of Nazareth, in whom the idea of the Messiah was realized. Paul
here expresses the altered state of the Gentile world by tyyv? t-yev?/-
07/re, ye became nigh, in opposition to the preceding distance (naupdv
eivai). This is only a resumption of the previous d-aMorpiovaOai r?fr
nokireias rov 'laoa^L In God's people God was present in the She-
chinah of the temple, the Jews were therefore near him ; the Gen-
tiles, on the contrary, were far from him, inasmuch as they were
not aUowed to approach the temple. (See on vers. 17, 18.) The
act of coming near, and consequently the state of being in Christ,
is represented finally, as effected in the blood of Christ (v TO>
otpm rov Xpiorov}. The shedding of his blood, and the atonement
earned thereby, ended the separation among mankind, which God
had ordained till the completion of Christ's work, and enabled the
Gentiles to unite themselves to the community of Christ just as im-
mediately as was allowed to the Jews. (Cf. ii. 18.)



BPHESIANS II. 14, 15. 69

Yers. 14, 15. Such an effect Christ produces by his nature ; Jie
himself is our peace. In that idea there is couched not merely that
Christ institutes peace, that he is the Peace-maker, but that he him-
self, in his essence, is peace, and that he alone has peace who lives
in him and his element. Where discords dwells inwardly, there out-
wardly, too, peace is only mock peace. Thus Christ is called, even
in Isaiah ix. 6, prince of peace (o'&w i, dpxuv eipTJvrjs}. Therefore in
the name " our peace," ^et? implies not the Jews alone ; Paul here
speaks from the point of view of the whole human race, in which
all distinctions are levelled. (See on Gal. iii. 28.) Christ manifests
himself as our peace both inwardly and outwardly ; Paul, no doubt,
on account of the special need of his first readers, dwells especially
on the external features of the reconciliation. Christ abolishes the
division of mankind into Jews and non-Jews,he makes both halves one.
The neuter, rd dp^oVepa, Paul himself (vers. 15, 16) interprets by TOT)?
6vo, Tovg dfj-(f)OTKoov^ : i. e., Jews and non- Jews. Both form a unity in
their relation to Christ (John x. 16), one flock under one shepherd.
This uniting efficiency of Christ is still more 1 closely described by Paul
in the explanatory words : KOI Avo-a? TO jueo-oTot^ov TOV 0payju.oi), and
breaking down the middle wall of partition. This middle wall of
partition is further explained by the rrjv s^dpav, the enmity, and the
whole train of thought is more accurately determined by the final
words " in his own flesh doing away the law of commands in ordi-
nances" (t-i> ry aaoKt avTOv TOV vopov T&V tvroAwv sv doj^iaoi /carapy?;-
oa<f). True, it has been proposed to connect Tip t%0pav KV ry aaoici
avrov, and even Lachmann has accepted that punctuation ; but this
mode of taking the context yields no fitting sense ; for the interpre-
tation of Bugenhagen, Schulthess, and others, who explain %6pa
iv T% aapKi avrov , " enmity in his people, in the corporeal relatives of
Christ" (as adpZ is used Rom. xi. 14), sufficiently refutes itself. It is
only in the above given connexion of the words that the writer's ex-
position proceeds step by step elucidating itself. Now, first of all,
as to the form of the phrase kveiv TO /j^aoroixov TOV Qpaynov, it is
clear that kveiv here, as at John ii. 19, has the meaning of " to
dissolve, destroy, and therefore remove." M.ea6Toi%ov, paries inter-
gerinus or intermedius, denotes a party-wall, a partition-wall ; Pha-
vorinus interprets it TO did^payna. It is very rare in profane writers,
yet Athenaeus has it, Lib. vii. p. 281. Ed. Casaubon. The combi-
nation fj,eooTOLxov TOV (f)paynov is meant, however, to render the barrier
prominent, as the means of separation, "the barrier which forms
and is meant to form the hedge, the separating medium." This
phrase points, of course, immediately to the law, which produced the
separation between those who were under theocratic government and
those who were not under it, by expressly declaring the Gentiles
unclean, and forbidding all communication with them on the part



