Ephesians 2:14

We have now come to the last part of the chapter, which contains an account of the great and mighty privileges that converted Jews and Gentiles both receive from Christ. The apostle here shows that those who were in a state of enmity are reconciled. Between the Jews and the Gentiles there had been a great enmity; so there is between God and every unregenerate man. Now Jesus Christ is our peace, Eph 2:14. He made peace by the sacrifice of himself; and came to reconcile, 1. Jews and Gentiles to each other. He made both one, by reconciling these two divisions of men, who were wont to malign, to hate, and to reproach each other before. He broke down the middle wall of partition, the ceremonial law, that made the great feud, and was the badge of the Jews' peculiarity, called the partition-wall by way of allusion to the partition in the temple, which separated the court of the Gentiles from that into which the Jews only had liberty to enter. Thus he abolished in his flesh the enmity, Eph 2:15. By his sufferings in the flesh, to took away the binding power of the ceremonial law (so removing that cause of enmity and distance between them), which is here called the law of commandments contained in ordinances, because it enjoined a multitude of external rites and ceremonies, and consisted of many institutions and appointments about the outward parts of divine worship. The legal ceremonies were abrogated by Christ, having their accomplishment in him. By taking these out of the way, he formed one church of believers, whether they had been Jews or Gentiles. Thus he made in himself of twain one new man. He framed both these parties into one new society, or body of God's people, uniting them to himself as their common head, they being renewed by the Holy Ghost, and now concurring in a new way of gospel worship, so making peace between these two parties, who were so much at variance before. 2. There is an enmity between God and sinners, whether Jews and Gentiles; and Christ came to slay that enmity, and to reconcile them both to God, Eph 2:16. Sin breeds a quarrel between God and men. Christ came to take up the quarrel, and to bring it to an end, by reconciling both Jew and Gentile, now collected and gathered into one body, to a provoked and an offended God: and this by the cross, or by the sacrifice of himself upon the cross, having slain the enmity thereby. He, being slain or sacrificed, slew the enmity that there was between God and poor sinners. The apostle proceeds to illustrate the great advantages which both parties gain by the mediation of our Lord Jesus Christ, Eph 2:17. Christ, who purchased peace on the cross, came, partly in his own person, as to the Jews, who are here said to have been nigh, and partly in his apostles, whom he commissioned to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, who are said to have been afar off, in the sense that has been given before. And preached peace, or published the terms of reconciliation with God and of eternal life. Note here, When the messengers of Christ deliver his truths, it is in effect the same as if he did it immediately himself. He is said to preach by them, insomuch that he who receiveth them receiveth him, and he who despiseth them (acting by virtue of his commission, and delivering his message) despiseth and rejecteth Christ himself. Now the effect of this peace is the free access which both Jews and Gentiles have unto God (Eph 2:18): For through him, in his name and by virtue of his mediation, we both have access or admission into the presence of God, who has become the common reconciled Father of both: the throne of grace is erected for us to come to, and liberty of approach to that throne is allowed us. Our access is by the Holy Spirit. Christ purchased for us leave to come to God, and the Spirit gives us a heart to come and strength to come, even grace to serve God acceptably. Observe, We draw nigh to God, through Jesus Christ, by the help of the Spirit. The Ephesians, upon their conversion, having such an access to God, as well as the Jews, and by the same Spirit, the apostle tells them, Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, Eph 2:19. This he mentions by way of opposition to what he had observed of them in their heathenism: they were now no longer aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and no longer what the Jews were wont to account all the nations of the earth besides themselves (namely, strangers to God), but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, that is, members of the church of Christ, and having a right to all the privileges of it. Observe here, The church is compared to a city, and every converted sinner is free of it. It is also compared to a house, and every converted sinner is one of the domestics, one of the family, a servant and a child in God's house. In Eph 2:20 the church is compared to a building. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of that building. They may be so called in a secondary sense, Christ himself being the primary foundation; but we are rather to understand it of the doctrine delivered by the prophets of the Old Testament and the apostles of the New. It follows, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. In him both Jews and Gentiles meet, and constitute one church; and Christ supports the building by his strength: In whom all the building, fitly framed together, etc., Eph 2:21. All believers, of whom it consists, being united to Christ by faith, and among themselves by Christian charity, grow unto a holy temple, become a sacred society, in which there is much communion between God and his people, as in the temple, they worshipping and serving him, he manifesting himself unto them, they offering up spiritual sacrifices to God and he dispensing his blessings and favours to them. Thus the building, for the nature of it, is a temple, a holy temple; for the church is the place which God hath chosen to put his name there, and it becomes such a temple by grace and strength derived from himself - in the Lord. The universal church being built upon Christ as the foundation-stone, and united in Christ as the corner-stone, comes at length to be glorified in him as the top-stone: In whom you also are built together, etc., Eph 2:22. Observe, Not only the universal church is called the temple of God, but particular churches; and even every true believer is a living temple, is a habitation of God through the Spirit. God dwells in all believers now, they having become the temple of God through the operations of the blessed Spirit, and his dwelling with them now is an earnest of their dwelling together with him to eternity.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(14) He (Himself) is our peace.—There is clearly allusion, as to the many promises in the Old Testament of the “Prince of Peace” (Isa_9:5-6, et al.), so still more to the “Peace of Earth” of the angelic song of Bethlehem, and to the repeated declarations of our Lord, such as, “Peace I leave with you: My peace I give unto you.” Here, however, only is our Lord called not the giver of peace, but the peace itself—His own nature being the actual tie of unity between God and mankind, and between man and man. Through the whole passage thus introduced there runs a double meaning, a declaration of peace in Christ between Jew and Gentile, and between both and God; though it is not always easy to tell of any particular expression, whether it belongs to this or that branch of the meaning, or to both. It is well to compare it with the obvious parallel in Col_2:13-14, where (in accordance with the whole genius of that Epistle) there is found only the latter branch of the meaning, the union of all with the Head, not the unity of the various members of the Body.

Who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.—In this verse the former subject is begun. The reunion of Jew and Gentile is described in close connection with the breaking down of “the middle wall of the partition” (or, hedge). The words “between us” are not in the original, and Chrysostom interprets the partition as being, not between Jew and Gentile, but between both and God. But the former idea seems at any rate to predominate in this clause. Whether “the middle wall of the hedge” refers to the wall separating the court of the Gentiles from the Temple proper (Jos. Ant. xv. § 5), and by an inscription denouncing death to any alien who passed it (see Lewin’s St. Paul, vol. ii., p. 133), or to the “hedge” set about the vineyard of the Lord (Isa_5:2; comp. Mat_22:33)—to which probably the Jewish doctors alluded when they called their ceremonial and legal subtleties “the hedge” of the Law—has been disputed. It may, however, be noted that the charge of bringing Trophimus, an Ephesian, beyond that Temple wall had been the cause of St. Paul’s apprehension at Jerusalem (Act_21:29), and nearly of his death. Hence the Asiatic churches might well be familiar with its existence. It is also notable that this Temple-partition suits perfectly the double sense of this passage: for, while it was primarily a separation between Jew and Gentile, it was also the first of many partitions—of which the “veil of the Temple” was the last—cutting all men off from the immediate presence of God. At our Lord’s death the last of these partitions was rent in twain; how much more may that death be described as breaking down the first!

