself<\/em> , that is, was to have the basis of its existence and continuance in Him, and not in any other unifying principle whateEphesians Eph 2<\/span> :In the case, namely, of all individuals, from among the Jews and Gentiles, who form the one<\/em> new man, the death of Christ is that, wherein this new unity has its causal basis; without the death of the cross it would not exist, but, on the contrary, the two would still be just in the old duality and separation as the Jew and the Greek. Calvin well remarks that in se ipso<\/em> is added, “ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem quaerant.” Comp. Gal 3:28<\/span> . This union, negatively conditioned by the abolition of the law, and having its basis in the self-sacrifice of Christ, is positively accomplished as regards the subjects<\/em> through the Spirit, 1Co 12:13<\/span> . Comp. subsequently Eph 2:18<\/span> . But objectively<\/em> accomplished namely, as a fact before God and apart from the subjective appropriation by means of the Spirit it is already by virtue of the death, which Christ has undergone for the reconciliation of both parties, Jews and Gentiles, with God; see Eph 2:16<\/span> .<\/p>\n

] For this one<\/em> is now neither Jew nor Greek, which the two, out of which the one<\/em> has been made, previously were; but both portions have laid aside their former religious and moral attitude, and without further distinction have obtained the quite new nature conditioned by Christian faith. If had not been added, the <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> <\/em><\/strong> might be incorrectly conceived of as an amalgam of Jew and Gentile. To exclude, we may add, from <\/em><\/strong> the moral<\/em> element (Meier, comp. Rckert) is not merely arbitrary, but, according to the apostolic way of looking at matters, even impossible, 2Co 5:17<\/span> ; Gal 4:27<\/span> ; Gal 6:14<\/span> f., Eph 5:6<\/span> .<\/p>\n

] Present<\/em> participle, because the establishment of peace as what was duly to set in with the designed new creation, was implied in the very scope thereof; it was that which was to be brought about in and with it<\/em> . Observe that is spoken from the standpoint of the design<\/em> expressed in . . ., and is included as belonging to what is designed<\/em> ; consequently: so that He<\/em> (by this new creation) makes peace<\/em> (not made<\/em> peace). is, in accordance with the context, the opposite of <\/em><\/strong> , Eph 2:15<\/span> , consequently peace of the two portions with each other<\/em> , not: with God<\/em> (Harless), nor: (Chrysostom, Oecumenius).<\/p>\n

[151] There is consequently no need whatever for the evasive view of Theile (in Winer’s Exeget. Stud<\/em> . I. p. 188 ff.), which is arbitrary and makes the meaning of the expression simply ambiguous, that Paul has not added the article, because . is to he conceived of in the like relation to as to .<\/p>\n

[152] Several of the older expositors, nevertheless, explained: legem mandatorum in decretis sitam<\/em> (Erasmus, comp. Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and others), so that they connected . with . But in that case must of necessity have stood before . And to excuse the absence of the article “ ob congeriem articulorum<\/em> ” (Erasmus) is arbitrary. How often have classical writers accumulated articles! Plato, Phileb<\/em> . p. 33 A; Dem. Ol<\/em> . iii. 11, and many others. They avoid only the coming together of the same article, e.g.<\/em> (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep.<\/em> pp. 332 C, 598 B).<\/p>\n

[153] The of Christianity are the true , Plato, Theaet<\/em> , p. 158 D.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even<\/em> the law of commandments contained<\/em> in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so<\/em> making peace; <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 15. Having abolished in his flesh<\/strong> ] That is, by his death in the flesh, Col 1:22<\/span> . At which time the veil rent, and the ceremonies died, only they were to be honourably buried.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