70 EPHESIANS II. 14, 15.

of the Jews. In the Rabbis, therefore, the law is called ve or wjo,
sepes, sepimentum, and the Masoreh again rnte^ vs. (See Buxtorf,
lex. talm. p. 1447.) The investigations as to what sort of barrier Paul
meant, seem idle ; if, however, it is to be supposed that he, in using
the universally intelligible figure, had something special in his mind,
it is most reasonable to understand the wall which divided the fore-
court of the Gentiles from the precincts of the inner temple, and thus
was a symbol of their separation from the covenants of promise. The
presupposed reference of the fteaoroixov rov fyaynov to fhe law, seems,
however, to have a doubt cast on it by the epexegetic TT/V e%6pav.
Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, and Riickert understand it rather
of the reciprocal enmity between Jews and Gentiles. But if rrjv
fydpav were different from fieoo-oixov, ttai would not be wanting ;
if it is to explain the previous phrase, the idea, "the party-wall //>
enmity," seems unfitting ; the enmity may well be a consequence of
the separating medium, but not the separating medium itself. Be-
sides, Paul himself surely gives the explanation immediately by the
following, " abolishing the law of commands," which stands exactly
parallel to the neaoroi^ov Xvaag. The fydpa can and must be here taken
as an effect of the law. But the question is, as what effect ? Chry-
sostom, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius, to whom Harless has given
in his adhesion, understand by the %0pa the enmity of the Jews
and Gentiles together against God, which arises through the opera-
tion of the law, in that it makes sin abound. (Rom. v. 20, vii.
13, viii. 3 ; Gal. iii. 10.) The last-named interpreter defends this
acceptation by laying emphasis on the KOI a7roaraAAa^/ rai 6ea>, and
reconciled to God, which follows in ver. 1C, and which he under-
stands of inward reconciliation through Christ, and therefore of the
abolishment of guilt and enmity against God, in opposition to the
merely outward union of Jews and Gentiles. According to this, as
Harless interprets the passage, the two members of the clause
expressive of purpose correspond to the two members of the prin-
cipal sentence ; that is to say, the first member of the subordi-
nate ^ sentence, Iva, down to dprpijv, to the first member of the
principal sentence, 6 Troika? down to ev, and the second member of
the subordinate sentence, nal OTTO/COT a^o^? down to iv O,VT&, to the
second member of the principal sentence, /cat TO peooroixov down to
wrapyfraf. Thus, then, Paul spoke not merely of the amalgama-
tion of the Jews and Gentiles into one, through Christ, but also of
the abolishment of the enmity of the sinful world against God
through the atonement. But the twofold subject, which this in-
terpretation supposes, is not found in Paul's discussion. The d-rro-
KaraMdooeiv (ver. 16) is, by the addition rovg A^oripov^ iv ivl a&-
ftari, referred to the relation between Jews and Gentiles, just as the
preceding KTI&V rovg dvo. In vers. 17-22 we see most clearly that



EPHESIANS II. 14, 15. 71

this relation continues the chief subject of the epistle in what fol-
lows, just as, from vers. 11-15, it forms the central point of the ar-
gument. We find, therefore, no justification for introducing along
with this idea, which forms the basis of the whole exposition from
ver. 11 to ver. 22, another idea in vers. 15, 16 merely, and that, too,
the entirely general one, that God has reconciled both Gentiles and
Jews with himself through Christ. This idea must have seemed to
Paul the more completely superfluous here, that he had already
treated of it in chap. i. But it is here inappropriate also, inasmuch
as rendering prominent the inward reconciliation along with the
outward amalgamation of Jews and Gentiles must have excited the
notion that the latter was merely an outward one, that it was sepa-
rated from the spirtual atoning work of Christ. But such is not
Paul's meaning ; rather, Christ, inasmuch as he is the Reconciler
of man to God, and therefore their peace, is also in and by those
very relations the abolisher of the separation between Gentiles and
Jews. Paul, therefore, could not think for a moment of placing
the inward reconciliation side by side with the outward amal-
gamation, because to him the amalgamation is no mere outward
one. To this is still added this further fact, that nowhere is it said,
either in Paul or in the whole New Testament, that " the effect of
the law is enmity against God." Certainly it is said that " it works
wrath or a curse," but never " enmity." Finally, on the assumption
that TTJV K%6pav denotes the enmity of both, of the Jews and of the
Gentiles, against God, we must also assume that Paul, in speaking
of the law, thought of the law of the Gentiles also, written in their
hearts. But the subsequent language does not at all accord with
this view, and no passage can be found in the whole New Testament
which declares this law, too, of the conscience, to work wrath or a
curse.