(2 b.) Eph_2:14-18 pass on from the description of the call of the heathen to personal union with God in Christ, to dwell on the perfect unity and equality of Jew and Gentile with each other in Him, and the access of both to the Father.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_2:14

For He is our Peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition.

Christ our Peace

1. Christ Jesus is the author of all our peace.

(1) In restoring the amity and friendship which we had in creation, but lost by the Fall.

(2) In vanquishing those enemies which had taken us captive, and wrongfully detained us.

2. There was a separation between Jew and Gentile, before they came to be in Christ.

3. The way to obtain peace is to take away that which bars it. To make two rooms into one, you must beat down the wall which forms the partition. (Paul Bayne.)

Peace from Christ alone

Christ is the author of all our peace; but He applies it successively by degrees. Like Master, like man; like Prince, like people. Christ for a while endured great troubles, and so must His members.

1. In all terror of conscience we must look to Christ. We keep the fire from our faces and eyes with screens; but they are wise who put between their souls and Gods wrath the screen of Christs reconciliation, lest this fire burn to the pit of destruction. This stills the conscience, and fills it with good hope.

2. This must make us cleave unto Christ, even to let our tenderest bowels love Him who has done this for us.

3. Seeing Christ alone is the author of all true peace, this should cause us to seek to be under His kingdom, yea, to give our eyelids no rest till we have enlisted in the army of Christ. Look how you would do, if the enemy had entered your gates, taken your wives and children, spoiled you of your goods. If there were a town near you, where you might prevent such danger, and find safe protection, and live peaceably and securely, who would not with all expedition betake himself thither?

4. Seek to be, like Christ, a peace maker.

5. How miserable the condition of all out of Christ. (Paul Bayne.)

Christ the Peace of His people

I. The substitution.

1. This substitution of Christ in behalf of His mystical body is primary, original. It runs as far back as the council of peace. He became our Peace then, when He entered into the covenant of peace, met the stipulation for peace, undertook to satisfy all the demands of law and justice for peace, and pledged Himself to be that peace.

2. It is permanent--it runs through every dispensation of the Church of the living God. There was not one sort of gospel to preach to Abraham, and another to preach to the present race of sinners. The doctrine of substitution runs through the whole of the Mosaic economy, and hence it is permanent, and comes down to the present moment of the existence of the Church upon earth.

II. The union. The smallest finger in my hand can move, can grasp, can unite with the other, in any effort that is put forth, because it is one with the hand, one with the body, and derives its life and strength and blood from thence; but sever my little finger from my hand, and it has no more strength--it is utterly useless. Apart from Me, says Christ, ye can do nothing. But in vital union with Jesus, the strength which is His flows to the feeblest and weakest member, and is put forth in the mighty actings of faith, and the holy energies of the new man. Moreover, this union is so experimental as always to produce communion. It is close, it is grasping, it is uniting, it is abiding, it is mutual in interest. Moreover, it is evident and manifest, because the world must see that the union which grace has effected between our souls and Christ, has cut asunder the tie which once existed between us and them, has cut asunder the union which made us once very fond of their fooleries.

III. The participation. His justice is perfectly satisfied on my behalf, that I may look upon the bleeding Christ, the rising Christ, the exalted Christ, and the interceding Christ, and say with Paul, He loved me, and gave Himself for me. What serenity! A satisfactory, solid, sacred, holy, serenity of soul; a heavenly calm, a believing acquiescence in the love, and power, and grace, and goodness, of my God, not only in matters relating to Providence around me, but in matters relating to my souls everlasting salvation. (J. Irons.)

The Prince of Peace

I. He is our Peace, in that He makes peace. Peace between God and man--reconciling both (Jew and Gentile) unto God--by the Cross, having slain the enmity thereby (Eph_2:16).

II. He is our Peace, in that He gives peace. My peace I give unto you--let not your heart be troubled (Joh_14:27). Or, as it is put here, came and preached peace to you who were afar off (Eph_2:17).

III. He is our Peace, in that He promotes peace. Who hath made both (Jews and Gentiles) one (Eph_2:14). This is ever the practical outcome of the rule of The Prince of Peace. He promotes peace.

1. In the family, subduing the elements of strife and discord.

2. In the neighbourhood, as every successful missionary at home and abroad can testify.

3. In the Church.

4. Among nations.

Note: These senses in which Christ is our Peace are progressive. He has made peace for us, for all men, by His atoning work. He may be our peace, speaking peace within, quieting the tumult of doubt and fear (Mat_11:28-30). And, if we are His, He will promote peace through, and by means of us in every circle in which we move and in every place in which we have influence. (Joseph Ogle.)

Peace already made

When a poor bricklayer who had fallen from a great height was lying fatally injured he was visited by a minister in the neighbourhood. On entering the cottage he said, My dear man, I am afraid you are dying. I exhort you to make your peace with God. Make my peace with God, sir! Why, that was made eighteen hundred years ago, when my great and glorious Lord paid all my debt upon the cruel tree. Christ is my Peace, and I am saved.

Peace and comfort through the Atonement

There is no chance whatever of our finding a pillow for a head which the Holy Ghost has made to ache save in the atonement and the finished work of Christ. When Mr. Robert Hall first went to Cambridge to preach, the Cambridge folks were nearly Unitarians. So he preached upon the doctrine of the finished work of Christ, and some of them came to him in the vestry and said, Mr. Hall, this will never do. Why not? said he. Why, your sermon was only fit for old women. And why only fit for old women? said Mr. Hall. Because, said they, they are tottering on the borders of the grave, and they want comfort, and, therefore, it will suit them, but it will not do for us. Very well, said Mr. Hall, you have unconsciously paid me all the compliment that I can ask for; if this is good for old women on the, borders of the grave, it must be good for you if you are in your right senses, for the borders of the grave is where we all stand. Here, indeed, is a choice feature of the Atonement, it is comforting to us in the thought of death. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Peace in Jesus only

As the needle in a compass trembles till it settles in the north point, so the heart of a sinner can get no rest but in Christ.

Peace through Christ

In the Pitti Palace, at Florence, there are two pictures which hang side by side. One represents a stormy sea with its wild waves, and black clouds and fierce lightnings flashing across the sky. In the waters a human face is seen, wearing an expression of the utmost agony and despair. The other picture also represents a sea, tossed by as fierce a storm, with as dark clouds; but out of the midst of the waves a rock rises, against which the waters dash in vain. In a cleft of a rock are some tufts of grass and green herbage, with sweet flowers, and amid these a dove is seen sitting on her nest, quiet and undisturbed by the wild fury of the storm. The first picture fitly represents the sorrow of the world when all is helpless and despairing; and the other, the sorrow of the Christian, no less severe,. but in which he is kept in perfect peace, because he nestles in the bosom of Gods unchanging love. (American.)