For to make in himself<\/strong> ] Gr. “to create;” sc.<\/em> by regeneration, Gal 6:15<\/span> . So by conjoining he newly created them, and by newly creating he conjoined them. <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15<\/span> . : to wit the enmity<\/em> . Many (Luth., Calv., De Wette, etc.) take this to be a figure for the Mosaic Law. But the is in antithesis to the of Eph 2:14<\/span> , and the specification of the Law comes in later. It is better, therefore, to take the here in the abstract sense of hostile, separating feeling<\/em> . 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 as a mid-wall between 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 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. : in His flesh<\/em> . The term 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<\/em> and His cross<\/em> . The term refers, therefore, to His death, and means His crucified flesh ( cf.<\/em> Col 1:22<\/span> ). The great difficulty here, however, is the connection. Some attach the phrase immediately to (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 before , and furnishes at best a forced meaning. Most commentators connect it with , supposing it to be put emphatically first. So it is taken, e.g.<\/em> , by Meyer, who makes begin the new clause. The RV takes the same view, but brings the under the regimen of the “having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even<\/em> the law”. There is much to say in support of this, especially in view of the Pauline statements in Rom 3:21<\/span> ; Rom 10:14<\/span> ; Gal 3:13<\/span> ; Col 2:14<\/span> , etc. On the other hand there is an awkwardness in bringing in the predication before<\/em> the verb, and the parallelism is broken ( cf.<\/em> Alf.). It is best, therefore, to attach the to the (Calv., Rck., Alf., etc.). The form of the sentence is better kept in this way. The appropriateness of the use of is then seen; for the verb (= subvert, dissolve<\/em> ), is equally applicable to the and to the , the phrase being common in ordinary Greek. On the other hand is much less applicable to . So the sense is “who in His crucified flesh ( i.e.<\/em> , by His death on the cross) broke down the middle-wall of the partition, to wit the enmity” ( i.e.<\/em> , the hostile feeling between Jew and Gentile). : having abolished<\/em> (or, in that He abolished) the law of commandments<\/em> (expressed) in ordinances<\/em> . 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.<\/em> , by abrogating the dividing Law itself. The Law is now introduced, and the term is to be taken in its full sense, not the ceremonial<\/em> law only, but the Mosaic Law as a whole, according to the stated use of the phrase. This Law is abolished<\/em> in the sense of being rendered inoperative<\/em> (as means), and it is defined as the Law . What is the point of the definition? The article, which is in place with the , is omitted before the , as the latter makes one idea with the former and further is under the regimen of a prep. ( cf.<\/em> 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<\/em> , and it expressed its injunctions in so many decrees, but it did not enable. The Law was made up of and these expressed themselves and operated in the form of , ordinances<\/em> . The word in the NT never means anything else than statute, decree, ordinance<\/em> ( cf.<\/em> Luk 2:1<\/span> ; Act 16:4<\/span> ; Act 17:7<\/span> ; Col 2:14<\/span> ; in Heb 11:23<\/span> it is a variant for ). Hence it cannot have any such sense here as doctrines, evangelical teaching<\/em> (Theod.), evangelical precepts<\/em> (Fritz.), the faith<\/em> (Chrys.). Some taking the as the instrumental<\/em> 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<\/em> , or by evangelical precepts<\/em> . Another turn is given to the sentence by taking 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<\/em> contained in it. But this would require before the ; nor is it the way of the NT to speak of the Mosaic Law as done away by Christ only on one side. : that He might create in Himself the two into one new man<\/em> . Statement of the object of the . The masc. is introduced now, instead of the , with a view to the . One man<\/em> was to be made out of the two men<\/em> . The is better rendered create<\/em> with the RV than make<\/em> with the AV. A new creation<\/em> is in view. For of the TR (with [160] [161] [162] [163] , etc.) is to be preferred as the reading of [164] [165] [166] [167] , etc. (LTTrRV); WH gives . In either case the sense is “in Himself”; not “by it” (Grot.) as if the reference were to Christ’s doctrine<\/em> , nor “through Himself” as if it were . The new creation and the new union have their ground and principle in<\/em> Christ. What was contemplated, too, was not simply the making of one man<\/em> ( ) where formerly there were two, but the making of one new<\/em> ( ) man<\/em> . 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. : making peace<\/em> . The is still peace between the estranged Jew and Gentile, and the ( pres.<\/em> , not aor.<\/em> ) belongs to the object expressed by the . In carrying out that purpose He was to make peace the one with the other.<\/p>\n

[160] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.<\/p>\n

[161] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.<\/p>\n

[162] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.<\/p>\n

[163] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.<\/p>\n

[164] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.<\/p>\n

[165] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.<\/p>\n

[166] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).<\/p>\n

[167] Codex Augiensis (sc. ix.), a Grco-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.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

abolished = done away with. Greek. katargeo. See Rom 3:3. <\/p>\n

His flesh. i.e. His death. <\/p>\n

enmity. See Rom 8:7. <\/p>\n

the law . . . in ordinances = the law of the dogmatic commandments. Compare Rom 8:4. <\/p>\n