If, therefore, we must reject the reference of the enmity to the
enmity of both, Jews and Gentiles, against God, nothing remains
but, with most interpreters, to refer it to the object spoken of both
before and after in these verses, to the relation of the law to those
under the theocracy and those not. The bitter enmity between
the two was the result of the law, the separating hedge. As,
therefore, the latter was through Christ and the completion of
his work taken away, so was the reciprocal enmity of the Jews and
Gentiles taken away, objectively immediately, subjectively so far as
they receive Christ in faith ; Christ was their peace in this rela-
tion also. Thus we rigorously maintain the closest connexion of this
whole passage ; that is to say, the following " in his flesh," etc., now
describes the action of the kveiv more accurately, and interprets
for us authentically the " middle wall of partition," which caused the
enmity between Jews and Gentiles. And such an interpretation was



72 EPHESIANS II. 14, 15.

necessary, because those words might have been misunderstood.
For this breaking down the middle wall, etc., might seem, from its
relation to the law, to stand in antagonism with the declarations
of the Lord at Matth. v. 17, 18, where the abolition of the law is ex-
pressly disavowed. Paul cannot intend to utter the antinomian error
that Christ had abolished (narapj^aa^) the law in general, both in its
moral and ceremonial parts, in every relation ; but only that the law
had obtained through Christ a totally different position, and so far
was made inoperative in a certain relation. This relation, which
through Christ is changed in reference to the law, Paul designates
by the phrase vopog rwv &VTOA&V, laiv of commandments, and the ad-
dition iv doynaoi, in ordinances. The word " commandment" (iv-
roMf), denotes the expression of the law (t-o^or) for the individual
case ; thus the unity of the law comprises a multitude of evrokai.
It cannot be supposed that the ceremonial ordinances alone are here
so called ; the moral commandments of the v6fio$ are also to be taken
as Kvrokai : but Paul names the law here " the law of command-
ments," in order to contrast it in the dividedness of its precepts
with the oneness of the spirit (tv ivl Trvevfia-i, ver. 18), which reigns
in the gospel. While the law says, do this, do that, do not this, do
not that, the gospel has but the one commandment of love, and even
that not in the form of a commandment, but as an influence of grace.
Certainly this holds good also of the law of the Gentiles written in
their hearts. This, too, declares itself in a multitude of separate
exhortations and warnings ; but we need not mention that 6 vo/iof
r&v ^VTO/IWV, the law of commandments, cannot possibly be referred
to this inner law also. If it were still doubtful, the iv doy/zam, in
ordinances, which follows would, at all events, make the reference to
the universal moral law impossible.

But certainly the interpretation of this expression again is very
uncertain. True, the reference of So-y^ara to Christian doctrines,
which, besides the Fathers, Chrysostom, Theodoret, (Ecumenius,
ulso Grotius, Bengel, Fritzsche, Winer,* and others, defend, seems
inadmissible, because 66yfia elsewhere occurs in the New Testament
only in the sense of " imperial decree, edict," as Luke ii. 1 ; Acts
xvii. 7 ; in the Septuagint, Daniel ii. 15. Nor is the meaning
" dogma, Christian doctrine," found in the earliest Fathers. We
may suppose it was first formed when philosophers entered the
Christian church, and transferred to Christ their own custom of
calling the doctrines of the philosophers ddy/zaro. Still, this is not
decisive against such an acceptation of the word in this passage ;
for, even if it does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament in the
meaning "dogma," it might have it here and in Col. ii. 14, as it

* Winer has proposed this view in the third edition of hia Grammar, but has (riven it
up in the fourth (p. 196, seq.)



EPHESIANS II. 16. 73

was used of the doctrines of philosophical schools. But here this
meaning neither suits the context, nor harmonizes in its sentiment
with the doctrine elsewhere taught hy the sacred writers. We no-
where find it taught in the New Testament that Christ by his precepts
made the law of no effect ; it is constantly said, by his death, by his
blood. So also here iv rq aapul avrov, in his oivn flesh, is to be con-
nected with Karapy^aa^, doing away, so as to express the means by
which Christ works the abrogation of the law ; it denotes the offer-
ing up of his flesh, and therefore = iv r<5 ai\ian avrov, in his blood
(ver. 13), or did rov oravpov, by his cross (ver. 16). But further, it
is impossible to discover how iv doyfiaot could be so connected with
Karapyrjaag, that it should mean " He made the law of no effect
through his doctrines." Such a sentiment would certainly have re-
quired iv rolg doypaoiv avrov. Therefore other interpreters, particu-
larly Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Michaelis, Storr, and,
among the later ones, Koppe, Flatt, Theile, Riickert join iv doy-
\ia(jt with rov v6fj,ov r<3v t-vroAwv, which precedes. But Winer (Gr.,
p. 196, seq.) and Harless have correctly observed, in opposition to
that view, that it would require the repetition of the article.* Were
iv Soynaat meant to determine more exactly the vopog, it must have
been rov iv doypaai ; if to determine the ivrohtiv it should have
been r&v iv doypaoi. Besides, we cannot thus well avoid tautology ;
"the law of the commandments in ordinances" says idem per idem.
Nothing remains, therefore, but, with Harless (in favour of whose
interpretation Winer, too, declares, ubi supra) to Join, indeed, iv
66yfj,aoi with Karapyr}oas, but not to refer it to Christian precepts,
but to the form of command in which the law of the Old Testament
appears ; and to consider that form as the part of the law abolished
by Christ, so that the sense of the words is this : " Christ has, by
offering up his flesh, made the law, which declared itself in a multi-
tude of precepts, inoperative in relation to the commanding form
of its ordinances, and gained for man in lieu of it the one spirit of
love."