The partition wall removed

1. Every man by nature, in himself, and without Christ, is at war and enmity with God, with His Church, and chiefly those in the Church who are truly regenerate.

2. This enmity could only be removed by Christs bloodshed and death.

3. The uniting of both Jew and Gentile in one Church is a branch of the peace which Christ has purchased.

4. From the apostles designing the ceremonial law by a metaphor taken from houses divided by a mid-wall, or from an orchard, garden, or inclosure, separated from the outfield by a dyke or wall of rough stones, we learn several things relating to the nature, use, and duration of the ceremonial law, which are the grounds of the similitude. And first, as a wall is built by the owner of the enclosure, so the ceremonial law was by Gods own appointment (Deu_32:8; Exo_25:40). Secondly, as a rough wall is made up of so many hard, unpolished stones, not covered over with lime or plaster; so the ceremonial law consisted of many ordinances (Heb_9:10), and those very difficult to be obeyed, and an intolerable yoke (Act_15:10). Thirdly, as a wall or hedge encloseth a piece of ground for the owners special use (which therefore is more painfully manured), and separateth that enclosure from the outfield which lieth about it; so the ceremonial law did serve to enclose the people of Israel, as the Lords own garden and vineyard, for bringing forth fruit unto Himself (Isa_5:7), and to separate them from all the world besides (Deu_4:7-8), as being a worship wholly different from and contrary unto the superstitious rites and worship used among the Gentiles (Deu_12:2), and containing strict injunctions unto the Jews to avoid all conformity with the Gentiles in their garments (Num_15:38), cutting of their hair (Lev_19:27), and such like. Fourthly, as a rough wall is but weak and ruinous, as not being built with cement or mortar to make it strong, and therefore but to endure for a season, until the owner think fit to enlarge his enclosure and take in more of the open field; so the ceremonial law was not to last forever, but only for a time, until Christ should come in the flesh, and take in the Gentiles within the enclosure of His Church, who were before an open field, not possessed nor manured by Him; after which there was no further use of the mid-wall.

5. So long as the ceremonial law did stand in force and vigour, the Jews and Gentiles could not be united into one Church: for seeing by that law the chief parts of Gods worship were restricted to the Temple at Jerusalem; therefore, though scattered proselytes of the neighbouring nations did join themselves to the Church of the Jews, and in some measure observed the way of worship then enjoined (Act_8:27), yet there was a physical impossibility for the generality of many nations far remote from Jerusalem to have served God according to the prescript of worship which then was: besides, there was such an habituate and as it were a natural antipathy transmitted from one generation unto another among the Gentiles against the ceremonial worship, that there was little less than a moral impossibility of bringing up the body of the Gentiles unto a cordial joining with the Jews in it: for the apostle showeth the ceremonial law behoved to be abrogated, in order to a union betwixt these two, while he saith, Who hath made both one, and broken down the middle wall of partition between us.

6. Whoever would make peace betwixt God and himself, or betwixt himself and others, he ought seriously to think upon those things which stand in the way of peace, and set about the removal of them, if it be in his power, and chiefly those evils in himself, of pride, vain-glory, self-seeking, and a contentious disposition, which are great obstructions in the way of peace (Php_2:3-4); else, whatever, be his pretenses for peace, he is no real follower of it: for, Christ intending to make peace betwixt Jew and Gentile, did take away whatever might have impeded it; He even broke down the middle wall of partition between them. (James Fergusson.)

Reconciliation through Christ

Themistocles having offended King Philip, and not knowing how to regain his favour, took his young son, Alexander, in his arms, and so presented himself before the king; and when he saw the boy smile on him, it very soon appeased the wrath within him. So the sinner should approach God with His Son Jesus Christ within him.

The need of reconciliation

Certainly a soul, sensible as to what the loss of communion with God is, counts it hath not fulfilled all its errand, when it hath bare peace given it. Should God say, Soul, I am friends with thee, I have ordered that thou shalt never go to hell, here is a discharge under My hand that thou shalt never be arrested for any debt more: but as for any fellowship with Me, thou canst expect none: I have done with thee forever, never to be acquainted with thee more. Certainly the soul would find little joy with such peace. Were the fire out as to positive torments, yet a hell would be left in the dismal darkness which the soul would sit under for want of Gods presence. A wicked heart seeks reconciliation without any longing after fellowship with God. Like the traitor, if the king will but pardon and save him from the gallows, he is ready to promise him never to trouble him at Court; tis his own life, not the kings favour, he desires. (W. Gurnall.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. Our peace—A triangular peace between Jew and Gentile, and between both and God. One of the Hebrew names for the Messiah was Shalom, Peace.

Made both one—Not by abolishing race distinctions in the physiological man, but by abolishing old antagonisms, and creating a new unity in Christian brotherhood.

The middle wall—The words, if not an allusion to the wall described in our notes on Joh_2:14, and Act_21:28, are well illustrated by it.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 10

THE DOUBLE RECONCILIATION

Eph_2:14-18

"PEACE, peace-to the far off, and to the near!" Such was Gods promise to His scattered people in the times of the exile. {Isa_57:19} St. Paul sees that peace of God extending over a yet wider field, and terminating a longer and sadder banishment than the prophet had foreseen. Christ is "our peace"-not for the divided members of Israel alone, but for all the tribes of men. He brings about a universal pacification.

There were two distinct, but kindred enmities to be overcome by Christ, in preaching to the world His good tidings of peace (Eph_2:17). There was the hostility of Jew and Gentile, which was removed in its cause and principle when Christ "in His flesh" (by His incarnate life and death) "abolished the law of commandments in decrees"-i.e., the law of Moses as it constituted a body of external precepts determining the way of righteousness and life. This abolition of the law by the evangelical principle "dissolved the middle wall of partition." The occasion of quarrel between Israel and the world was destroyed; the barrier disappeared that had for so long fenced off the privileged ground of the sons of Abraham (Eph_2:14-15). But behind this human enmity, underneath the feud and rancour existing between the Jews and the nations, there lay the deeper quarrel of mankind with God. Both enmities centred in the law: both were slain by one stroke, in the reconciliation of the cross (Eph_2:16).

The Jewish and Gentile peoples formed two distinct types of humanity. Politically, the Jews were insignificant and had scarcely counted amongst the great powers of the world. Their religion alone gave them influence and importance. Bearing his inspired Scriptures and his Messianic hope, the wandering Israelite confronted the vast masses of heathenism and the splendid and fascinating classical civilisation with the proudest sense of his superiority. To his God he knew well that one day every knee would bow and every tongue confess. The circumstances of the time deepened his isolation and aggravated to internecine hate his spite against his fellowmen, the adversus omnes alios hostile odium stigmatised by the incisive pen of Tacitus. Within three years of the writing of this letter the Jewish war against Rome broke out, when the enmity culminated in the most appalling and fateful overthrow recorded in the pages of history. Now, it is this enmity at its height-the most inveterate and desperate one can conceive-that the apostle proposes to reconcile; nay, that he sees already slain by the sacrifice of the cross, and within the brotherhood of the Christian Church. It was slain in the heart of Saul of Tarsus, the proudest that beat in Jewish breast.