ordinances. Greek. dogma. See Co Eph 1:2, Eph 1:14. <\/p>\n

for to make = in order that (Greek. hina) He might create (as Eph 2:10). <\/p>\n

twain = the two, Jew and Gentile. <\/p>\n

one new man = into (Greek. eis) one new (Greek. kainos. See Mat 9:17) man. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15. , enmity) The Jews held the Gentiles in abomination; the Gentiles treated the Jews with scorn on account of circumcision, the Sabbath, etc.- , in His flesh) So, in one body, Eph 2:16, [i.e. by His suffering and death.-V. g.]- ) the law of commandments, viz. ceremonial.- , in ordinances, in decrees) belonging to the Gospel, by which mercy was set forth to all, Col 2:14, note. [See the same words with the very same meaning, Act 16:4; Act 15:28.-V. g.]-, having abolished) Each [ and ] is construed, as we have already intimated, with this participle. Christ abolished, by His flesh, the enmity; [He abolished] the law of commandments by spreading over the whole world the ordinances of the Gospel. But if the expression, in ordinances, belonged to , of commandments, the expression, in His flesh, would not have been placed before, but after it. It is written, as it were, in the style of a lapidary [stilo lapidari].[32]<\/p>\n

[32] The arrangement being such that the alternate pieces of stone match.-ED.<\/p>\n

, the enmity,<\/p>\n

, in his flesh;<\/p>\n

, the law of commandments, , in ordinances, <\/p>\n

, having abolished.<\/p>\n

– , the two) He elegantly omits men; for formerly they had scarcely maintained the name of men. The two, who were Jew and Greek.-, new) by taking away the oldness of the letter.-, making) The participle making depends on the verb, might create (); and having slain depends on might reconcile: each of them has the power of explaining, which is derived from what immediately precedes.-, peace) This peace-making precedes its publication, Eph 2:17.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15<\/p>\n

Eph 2:15<\/p>\n

having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;-Christ by his death abolished the law. This is the great truth Paul had to teach. We are not under law, but under grace. (Rom 6:14). We are not required to seek salvation on the ground of obedience to the law which says: Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things that are written in the book of the law, to do them. (Gal 3:10). Christ has freed us from the law as a covenant of works, by himself being made subject to it (Gal 4:5); by hearing its penalty (Gal 3:13), in the body of his flesh through death (Col 1:22), to the cross (Col 2:14). The teaching of the passage, therefore, is that the middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles consisting of their mutual enmity has been removed by Christs having through his death abolished the law in all its forms, as a rule of justification, and thus opening one new and living way of access to God, common to all Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n

that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace;-Christ took them out of the way so that he<\/p>\n

could bring both into himself through faith, and of the two-Jew and Gentile-make one new man in Christ, so making peace. [The union or peace which flows from the abrogation of the law by the death of Christ is progressive so far as it is inward or subjective. The outward work is done. The long feud in the human family is healed. The distinction between Jew and Gentile is abolished. All the exclusive privileges of the former are abrogated. The wall which had so long shut out the Gentiles is removed. There is now one fold and one shepherd. Since the abrogation of the law, there can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christs, then are ye Abrahams seed, heirs according to promise. (Gal 3:28-29).]<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

new man <\/p>\n

Here the “new man” is not the individual believer but the church, considered as the body of Christ in the sense of Eph 1:22; Eph 1:23; 1Co 12:12; 1Co 12:13; Col 3:10; Col 3:11. (See Scofield “Heb 12:23”). <\/p>\n

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

in his: Col 1:22, Heb 10:19-22 <\/p>\n

the law: Gal 3:10, Col 2:14, Col 2:20, Heb 7:16, Heb 8:13, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:10, Heb 9:23, Heb 10:1-10 <\/p>\n