Ver. 16. To the above is further annexed the description of the
design of the Lord in his abolishment of the separating hedge of the
law, which divided mankind among themselves into Israel and non-
Israel, into God's people and not God's people, into man and wife.
(For, as under the New Testament Christ has a relation [to the
church] as the man to the wife [see v. 23, seq.], so is, under the Old
Testament, Israel as the man related to the heathen world as to the

* Winer, in the 6th edition of his Grammar ( 31, Anm.) unites sv 66-yftaaiv with ev-
ToAwv, and regards them as forming one conception " commandments in (special) ordi-
nances." He thus withdraws his objection based on the absence of the article (TUV iv
Jo/.), and refers to 20, 2, where he has accumulated many analogous examples of its
omission. [K.



74 EPHESIANS II. 16.

wife.) But Iva admits of no immediate connexion with the chief
verb of the previous sentence, avrbg yap i or iv i] dpjvr) w&v,for lie
himself is our peace, for in it Christ's essence is described, not his
working ; the particle of intention connects itself with the parallel
participles TOMATO?, Moa<;, Karapyr,aag. The description of Christmas
personally our peace, is again resumed in the tiv elpjjvijv, for which
-noiijaag could not here stand ; for which reason also the elpTjro-roirjoa^
did rov alparog rov aravpov avrov, Col. i. 20, stands parallel in thought,
it is true, but not in language, with this passage. The two national
masses, Jews and non-Jews, are, however, represented as greater in-
dividuals ; thence rovg dvo, rovg dfityorepovg . Indeed, those united
through Christ, who in ver. 14 were represented as Zv = tvon^, are
here called d$ Kaivbg dvdpuTrog, one new man. As, therefore, the
separate individuals in the nation coalesce into a higher personality,
so do nations in the totality of the race, coalesce into one man ; of
that isolating view of mankind which regards it as forming a sum
of absolutely separate individualities, merely aggregated, placed be-
side one another, and each standing and falling by itself the Scrip-
tures know nothing. Humanity is in Christ a living unity, filled and
borne by one Spirit. (See at Gal. iii. 21, 28.) However, the phrase
KTI&IV KV Kavr& elg, K. r. A., create in himself, etc., shews that Paul
does not use " one new man" as a mere personification. According
to the phrase KriadKvre$ KV Xpiorti 'I^croi), created in Christ Jesus, in
ver. 10, here, too, the " in himself" is not to be referred to Christ's
death, as if = KV rq oaptci avrov, in his flesh, in ver. 15, but Paul
represents in it Christ himself, as the true one universal man, the
representative of the race, in whom the two separate halves have
returned to a perfect unity. As Adam is the one old. man, in whom
and through whom all individuals of the race receive the old man,
so is Christ the one new man, in whom and through whom all receive
the new man, made after God in righteousness and holiness. (See
at Rom. v. 12, seq.) Accordingly it is clear that the making both
one, creating the two into one new man (TO, dp<j)6repa v TTOIKIV, the
KTI&IV rovg dvo e/f Kva Kaivbv avdpunov) is not merely external, a
purely negative removal of the separating medium, but something
truly spiritual ; the process of Christ's life was the actual creation
of this one new man. But now the question arises, how, after this,
is the second half of the subordinate clause Iva dTroitaraXkdfy, K. r. A.,
to be taken, without being merged in the former half ? If we, with
Earless, conceive the union which Christ effected between those
under and those not under the theocracy, as an outward one only,
there certainly appears here an advance, inasmuch as those at first
outwardly united, are afterwards, by the cross, i. e., by the death
of the Son of God on the cross, also inwardly reconciled with
God. But this hypothesis, that the union of Israel and non-Israel