In his earlier writings the apostle has been concerned chiefly to guard the position and rights of the two parties within the Church. He has abundantly maintained, especially in the epistle to the Galatians, the claims of Gentile believers in Christ against Judaic assumptions and impositions. He has defended the just prerogative of the Jew and his hereditary sentiments from the contempt to which they were sometimes exposed on the part of the Gentile majority. But now that this has been done, and that Gentile liberties and Jewish dignity have been vindicated and safeguarded on both sides, St. Paul advances a step further: he seeks to amalgamate the Jewish and Gentile section of the Church, and to "make of the twain one new man, so making peace." This, he declares, was the end of Christs mission; this a chief purpose of His atoning death. Only by such union, only through the burying of the old enmity slain on the cross, could His Church be built up to its completeness. St. Paul would have Gentile and Jewish believers everywhere forget their differences, efface their party lines, and merge their independence in the oneness of the allembracing and all-perfecting Church of. Jesus Christ, Gods habitation in the Spirit. Instead of saying that a catholic ideal like this belongs to a later and post-apostolic age, we maintain, on the contrary, that a catholic mind like St. Pauls, under the conditions of his time, could riot fail to arrive at this conception.

It was his confidence in the victory of the cross over all strife and sin that sustained St. Paul through these years of captivity. As he looks out from his Roman prison, under the shadow of Neros palace, the future is invested with a radiance of hope that makes the heart of the chained apostle exult within him. The world is lost, to all outward seeming: he knows it is saved! Jew and Gentile are about to close in mortal conflict: he proclaims peace between them, assured of their reconcilement, and knowing that in their reunion the salvation of human society is assured. The enmity of Jew and Gentile was representative of all that divides mankind. In it were concentrated most of the causes by which society is rent asunder. Along with religion, race, habits, taste and culture, moral tendencies, political aspirations, interests of trade, all helped to widen the breach. The cleavage ran deep into the foundations of life; the enmity was the growth of two thousand years. It was not a case of local friction, nor a quarrel arising from temporary causes. The Jew was ubiquitous, and everywhere was an alien and an irritant to Gentile society. No antipathy was so hard to subdue. The grace that conquers it can and will conquer all enmities. St. Pauls view embraced, in fact, a world-wide reconcilement. He contemplates, as the Hebrew prophets themselves did, the fraternisation of mankind under the rule of the Christ. After this scale he laid down the foundation of the Church, "wise master-builder" that he was. It was destined to bear the weight of an edifice in which all the races of men should dwell together, and every order of human faculty should find its place. His thoughts were not confined within the Judaic antithesis. "There is no Jew and Greek," he says in another place; yes, and "no barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman, male or female. Ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Birth, rank, office in the Church, culture, even sex are minor and subordinate distinctions, merged in the unity of redeemed souls in Christ. That which He "creates in Himself of the twain" is one new man- one incorporate humanity, neither Jew nor Gentile, Englishman nor Hindu, priest nor layman, male nor female; but simply man, and Christian.

At the present time we are better able to enter into these views of the apostle than at any intervening period of history. In his day almost the whole visible world, lying around the Mediterranean shores, was brought under the government and laws of Rome. This fact made the establishment of one religious polity a thing quite conceivable. The Roman empire did not, as it proved, allow Christianity to conquer it soon enough and to leaven it sufficiently to save it. That huge construction, the mightiest fabric of human polity, fell and covered the earth with its ruins. In its fall it reacted disastrously upon the Church, and has bequeathed to it the corrupt and despotic unity of Papal Rome. Now, in these last days, the whole world is opened to the Church, a world stretching far beyond the horizon of the first century. Science and Commerce, those two strong-winged angels and giant ministers of God, are swiftly binding the continents together in material ties. The peoples are beginning to realise their brotherhood, and are feeling their way in many directions towards international union; while in the Churches a new, federal catholicity is taking shape, that must displace the false catholicism of external uniformity and the disastrous absolutism inherited from Rome. The spread of European empire and the marvellous expansion of our English race are carrying forward the worlds unification with enormous strides, -towards some end or other. What end is this to be? Is the kingdom of the world about to become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ? and are the nations preparing to be "reconciled in one body unto God"?

If Christendom were worthy of her Master and her name, this answer would be answered with no doubtful affirmative. The Church is well able, if she were prepared, to go up and possess the whole earth for her Lord. The way is open; the means are in her hand. Nor is she ignorant, nor wholly negligent of her opportunity and of the claims that the times impose upon her. She is putting forth new strength and striving to overtake her work, notwithstanding the weight of ignorance and sloth that burdens her. Soon the reconciling cross will be planted on every shore, and the praises of the Crucified be sung in every human language.

But there are dark as well as bright auguries for the future. The advance of commerce and emigration has been a curse and not a blessing to many heathen peoples. Who can read without shame and horror the story of European conquest in America? And it is a chapter not yet closed. Greed and injustice still mark the dealings of the powerful and civilised with the weaker races. England set a noble example in the abolition of negro slavery; but she has since inflicted, for purposes of gain, the opium curse on China, putting poison to the lips of its vast population. Under our Christian flags firearms are imported, and alcohol, amongst tribes of men less able than children to resist their evils. Is this "preaching peace to those far off"? It is likely that the commercial profits made in the destruction of savage races as yet exceed all that our missionary societies have spent in saving them. One of these days Almighty God may have a stern reckoning with modern Europe about these things. "When He maketh inquisition for blood, He will remember."

And what shall we say of ourselves at home, in our relation to this great principle of the apostle? The old "middle wall of partition," the temple-barrier that sundered Jew and Gentile, is "broken down,"-visibly levelled by the hand of God when Jerusalem fell, as it had been virtually and in its principle destroyed by the work of Christ. But are there no other middle walls, no barriers raised within the fold of Christ? The rich mans purse, and the poor mans penury; aristocratic pride, democratic bitterness and jealousy; knowledge and refinement on the one hand, ignorance and rudeness on the other-how thick the veil of estrangement which these influences weave, how high the party walls which they build in our various Church communions!

It is the duty of the Church, as she values her existence, with gentle but firm hands to pull down and to keep down all such partitions. She cannot abolish the natural distinctions of life. She cannot turn the Jew into a Gentile, nor the Gentile into a Jew. She will never make the poor man rich in this world, nor the rich man altogether poor. Like her Master, she declines to be "judge or divider" of our secular inheritance. But she can see to it that these outward distinctions make no difference in her treatment of the men as men. She can combine in her fellowship all grades and orders, and teach them to understand and respect each other. She can soften the asperities and relieve many of the hardships which social differences create. She can diffuse a healing and purifying influence upon the contentions of society around her.