one: Eph 4:16, 2Co 5:17, Gal 6:15, Col 3:10 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Exo 36:29 – coupled Son 2:9 – he standeth Joh 10:16 – them Rom 7:4 – ye also 1Co 10:17 – we being 2Co 3:13 – to the Gal 2:12 – he did Eph 1:10 – he Eph 2:14 – both Eph 2:16 – having Eph 4:13 – unto a Eph 4:24 – new Heb 10:20 – his<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(Eph 2:15.) -To wit, the enmity. These words might be governed by without incongruity, as Wetstein has abundantly shown. And perhaps we may say with Stier, they are so; for if they be taken as governed by , as in our version and that of Luther, the sentence is intricate and confused. -the enmity, proverbial and well known, is in apposition to ; having broken down what formed the wall of separation, to wit, the hatred. This is not in any direct or prominent sense hatred toward God, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, OEcumenius, and Harless suppose, for it is not the apostle’s present design to speak of this enmity. His object is to show first how Jew and Gentile are reconciled. Some again, like Photius and Cocceius, imagine that hatred between Jew and Gentile, and also hatred of man to God, are contained in the word. This hypothesis only complicates the apostle’s argument, which is marked by precision and simplicity. The arguments advanced by Ellicott in defence of this hypothesis are not satisfactory; for the phrases-who hath made both one, wall of partition, law of commandments, or Mosaic code-plainly refer to the position of Jew and Gentile, and reconciliation with God is afterwards and formally introduced. At the same time, the idea of enmity towards God could not be absent from the apostle’s mind, for this enmity of race had its origin and tincture from enmity towards God. Nor can we accede to the interpretation of Theodoret, Calvin, Bucer, Grotius, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, and Conybeare, who understand by the the ceremonial law, as the ground of the enmity between Jew and Gentile. The objection of Stier, however, that to represent law as the cause of enmity is saying too much, as it leaves nothing for the o ther factor the flesh-is, as Turner says, not very forcible. We prefer, with Erasmus, Vatablus, Estius, Rckert, and Meyer, to take the term in its plain significance, as the contrast of , and as denoting the actual, existing enmity of Israel and non-Israel-an enmity of which the ceremonial law was the virtual but innocent occasion. It was this hatred which rose like a party wall, and kept both races at a distance. Deep hostility lay in their bosoms; the Jew looked down with supercilious contempt upon the Gentile, and the Gentile reciprocated and scowled upon the Jew as a haughty and heartless bigot. Ample evidence is afforded of this mutual alienation. Insolent scorn of the Gentiles breaks out in many parts of the New Testament (Act 11:3; Act 22:22; 1Th 2:15), while the pages of classic literature show how fully the feeling was repaid. This rancour formed of necessity a middle wall of partition, but Jesus, who is our peace, hath broken it down. The next sentence gives the requisite explanation- <\/p>\n

-having abolished in His flesh the law of commandments in ordinances. The course of thought runs thus: Christ is our peace. Then there follows first a statement of the fact, Jew and Gentile are made one; the mode of operation is next described, for He has quenched their mutual hatred, and He has done this in the only effectual way, by removing its cause-the Mosaic law. The words- cannot refer to , as the clause is pointed by Lachmann, as Chrysostom and Ambrose quote, and as Bugenhagen and Schulthess argue, giving the sense of kinsfolk-hatred existing among his own people; or as Cocceius, who adopts that view of the connection, renders-donec appareret in carne. Such a construction would require the insertion of the article . cannot bear such a meaning here, and the enmity, moreover, was not confined to the Jews; it was not all on their side. Nor can we, with Theodoret, OEcumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Estius, Rckert, and Matthies, join the phrase to , as it is more natural, and in better harmony with the course of thought, to annex them to , as explanatory of the means or manner of the abolition. This last opinion is that of Harless, Olshausen, Meier, Meyer, and de Wette. is Christ’s humanity, but n ot that humanity specially in its Jewish blood and lineage, as Hofmann contends-as if because He died as a Jew, His death secured that participation in His kingdom did not depend on Israelitism. means having made void-having superseded. Rom 3:31. <\/p>\n