EPHESIANS II. 16. 75

is to be conceived as a merely outward one, can only be purchased
at the expense of the idea in the preceding words. We must, there-
fore, look for another acceptation of the Iva dTroiearakhdfy, that he
may reconcile, in relation to the preceding Iva ttriaq, that he may
create. First, it is decided that the words rovg d^orepovg ev evi au-
pari scil. ovrag are to be closely connected. The one body forms the
antithesis to the former separateness in the dual state, and
body, denotes, as is usual in the language of Paul (Rom. xii. 5,
ev CTWjua t-tfjuev ev Xpiorti, 1 Cor. x. 17, xii. 13, e/'c v oti^a ej3a-nrioOr)-
l*ev, Bph. iv. 12, 16, v. 23 ; Col. i. 18, 24, ii. 19, iii. 15), the church
as Christ's body, which he fills with his life. 'Ev evl crwpm in
our passage, is parallel with ev evl Trvevpari in ver. 18 ; Jews and
Gentiles are in spiritual unity in one body. (See at iv. 4.) As the
individual is divided into body and spirit, so also does the united
Christ of the church (1 Cor. xii. 12) bear in itself body and spirit.
(In the same way, also, in Col. iii. 15 it is said, eftkijQirre ev evl
CTGjjuari.) ' To refer the words to the atoning death of Christ, as
= ev ~y oapKl avrov, ver. 15, is in every respect inappropriate. In
the first place, the 6id rov oravpov, through his cross, already ex-
presses that idea ; for to take those words as a subordinate deter-
mination of KV evl oufian in the sense, " by means of the giving up
of his one body, that is to say, through the cross," is altogether op-
posed to Paul's usual style. It is self-evident that the giving up
of the body took place through the death of the cross, and so Paul,
in using oravpo? constantly supposes the body as what was put to
death by the cross. But again, in this acceptation of ev aufjuin,
the addition of evi, one, is unsuitable. That Christ's body was One
has no relation whatever to the atonement ; while, on the contrary,
the previous duality of the Jews and the Gentiles is very properly
contrasted with the unity of both in the body of the church, where-
by, too, the close juxtaposition of rovg d^Kporepovg ev evl oupan is alone
satisfactorily explained. Finally, it is but little likely that Paul
should have expressed the same idea five times in vers. 15 and 16,
and that the widely different phrases KV ry aapul avrov, iv eavru>, ev
ivl oupin, 6td rov oravpov, and ev avr&, mean exactly the same thing.
True, a similar accumulation is found in Col. i. 22 in the words iv
TCJ o&iian TT/f oagnof; avrov 6ta rov Oavdrov, but brought together,
however, on one point, not as a repetition of the same proposition
in different places.

But now as to the question, already touched on, how Iva dno-
mroXkafyq is connected with the preceding Iva, Krtaq, we must not, as
we have already remarked, in accordance with the correct explana-
tion of the Kri^eiv KV eavr& el$ eva itaivbv avdpUTtov, in drrotcara^dcf-
oetv see anything specifically different from uri^eiv ; rather, the first
half of the clause expressing intention would seem to be more ex-



76 EPHESIANS II. 17, 18.

actly determined by the second. The sense might accordingly be
paraphrased in the following way : " That he might in himself
make the two into one new man, and at the same time also recon-
cile (which the KTI&IV necessarily involves) not the Jews merely, but
both Jews and Gentiles, united in the one body of the church, to
God through the cross, slaying the enmity between them through
himself, (i. e., through the giving himself up unto death), i. e., re-
moving, annihilating it." (The double compound d-rroKaraXXdoaeiv
is found, besides our passage, also Col. i. 20, 21. Elsewhere we
always have KaraXXdaau. In profane authors the form strengthened
by d, found here and in the Epistle to the Colossinns, has the
meaning " to reconcile again." Paul uses it indifferently with KaraX-



Vers. 17, 18. To the representation of the work of Christ itself
is annexed in these verses the mention of the announcement of that
work to man. The clause nal iXduv evrjyyeXiaaTO, and came and
preached peace, can by grammatical connexion only be joined with
ver. 14, avrbg yap tonv, K. r. A. ; but, as the intermediate ideas do not
bear the nature of a parenthetical clause, tA0wv cannot be referred to
Christ's incarnation, and to his teaching before his death, because
that death had been already previously mentioned as the means
of abolishing the divided condition of mankind ; it is rather to be
understood of Christ's being come in his Spirit. (See John xiv. 18.)
Before the completion of his work by his death. Christ was not our
peace ; his teaching before his death was only a prophesying as to
himself ; the true publication of the gospel did not begin till the
pouring out of the Spirit. Before the completion of his work, so
little did the Lord view those under, and those not under the theoc-
racy as one, that he even said to his disciples, Matth. x. 5, 6, " Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not," and to the woman of Canaan, " I am not sent except
to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matth. xv. 24). The fol-
lowing on 61' avrov t'xofiev K. r. A. also necessarily supposes Christ's
work as already completed ; for 61' avrov, through himself, means faa