Let us labour unweariedly for this, and let our meeting at the Lords table be a symbol of the unreserved communion of men of all classes and conditions in the brotherhood of the redeemed sons of God. "He is our peace"; and if He is in our hearts, we must needs be sons of peace. "Behold the secret of all true union! It is not by others coming to us, nor by our going over to them; but it is by both them and ourselves coming to Christ" that peace is made (Monod). Thus within and without the Church the work of atonement will advance, with Christ ever for its preacher (Eph_2:17). He speaks through the words and the lives of His ten thousand messengers, men of every order, in every age and country of the earth. The leaven of Christs peace will spread till the lump is leavened. God will accomplish His purpose of the ages, whether in our time, or in another worthier of His calling. His Church is destined to be the home of the human family, the universal liberator and instructor and reconciler of the nations. And Christ shall sit enthroned in the loyal worship of the federated peoples of the earth.

But the question remains: What is the foundation, what the warrant of this grand idealism of the apostle Paul? Many a great thinker, many an ardent reformer before and since has dreamed of some such millennium as this. And their enthusiastic plans have ended too often in conflict and destruction. What surer ground of confidence have we in Pauls undertaking than in those of so many gifted visionaries and philosophers? The difference lies here: his expectation rests on the word and character of God; his instrument of reform is the cross of Jesus Christ.

God is the centre of His own universe. Any reconciliation that is to stand must include Him first of all. Christ reconciled Jew and Gentile "both in one body to God." There is the meeting point, the true focus of the orbit of human life, that can alone control its movements and correct its wild aberrations. Under the shadow of His throne of justice, in the arms of His fatherly love, the kindreds of the earth will at last find reconciliation and peace. Humanitarian and secularist systems make the simple mistake of ignoring the supreme Factor in the scheme of things; they leave out the All in all.

"Be ye reconciled to God, " cries the apostle. For Almighty God has had a great quarrel with this world of ours. The hatred of men towards each other is rooted in the "carnal mind which is enmity against God." The "law of commandments contained in ordinances," in whose possession the Jew boasted over the lawless and profane Gentile, in reality branded both as culprits. The secret disquiet and dread lurking in mans conscience, the pangs endured in his body of humiliation, the groaning frame of nature declare the world unhinged and out of course. Things have gone amiss, somehow, between man and his Creator. The face of the earth and the field of human history are scarred with the thunderbolts of His displeasure. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and the King of the ages, is not the amiable, almighty Sentimentalist that some pious people would make Him out to be. The men of the Bible felt and realised, if we do not, the grave and tremendous import of the Lords controversy with all flesh. He is unceasingly at war with the sins of men. "God is love"-oh, yes! but then He is also "a consuming fire"! There is no anger so crushing as the anger of love, for there is none so just; no wrath to be feared like "the wrath of the Lamb." God is not a man, weak and passionate whom a spark of anger might set all on fire, burning out His justice and compassion. "In His wrath He remembers mercy." Within that infinite nature there is room for an absolute loathing and resentment towards sin, in consistence with an immeasurable pity and yearning towards His sinful children. Hence the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Look at it from what side you will (and it has many sides), propound it in what terms you may (and it translates itself anew into the dialect of every age), you must not explain the cross of Christ away nor cause its offence to cease. "The atonement has always been a scandal and a folly to those who did not receive it; it has always contained something which to formal logic is false and to individualistic ethics immoral; yet in that very element which has been branded as immoral and false, has always lain the seal of its power and the secret of its truth." The Holy One of God, the Lamb without spot and blemish, He died by His own consent a sinners death. That sacrifice, undergone by the Son of God and Son of man dying as man for men, in love to His race and in obedience to the Divine will and law, gave an infinite satisfaction to God in His relation to the world, and there went up to the Divine throne from the anguish of Calvary a "savour of sweet smell." The moral glory of the act of Jesus Christ in dying for His guilty brethren outshone its horror and disgrace; and it redeemed mans lost condition, and clothed human nature with a new character and aspect in the eyes of God Himself. "Now therefore there is no more condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." The mercy of God, if we may so say, is set free to act in forgiveness and restoration, without any compromise of justice and inflexible law. No peace without this: no peace that did not satisfy God, and satisfy that law, deep as the deepest in God, that binds suffering to wrongdoing and death to sin.

Perhaps you say: This is immoral, surely, that the just should suffer for the unjust; that one commits the offence, and another bears the penalty.-Stay a moment: that is only half the truth. We are more than individuals; we are members of a race; and vicarious suffering runs through life. Our sufferings and wrong-doings bind the human family together in an inextricable web. We are communists in sin and death. It is the law and lot of our existence. And Christ, the Lord and centre of the race, has come within its scope. He bound Himself to our sinking fortunes. He became copartner in our lost estate, and has redeemed it to God by His blood. If He was true and perfect man, if He was the creative Head and Mediator of the race, the eternal Firstborn of many brethren, He could do no other. He who alone had the right and the power, -"One died for all." He took upon His Divine heart the sin and curse of the world, He fastened it to His shoulders with the cross; and He bore it away from Caiaphas hall and Pilates judgment-seat, away from guilty Jerusalem; He took away the sin of the world, and expiated it once for all. He quenched in His blood the fires of wrath and hate it kindled. He slew the enmity thereby.

Still, we are individuals, as you said, not lost after all in the worlds solidarity. Here your personal right and will must come in. What Christ has done for you is yours, so far as you accept it. He has died your death beforehand, trusting that you would not repudiate His act, that you would not let His blood be spilt in vain. But He will never force His mediation upon you. He respects your freedom and your manhood. Do you now endorse what Jesus Christ did on your behalf? Do you renounce the sin, and accept the sacrifice? Then it is yours, from this moment, before the tribunal of God and of conscience. By the witness of His Spirit you are proclaimed a forgiven and reconciled man. Christ crucified is yours-if you will have Him, if you will identify your sinful self with the sinless Mediator, if as you see Him lifted up on the cross you will let your heart cry out, "Oh my God, He dies for me!"

Coming "in one Spirit to the Father," the reconciled children join hands again with each other. Social barriers, caste feelings, family feuds, personal quarrels, national antipathies, alike go down before the virtue of the blood of Jesus.

"Neither passion nor pride

His cross can abide,

But melt in the fountain that streams from His side!"