The phrase is a graphic description of the ceremonial law. But the meaning and connection of have been disputed:-I. It has been regarded as the means by which the law has been abolished, to wit, by doctrines-Christian doctrines or precepts. Such is the reading of the Arabic and Vulgate, the Syriac being doubtful; and such is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Estius, Zeger, a-Lapide, Bengel, Holzhausen, Scholz, and Fritzsche-Disser. ad 2 Cor. p. 168. Winer in his third edition proposed this view, but renounced it in the fourth. Thus Chrysostom says- . Theodoret and Theophylact as usual follow him, while OEcumenius vindicates the use of the word as applied to Christ’s teaching, by quoting from the Sermon on the Mount such phrases as I say unto you, these being proofs of authoritative diction, and warranting the truth propounded to be called . To this theory there are insuperable objections-1. The participle in this case would have two connected words introduced alike by . 2. The sense given to is wholly unbiblical. is equivalent to the participial form- , and has its apparent origin in the common phrase which prefaced a proclamation or statute- . In the New Testament it signifies decree, and is applied, Luk 2:1, to the edict of Caesar, and in Act 17:7 it occurs with a similar reference. But not only does it signify imperial statute, it is also the name given to the decrees of the ecclesiastical council in Jerusalem. Act 16:4. It is found, too, in the parallel passage in Col 2:14. In the Septuagint its meaning is the same; and in the sense first quoted, that of royal mandate, it is frequently used in the boo k of Daniel. To give the term here the meaning of Christian doctrine or precept, is to annex a signification which it did not bear till long after the age of the apostles. It is finical and out of place on the part of Grotius to suppose that Paul used a philosophical term to describe the tuition of the great Teacher, because he might be writing to persons skilled in the idiom of philosophical speech. 3. It is not the testimony of Scripture that Jesus by His teaching abolished the ceremonial law, but the uniform declaration is, that the shadowy economy was abrogated in His death. 4. The phrase is too general to have in itself such a direct meaning, and , or some distinctive appendage, must have been added, did the words bear the sense we are attempting to refute. <\/p>\n

II. Harless, Olshausen, and von Gerlach connect with , but in a different way. They understand as describing one peculiar phase of the Mosaic law, in which phase Jesus abolished it. The phrase is supposed by them to represent the commanding aspect of the law, and so far as these are concerned, the law has been abrogated. Having abolished as to its ordinances-Satzungen-the law of commandments, that is, the law of commandments is still in force, but its are set aside. In this view those scholars were preceded by Crellius-non de tota lege sed ejus parte quae dogmata continebat. Von Gerlach understands the condemning power of the law to be abolished. But it is rather of the Levitical than of the moral law that the apostle is speaking. But, surely, to show us that is a part of the , the article should have been prefixed, or an adjective should have been added. Besides, the spirit of the apostle’s doctrine is, that the entire law is abrogated, and not a mere section of it. The whole Mosaic institute was fulfilled in the death of Jesus. Hofmann’s idea, somewhat similar-that Christ has put an end to , statutes, Satzungen-is, as Meyer says, contradicted by many parts of the New Testament. Rom 3:27; Gal 6:2. Nay, out of it might be developed an antinomian theory. Gal 3:18; Col 2:14. <\/p>\n

III. The correct junction of the phrase is with . Had it referred to alone, one would have expected the article to be repeated- . This is in general the view of Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Rollock, Bodius, Crocius, and Zanchius in former times, and in more recent times of Theile, Tholuck, Rckert, Meier, de Wette, Meyer, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Matthies. Winer, 31, 10, note 1. The ceremonial institute is named , as it was a code sanctioned by supreme legislative authority. But, as a code, it comprised a prodigious number of minute, varied, and formal regulations or prescriptions-, the genitive being that of contents; while the phrase defines the nature of these , for they were -issued under Divine sanction, and resting on the immediate will of God; and they had constant reference to health, business, and pleasure, as well as to Divine service. They were ordonnances-proclamations in the name of God. In an especial sense, the ceremonial institute seemed good to God-, and it became a . It was not a moral law, having its origin and basis in the Divine nature, and therefore unchanged and unchangeable, binding the loftiest creatures and most distant worlds; but a positive law, having its foundation simply in the Divine will, established for a period among one people, and then, its purpose being served among them, to be set aside. Viewed as an organic whole, the Mosaic institute was -a law; analyzed and looked upon in its separate constituents, it was ; and when these are inspected in their essence and authority, they are found to be -to be obeyed, b ecause the Divine Dictator was pleased to enjoin them. The article, therefore, is not prefixed to , which is descriptive of the form and authority of those statutory regulations, the phrase representing one connected idea. Winer, 20, 2. The is not to be taken for , as Heinsius and Flatt take it, nor can it signify propter, as Morus renders it. Now, this legal apparatus was abolished in His flesh, that is, in His incarnate state, especially by the death which in that state He endured. The language of Ambrosiaster is appropriate-legem quae data erat Judaeis in circumcisione et in neomeniis et in escis et in sacrificiis et in sabbatis evacuavit. By the abrogation of the Mosaic institute, the was destroyed, and the party wall, which separated Palestine from the great outfield of the world, laid low. Difference of race no longer exists, and Abrahamic distinction is lost in the wider and earlier Adamic descent. <\/p>\n

The apostle now states more fully the purpose of the abrogation of the old law- <\/p>\n