"Beloved," you will say to the man that hates or has wronged you most, -"Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another." In these simple words of the apostle John lies the secret of universal peace, the hope of the fraternisation of mankind. Nations will have to say this one day, as well as men.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

2:14 Christ himself has brought peace to us: Peace with God (2:16-17; Rom 5:1, 10-11, 18-21; Col 1:20-22) and between Jews and Gentiles (see Eph 2:15-16; 4:3). • the wall of hostility that separated us: Social and religious practices traditionally divided Jews from Gentiles. A low wall around the Temple in Jerusalem marked the boundary beyond which Gentiles were not allowed to step. It symbolized the distinction Jews drew between themselves and Gentiles.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Eph 2:14. Αὐτὸς) He.[28] We have here Emphasis.[29]—ἡ εἰρήνη) peace, not merely, the peace-maker; for at the cost of Himself He procured peace, and He Himself is the bond of both (Israel and the Gentiles).—ὁ) Apposition: Peace; He who hath made, etc. A remarkable saying, Eph 2:14-18. He imitates poetry [canticum, a song of joy] by the very tenor of the words, and almost by the rhythm.—We have a description—(α.) the union of the Gentiles with Israel, Eph 2:14-15; and then (β.) the union of the Gentiles and Israel, as now one man, with God, Eph 2:15, middle of verse—Eph 2:18. The description of each is subdivided into two parts, so that the first may correspond to the first, concerning the enmity that has been taken away; the second to the second, concerning the ordinances of the Gospel.—τὰ ἀμφότερα, both) The neuter for the masculine, Eph 2:18 [οἱ ἀμφότεροι], properly, because ἓν, one [neuter], follows.—μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ, the partition wall of the fence [the middle wall of partition]) It is called τοῖχος, a wall, because the separating space between [Jews and Gentiles] was very strongly fortified; φραγμὸς, a fence, because it is easily removed at the proper time. The partition wall separates houses; the fence separates tracks of land; comp. Eph 2:19.[30] Therefore the distinction between circumcision and uncircumcision is hinted at. The very structure of the temple of Jerusalem was in conformity with it. The wall and the fence prevent an entrance; and the Gentiles were prevented from entering, inasmuch as they were not permitted to approach so near as the Israelites, even as those who were in the humblest rank.—λύσας, who hath broken down) Who hath broken down—who hath abolished, and not being repeated, very closely cohere. This short clause, and hath broken down, is explained in Eph 2:15, in the first half of the verse; He hath abolished the enmity in His flesh; comp. Eph 2:16, at the end. The law of commandments, which was properly adapted to the Israelites, He hath abolished, in the universal ordinances of grace;[31] comp. Eph 2:17, at the beginning of the verse.

[28] He alone and pre-eminently.—ED.

[29] See App. An addition to the ordinary meaning of a word, with the power of increasing its force on either side.

[30] Where ξένοι refers to the separation of countries by the fence, φραγμὸς: παροικοι to the separation of houses by the μεσοτοιχος, or partition wall; to which are opposed respectively συμπολῖται and οἰκεῖοι.—ED.

[31] But Engl. Vers. takes ἐν δόγμασιν with τῶν ἐντογῶν, “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.”—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_2:14.[148] Confirmatory elucidation to Eph_2:13, especially as to the element implied in the ἘΝ ΧΡΙΣΤῷ ἸΗΣΟῦ, and more precisely in the ἘΝ Τῷ ΑἽΜΑΤ. ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ.

ΑὐΤΌς] ipse; as regards His own person, is not put in opposition to the thought of ourselves having made the peace (Hofmann), which is in fact quite foreign to the passage; butand what a triumph of the certainty and completeness of the blessing obtained is therein implied!non modo pacificator, nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipse vinculum est utrorumque, Bengel. See what follows. Observe also the presence of the article in ἡ εἰρήνη, denoting the peace ΚΑΤʼ ἘΞΟΧΉΝ (Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 109 [E. T. 125]); He is for us the peace absolutely, the absolute contrast to the ἔχθρα, Eph_2:15. The Rabbinical passages, however, in which the Messiah (comp. Isa_9:6) is called שלום (Wetstein in loc.; Schöttgen, Horae, II. p. 18), do not bear on this passage, since in them the point spoken of is not, as here,[149] the peace between Jews and Gentiles.

ὁ ποιήσας κ.τ.λ.] quippe qui fecit, etc., now begins the more precise information, how Christ has become Himself our peace.

τὰ ἀμφότερα] the two [Germ. das Beides], i.e. the two existing parts, the Jews and Gentiles. The neuter expression corresponds to the following ἕν. Nothing is to be supplied (Grotius: γένη).

ἕν] not so, that one part assumed the nature of the other, but so that the separation of the two was done away with, and both were raised to a new unity. That was the union of the divine οἰκονομία. See the sequel. Comp. Col_3:11; Gal_3:28; Rom_10:12; 1Co_12:13; Joh_10:16.

καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φρ. λύσας] is related to the foregoing as explicative of it (καί, see Winer, p. 388 [E. T. 546]; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 9 f.). τοῦ φραγμοῦ is genitive of apposition: the partition-wall, which consisted in the (well-known) fence. What is meant by this, we are then told by means of the epexegetic τὴν ἔχθραν; hence Paul has not by the figurative τὸ μεσότ. τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας merely wished to express the (negative) conception that Christ has done away with the isolation of the O. T. commonwealth, as Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 375, holds, refining on τὸ μεσότ. τ. φρ., and connecting τὴν ἔχθραν with καταργήσας. De Wette censures the extreme tameness of the explanation, according to which τὸ μεσότ. κ.τ.λ. is taken not as a designation of the law, but as a preliminary designation of the ἔχθρα. But the twofold designation of the matter, describing it first figuratively and then properly, is in keeping with the importance of the idea, the direct expression of which produces after the previous figure an effect the more striking.

To take the genitive in an adjectival sense, as equivalent to τὸ μεσότοιχον διαφράσσον (Vorstius, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmüller, Meier, and others), is wrong, because the characteristic adjective notion is implied in τὸ μεσότοιχον (paries intergerinus, found elsewhere only in Eratosthenes quoted by Athen. vii. p. 281 D, in Hesychius under κατῆλιψ, and in the Fathers[150]), which has been felt also by Castalio and Beza, inasmuch as they erroneously translated it as though ΤῸΝ ΦΡΑΓΜῸΝ ΤΟῦ ΜΕΣΟΤΟΊΧΟΥ were used. A reference, we may add, to a definite φραγμός, which underlies the figurative expression, is not to be assumed, since the words furnish nothing of the sort, and any kind of fence serving as a partition-wall illustrates the ἔχθρα. Some have thought of the stone screen which in the temple-enclosure marked off the court of the Gentiles, and the inscription of which forbade every Gentile from farther advance (Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 2, vi. 2. 4; Antt. viii. 3. 2 f., xv. 11. 5, al.; Middoth, ii. 3). So Anselm, Ludov. Cappellus, Hammond, Bengel, Wetstein, Krebs, Bretschneider, Holzhausen, and others. But at most this could only be assumed, without arbitrariness, if that screen had statedly borne the name of φραγμός. Other references, still more foreign to the matter, which have been introduced, such as to the Jewish districts in large towns, which were marked off by a wall or otherwise (Schöttgen and others), may be seen in Wolf. Among the Rabbins, too, the figure of a fence is in very frequent use. See Buxtorf, s.v. סיג.

ΛΎΣΑς] in the sense of throwing down (Wetstein, ad Joh. ii. 19), belongs to the figure, and is not chosen on account of the ΤῊΝ ἜΧΘΡΑΝ which does not come in till afterwards, although it would be chosen suitably thereto (see Wetstein in loc.).

It has been wrongly designated as an un-Pauline idea, that Christ through His death should have united the Jews and Gentiles by means of the abolition of the law (see Schwegler, l.c. p. 389 f.). This union has in fact taken place as a raising of both into a higher unity, Eph_2:16; Eph_2:18; Eph_2:21 f.; hence that doctrinal principle is sufficiently explained from the destination of Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles and his personal experience, and from his own elsewhere attested universalism, and need not have as a presupposition the post-apostolic process of development on the part of the church gradually gathering itself out of heterogeneous elements into a unity, so as to betray a later catholicizing tendency (Baur).

[148] Ver. 1418 ipso verborum Lenore et quasi rhythmo canticum imitatur, Bengel.

[149] In opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 374, who, at variance with the context, understands εἰρήνη primarily in relation to God; similarly Calovius and others.

[150] In Athen. l.c. it is masculine: τὸν τῆς ἡδονῆς καὶ ἀρετῆς μεσότοιχον.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 2:14 . αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν : for He is our Peace . As most commentators notice, the emphasis is on the αὐτός “He and no other”. But there is probably more in it than that. The selection of the abstract εἰρήνη , instead of the simple εἰρηνοποιός , suggests that the point of the αὐτός is not only “He alone ,” but “He in His own person ”. It is not only that the peace was made by Christ and ranks as His achievement, but that it is so identified with Him that were He away it would also fail, so dependent on Him that apart from Him we cannot have it. And He is thus for us “ the Peace” ( ἡ εἰρήνη ), Peace in the absolute sense to the exclusion of all other. Peace , the peace of the Messianic age, the peace that is to come by Messiah, is a frequent note in OT prophecy (Isa 9:5-6 ; Isa 52:7 ; Isa 53:5 ; Isa 57:19 ; Mic 5:5 ; Hag 2:9 ; Zec 9:10 ). Here, as the next sentence shows, the peace especially in view is that between Jew and Gentile, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν : who made both one . Not “hath made,” but “made,” with reference to the definite act of His death, as suggested by the ἐν τῷ αἵματι . The ἀμφότερα is the abstract neuter the two parties or classes. The sing. neut. ἕν (= one thing , one organism ) expresses the idea of the unity , the new unity which the two long separate and antagonistic parties became; cf. the ἕν used even of the relation between Christ and God in Joh 10:16 , and for the unity here in view, cf. Rom 10:12 ; 1Co 12:13 ; Gal 3:28 ; Col 3:11 . καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας : and broke down the middle wall of the partition . The former clause began the explanation of how Christ became our Peace. That explanation is continued in this clause and in the following. The καί , therefore, is epexegetic = to wit , or in that ( cf. Win.-Moult., p. 545). The gen. φραγμοῦ is not a mere equivalent to an adject. or a partic., as if = τὸ μεσότοιχον διαφράσσον (Grot., Rosenm., etc.), nor is it the gen. of quality , = “the middle wall whose character it is to divide”; but either ( a ) the appos. gen. or gen. of identity , = “the middle wall that is (or, consists in) the partition,” or ( b ) the posses . gen., = “the wall pertaining to the partition”. On the latter view of the gen. the μεσότοιχον (a word found only this once in the NT and of rare occurrence elsewhere) becomes the more definite and specific term, the φραγμός the more general, the former being, indeed, a part of the latter. That is to say, the φραγμός is the whole system of things that kept Jew and Gentile apart, and the μεσότοιχον is the thing in the system that most conspicuously divided them, and that constituted the “enmity,” viz. , the Law. It is best, however, to take the terms μεσότοιχον and φραγμός in the simple, literal sense of division and separation , which are not explained to be the Law till the νόμος is actually introduced in the subsequent clause; and, therefore, the former view of the gen. appears to be preferable. It is suggested that what Paul really expresses then is the fact that the legal system, which was meant primarily to protect the Jewish people against the corruption of heathen idolatry, became the bitter root of Jewish exclusiveness in relation to the Gentiles. This is to give the φραγμός here the sense of something that fences in or encloses , which it occasionally has (Soph., Œd. Tyr. , 1387). But that is a rare sense, and the idea seems to be simpler. It is doubtful, too, whether Paul had in view here any material partition with which he was familiar. It could scarcely be the veil of the Temple that was rent at the Crucifixion; for that veil did not serve to separate the Gentile from the Jew. It might rather be (as Anselm, Bengel, and many more have thought) the wall or screen that divided the court of the Gentiles from the sanctuary proper, and of which Josephus tells us that it bore an inscription forbidding any Gentile from penetrating further ( Jew. Wars , v., 5, 2; vi., 2, 4; Antiq. , viii., 3, 2; xv., 11, 5). But even this is questionable, and all the more so as the wall was still standing at the time when this was written. For the use of λύσας cf. Joh 2:19 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14.] For He (there certainly is an emphasis on αὐτός, as Rück., Harl., Mey., Ellic., Eadie, ‘He and none other.’ This can hardly be denied by any one who will read through the whole from ver. 11, and mark the repetitions, χριστοῦ—χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ—τοῦ χριστοῦ, which this αὐτός takes up) is our peace (not by metonymy for εἰρηνοποιός, but in the widest and most literal sense, our peace. He did not make our peace and then retire, leaving us to enjoy that peace,—but is Himself its medium and its substance; His making both one was no external reconciliation, but the taking both, their common nature, on and into Himself,—see ver. 15. Bear in mind the multitude of prophetic passages which connect peace with Him, Isa 9:5, Isa 9:6; Isa 52:7; Isa 53:5; Isa 57:19; Mic 5:5; Hag 2:9; Zec 9:10: also Luk 2:14; Joh 14:27; Joh 20:19, Joh 20:21, Joh 20:26. And notice that already the complex idea of the whole verse, that of uniting both Jews and Gentiles in one reconciliation to God, begins to appear: for He is our Peace, not only as reconciling Jew to Gentile, not as bringing the far-off Gentile near to the Jew, but as reconciling both, united, to God; as bringing the far-off Gentile, and the near Jew, both into peace with God. For want of observing this the sense has been much obscured: see below) who made (specification, how He is our peace. Better ‘made,’ than ‘hath made:’ the latter is true, but it is the historic fact which is here brought out) both (Jews and Gentiles; not ‘man and God,’ as Stier: cf. vv. 15, 16. Neuter, as abstract,—both things, both elements) one, and (epexegetic—‘namely, in that he’) threw down the middle wall of the fence (i.e. the middle wall which belonged to—was a necessary part of the carrying out of—the φραγμός. The primary allusion seems to be to the rending of the veil at the crucifixion: not that that veil separated Jew and Gentile, but that it, the chief symbol of separation from God, included in its removal the admission to Him of that one body into which Christ made Jew and Gentile. This complex idea is before the Apostle throughout the sentence: and necessarily; for the reconciliation which Christ effected between Jew and Gentile was in fact only a subordinate step of the great reconciliation of both to God, which He effected by His sacrifice in the flesh,—and in speaking of one he speaks of the other also. The φραγμός, from what has been said above, is more general in sense than the μεσότοιχον; is in fact the whole arrangement, of which that was but an instrument—the separation itself, consequent on a system of separation: it = therefore the whole legal system, ceremonial and moral, which made the whole separation,—of Jew from Gentile,—and in the background, of both from God), the enmity (not, of Jew and Gentile: so strong a term is not justified as applying to their separation, nor does such a reference satisfy ver. 16,—see there;—but, the enmity in which both were involved against. God, see Rom 8:7. τὴν ἔχθ. is in apposition with τὸ μεσότ. This enmity was the real cause of separation from God, and in being so, was the inclusive, mediate cause of the separation between Jew and Gentile. Christ, by abolishing the first, abolished the other also: see below) in His flesh (to be joined not with καταργήσας, as most Commentators, which is very harsh, breaking the parallelism, and making the instrumental predication precede the verb, which is not the character of this passage;—but with λύσας. Christ destroyed the μεσ., i.e. the ἔχθρα, in, or by, His flesh; see on ver. 16, where the same idea is nearly repeated. It was in His crucified flesh, which was ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, that He slew this enmity. The rendering, ‘the enmity which was in His flesh,’ would certainly in this case require the specifying article τήν, besides being very questionable in sense),—having done away the law of decretory commandments (this law was the φραγμός,—the great exponent of the ἔχθρα. Its specific nature was that it consisted in commandments, decretorily or dogmatically expressed;—in ἐντολαὶ-ἐν-δόγμασιν. So that we do not require τὸν ἐν δόγ. or τῶν ἐν δόγ. This law, moral and ceremonial, its decalogue, its ordinances, its rites, was entirely done away in and by the death of Christ. See Col 2:13-15, notes. And the end of that κατάργησις was) that He might create the two (Jew and Gentile) in Him (it is somewhat difficult to decide between ἑαυτῷ and αὐτῷ. On the one hand, αὐτῷ is the harder reading: on the other, we have the constant confusion of αὐτ., αὑτ., and ἑαυτ., complicating the question. Whichever be read, the reference clearly must be to Christ, which, with αὐτῷ, is, to say the least, a harsh recurrence to the αὐτός of ver. 14) into one new man (observe, not that He might reconcile the two to each other only, nor is the Apostle speaking merely of any such reconciliation: but that He might incorporate the two, reconciled in Him to God, into one new man,—the old man to which both belonged, the enemy of God, having been slain in His flesh on the Cross. Observe, too, one new man: we are all in God’s sight but one in Christ, as we are but one in Adam), making peace (not, between Jew and Gentile: He is ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, of us all: see below on ver. 17), and (parallel with the former purpose: not ‘second purpose’ (Ellic., De W.), which yet must thus be the first. The καί is in fact just as in ver. 14) might reconcile again (most likely this is implied in the ἀπο. We have it only in Col 1:20, Col 1:21, where the same sense, of reinstating in the divine favour, seems to be intended) both of us in one body (not His own human body, as Chrys. (who however seems to waver,—cf. ἕως ἂν μένωμεν ἐν τῷ σώματι τοῦ χριστοῦ,—between this and His mystical body) al.—but the Church, cf. the same expression Col 3:15) to God (if this had not been here expressed, the whole reference of the sentence would have been thought to be to the uniting Jews and Gentiles. That it is expressed, now shews that throughout, that union has been thought of only as a subordinate step in a greater reconciliation) by means of the cross (the cross regarded as the symbol of that which was done on and by it), having slain the enmity (ἔχθρα has been taken here to mean the enmity between Jew and Gentile. But see on ver. 15: and let us ask here, was this the enmity which Christ slew at His death? Was this the ἔχθρα, the slaying of which brought in the ἀποκατάλλαξις, as this verse implies? Does such a meaning of ἔχθρα at all satisfy the solemnity of the sentence, or of the next two verses? I cannot think so: and must maintain ἔχθρα here (and if here, then in ver. 15 also) to be that between man and God, which Christ did slay on the cross, and which being brought to an end, the separation between Jew and Gentile, which was a result of it, was done away. Ellicott, who maintained the above opinion in his 1st edn., now agrees with that here insisted on) on it (on the cross: compare Col 2:15, notes: not in His body: see above): and having come, He preached (how? when? Obviously after his death, because by that death the peace was wrought. We seek in vain for any such announcement made by Him in person after his resurrection. But we find a key to the expression in Joh 14:18, οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὀρφανούς· ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς: see also ver. 28. And this coming was, by his Spirit poured out on the Church. There is an expression of St. Paul’s, singularly parallel with this, and of itself strongly corroborative of the genuineness of our Epistle, in Act 26:23, εἰ παθητὸς ὁ χριστός, εἰ πρῶτος ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν φῶς μέλλει καταγγέλλειν τῷ τε λαῷ κ. τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. This coming therefore is by His Spirit (see on ver. 18), and ministers, and ordinances in the Church) peace to you who were far off, and peace to those (not “to us,” for fear of still upholding the distinction where he wishes to merge it altogether) that were nigh (this εἰρήνη is plainly then not mere mutual reconciliation, but that far greater peace which was effected by Christ’s death, peace with God, which necessitated the union of the far off and the near in one body in Him. This is shewn especially by the repetition of εἰρήνην. See Isa 57:19.