-that He might create the two in Himself into one new man. This clause is no mere repetition of the preceding declaration-Who hath made both one. It is more special and distinctive in its description. The two races are personified, and they are formed not into one man, but into one new man. is found elsewhere as an epithet descriptive of spiritual change, as in Eph 4:24; 2Co 5:17; Gal 6:15; Col 3:10. The phrase is very different from the novus homo of the Latins, and therefore Wetstein’s learned array of quotations from Roman authors is wholly useless. And the idea of moral renovation is not to be so wholly excluded here as some critics argue. One new man-both races being now enabled to realize the true end of humanity; Gentile and Jew not so joined that old privilege is merely divided among them. The Gentile is not elevated to the position of the Jew-a position which he might have obtained by becoming a proselyte under the law; but Jew and Gentile together are both raised to a higher platform than the circumcision ever enjoyed. The Jew profits by the repeal of the law, as well as the Gentile. Now he needs to provide no sacrifice, for the One victim has bled; the fires of the altar may be smothered, for the Lamb of God has been offered; the priest, throwing off his sacred vestments, may retire to weep over a torn vail and shattered temple, for Jesus has passed through the heaven into the presence of God for us; the water of the brazen sea may be poured out, for believers enjoy the washing of regeneration; and the lamps of the golden candelabrum have flickered and died, for the church enjoys the enlightening influences of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual blessing in itself, and not merely pictured in type, is possessed by the Jew as well as the Ge ntile. The Jew gains by the abolition of a law that so restricted him to time, place, and typical ceremony in the worship of God. As unity of privilege distinguishes both races, and that alike, they are formed into one man, and as that unity and privilege are to both a novelty, they are shaped into one new man. And this metamorphosis is effected (A, B, F have )-not , as OEcumenius has it; nor per doctrinam suam, as Grotius paraphrases it; nor is the phrase synonymous with in His flesh. It signifies in union with Himself, or, as Chrysostom illustrates-laying one hand on the Jew and the other on the Gentile, and Himself being in the midst. This harmony of race is effected by the union of both with Christ; that is to say, the unconverted Jew and the unbelieving Gentile may be, and are, at enmity still, but when they are united to Christ, they both feel the high and novel place which His abrogation of the law has secured for them. Both are elevated to loftier and purer privilege than the old theocracy could ever have conferred. <\/p>\n

-making peace. This must be the peace described-peace with Jew and Gentile; not, as Harless holds, peace with God, nor, as Chrysostom takes it, with Alford and Ellicott, peace with God and with one another- , for peace with God is in the order of thought, the formal theme of the next verse, although both results spring together from the same work of Christ. The present participle, referring back to , is used, because it does not, like the aorist in the next clause, express a reason for the result contained in the , but it is contemporaneous with it. The participle covers the entire process-abolition of enmity, abrogation of law, and creation of the new person; for in the whole of it Jesus is making peace. Scheuerlein, 31, 2, a. There is yet a higher aim- <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15. In his flesh refers to the crucifixion of Christ, whereby He nailed the old law to the cross and opened the way for the new law of the Gospel. Paul explains enmity to mean the “ceremonial” ordinances and commandments, which kept the Jews and Gentiles separated religiously. Twain means the two nations just mentioned, and one new man is a figurative name for the church, in which all men of every nation may be united in Christ.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15. To wit, the enmity. The order of the original favors the view that enmity is in apposition with middle wall (Eph 2:14); but the reading of the E. V. is not an impossible one. The other is, however, preferable for a number of other reasons. Enmity is then an explanation of the previous figure, and must refer to the enmity between Jews and Gentiles. Yet not to this alone, but also, and as the widening context shows, more especially to the alienation of both Jew and Gentile from God (Ellicott). Comp-the use of the word peace (Eph 2:14), and Eph 2:16; Eph 2:18, etc.<\/p>\n

Having done away in his flesh. In His flesh comes first in the original, hence some have joined it with enmity. But this is objectionable. Others join it with broke down in Eph 2:14, which is grammatically possible. On the whole it seems best to connect it with done away, and to regard its position as very emphatic. The phrase is not precisely the same as by His flesh, although the reference is to His death (comp. Eph 2:16), which abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. It was thus that the enmity was broken down, namely, by the doing away of that law which was the exponent of the enmity, not only as between Jew and Gentile, but as between man and God. The special reference is to the Mosaic law, as a whole. This law was made up of commandments, which took the form of decrees demanding obedience. (It is altogether incorrect to explain in ordinances as in Christian doctrines and then to join it with done away.) This law was done away by Christ in His flesh. In that He fulfilled the law in deed and in truth, performed Gods will and suffered in obedience, He rendered it powerless in its single ordinances, dissolving its separative features. It thus gained through Him internal validity and importance, so that it no longer burdens men, but they stand and walk in and on the same as a common soil within salutary bounds. Here, too, all depends on His person and our relation to Him (Braune). This thought of the doing away of the law through the death of Christ is a familiar one in Pauls writings, expressed now under one figure, and again under another. The fundamental fact is that Christ, by His atoning death, has done away with the law so far as it was a covenant prescribing the conditions of salvation (Hodge). Even as an ethical guide, it has no real power, except with those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (Rom 8:4).<\/p>\n

That he might create, etc. This is the purpose of the doing away, but virtually explains made both one (Eph 2:14).<\/p>\n

The two, i.e., Jews and Gentiles.<\/p>\n

In himself; not, through Himself. The ground of the existence and permanence is in Him; He is the author and foundation, and at the same time the life-sphere, creator, and second Adam, progenitor of the new race, which stands in the original peace with God (Braune).<\/p>\n

Into one new man. New is almost equivalent to renewed in this connection; the contrast being with the old man (chap. Eph 4:22) hostile to God. The two are not only reconciled to each other as one man, but with God, so that they are created into one new man.<\/p>\n

So making peace. Evidently in the wide complex sense, between man and man, because between God and man. This is the purpose of the new creation, and is a continued process in connection with it.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Unity In Christ<\/p>\n

Jesus became a man so that the law of Moses with all its commands and ordinances could be put out of the way. This was done by causing it to cease being a law in force. Thus, where there had been two bodies of people, Jew and Gentile, there would now be only one. The two were able to be at peace (2:15).<\/p>\n

Man’s sin stood between him and God, actually making him an enemy of the Father ( Isa 59:1-2 ). Jesus came to make an offering for sin so that Jew and Gentile would have a way to again be friends with God, or reconciled ( 2Co 5:19 ). This reconciliation takes place in the one body, which Paul has already identified as the church, by Christ’s death and blood shed on the cross ( Act 20:28 ). Christ’s resurrection was the means of destroying the reason for man’s being an enemy, sin, and ridding him of its consequences, death (2:16; 1Co 15:55-57 ).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Eph 2:15-18. Having abolished in his flesh By the sufferings and death endured therein; the cause of enmity between the Jews and Gentiles, even the law of ceremonial commandments, contained in ordinances Consisting in many institutions and appointments concerning the outward worship of God; such as those of circumcision, sacrifices, clean and unclean meats, washings, and holy days; which, being founded in the mere pleasure of God, might be abolished when he saw fit. These ordinances Jesus abolished, that he might make in himself That is, by uniting them to himself as their head; of twain Of Jews and Gentiles, who were at such a distance before; one new man One mystical body, one church, renewed by the Holy Ghost, and uniting in one new way of gospel worship: so making peace Between the two kinds of people, and even laying a foundation for the most sincere mutual love and friendship: And, or moreover, to complete this blessed work of making peace, that he might reconcile both, as thus united in one body, and animated by one spirit, not merely to one another, but unto God, by his death on the cross By which he expiated the guilt of sin, and rendered God reconcileable, and ready to pardon the penitent that should believe in Jesus; and by which he procured for mankind, whether Jews or Gentiles, the Holy Spirit to work repentance and faith in them, and destroy that carnal mind, which is enmity against God, (Rom 8:7,) and all those sinful passions which are connected therewith, and which render men odious in his sight, and hostile to one another. And came After his resurrection; and preached peace By his authorized ambassadors, (to whom he had committed the important trust of treating with sinners in his name and stead, 2Co 5:19-20,) to you Gentiles, which were afar off At the utmost distance from God; and to them that were nigh To the Jews, who were comparatively nigh, being his visible church. For through him Through his mediation, his sacrifice and intercession; we both Believing Jews and Gentiles; have access Have liberty of approach; by one Spirit Inspiring us with faith, hope, and love, and rendering us sincere, spiritual, fervent, and constant, in our prayers, praises, and all acts of worship and service: unto the Father That is, unto God as a Father reconciled in Christ, and beholding us with paternal eyes of love, complacency, and delight.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 15 <\/p>\n

The enmity; the ground of enmity; that is, of separation and of hostile feeling.–Contained in ordinances; in the Jewish ceremonial law.–One new man; one new community or body.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; <\/p>\n

Here we see the Scriptural basis for what has just been stated – Christ took care of all that stuff. He made from the two, Jews and Gentiles, one new man “making peace.” There should be no division between Jewish believer and the Gentile believer – peace is their lot. <\/p>\n

The term translated “ordinances” is the Greek word “dogma” or doctrine. One must wonder if this wasn’t speaking again of the false teaching that Paul was setting out to refute. He may have been working against those that had instituted doctrines of works to be followed to gain access to God. The further into this study the more it seems to me that he was writing against Judaizers. <\/p>\n

At the very least he was attempting to stop the hatred between Jews and Gentiles. This was a strong hatred in this time as the Jews thought the Christians were a heretic sect of their very own. They wanted to stamp it out at all costs, yet Paul says that Christ did the work to stop this hatred and to bring about peace between the two parties. <\/p>\n

There is another aspect of this enmity, or great difference between the Jew\/law and Gentile\/grace. The stark difference in the two is totally obvious, and this difference\/enmity may have been giving rise to hard feelings between the two groups. The Jews that had been under the law may have felt it unfair that they had been raised under the law and all of its limitations to life, and then they see these Christians coming out of sin and the like to walk free from any restriction under grace. Even a Jew that had found release in grace might have felt unfairness in the ease with which the Gentiles were coming to God. <\/p>\n

There is quite a difference between law and grace. In a sense law is all that grace is not. Grace is free and clear, without limitations and requirements while the law is costly in obedience and clearly has many limits and requirements. <\/p>\n

The law was limited as well in what it could do for the believer. It could not put the person into a completed place in Christ until after the cross. He was not a believer in full standing. He was allowed a relationship with God, however limited. They did not have the Holy Spirit as those under grace, and they had not been fully restored from the fall nor their personal sin. They awaited the cross for both to find their completion. This was the reason for Sheol in Luke sixteen. It was a place where Old Testament saints enjoyed joy, but yet separation from God awaiting their full standing before Him in Christ. Christ went there to retrieve all those that were waiting and ushered them into the Lord’s presence after the resurrection. <\/p>\n

The parable of the laborers illustrates what I am suggesting. The owner came and hired some, then later more, and then late in the day even more. When it came pay time all received the same amount. Those hired early cried unfair. I have to wonder if the Jews weren’t suggesting some unfairness in this idea of grace for the Gentiles. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The body of Jesus sacrificed on the cross terminated the enmity between Jews and Gentiles. It did so in the sense that when Jesus Christ died He fulfilled all the demands of the Mosaic Law. When He did that, God ended the Mosaic Law as His rule of life for the Jews. The word "abolished" (Gr. kataresas<\/span>) means "rendered inoperative." The Mosaic Law ceased to be God’s standard for regulating the life of His people (Rom 10:4; et al.). The Mosaic Law had been the cause of the enmity between Jews and Gentiles. Its dietary distinctions and laws requiring separation, in particular, created hostility between Jews and Gentiles. The NASB translation implies that the law was the barrier. Really it was the cause of the barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Jesus Christ destroyed the barrier and the hostility that resulted from it by terminating the Mosaic Law. [Note: See Hal Harless, "The Cessation of the Mosaic Covenant," Bibliotheca Sacra 160:639 (July-September 2003):349-66.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Jesus Christ had two purposes in ending Jewish Gentile hostility. First, He wanted to "create" one new man, the church (Eph 2:6), out of the two former groups, Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:11). Here the "new man" is not the individual believer but the church, the body of Christ (cf. Eph 1:22-23; 1Co 12:12-13; Col 3:10-11; Heb 12:23). In the church God does not deal with Gentiles as He did with Jews, nor does He deal with Jews as He did Gentiles. Jews do not become Gentiles nor do Gentiles become Jews. Rather God has created a whole new (Gr. kainon<\/span>, fresh) entity, the church. In it believing Jews become Christians, and believing Gentiles become Christians. God deals with both believing Jews and believing Gentiles now equally as Christians. [Note: See Fruchtenbaum, p. 118.] <\/span><\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace; 15. having abolished, &c.] Lit., The enmity, in His flesh, the law of the commandments in decrees, annulling. In this difficult verse our best guide is the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 2:15”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}