Then follows the empowering reason, why He should preach peace to us both: and it is this ver. 18 especially which I maintain cannot be satisfied on the ordinary hypothesis of mere reconciliation between Jew and Gentile being the subject in the former verses. Here clearly the union (not reconciliation, nor is enmity predicated of them) of Jew and Gentile is subordinated to the blessed fact of an access to God having been provided for both through Christ by the Spirit); for (not epexegetic of εἰρήνην, ‘viz. that …,’ as Baumg.-Crus.) through Him we have our access (I prefer this intransitive meaning to that maintained by Ellic., al., ‘introduction,’—some (Mey.) say, by Christ (1Pe 3:18) as our προσαγωγεύς (admissionalis, a word of Oriental courts),—not as differing much from it in meaning, but as better representing, both here and in Rom 5:2, and ch. 3:12, the repetition, the present liberty of approach, which ἔχομεν implies, but which ‘introduction’ does not give), both of us, in (united in, 1Co 12:13) one Spirit (not ‘one frame of mind’ (Anselm, Koppe, al.): the whole structure of the sentence, as compared with any similar one, such as 2Co 13:13, will shew what spirit is meant, viz. the Holy Spirit of God, already alluded to in ver. 17; see above. As a parallel, cf. 1Co 12:13) to the Father.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14. αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, “He Himself is our peace”; He has not brought about peace by a mere external action or arrangement; it is in His own person that He gives it. “Non modo pacificator nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipse vinculum est utrorumque,” Bengel. The context shows that what is primarily intended is the union of Jews and Gentiles; but as it was not this union of itself that was of importance, but the essential basis of it, as the union of both in one body of Christ, it is manifest that the idea of peace with God could not be absent from the mind of the apostle in writing ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν. Comp. ver. 17.

Schoettgen quotes a Rabbinic writer who calls the Messiah “Peace,” in allusion to Isa 9:6.

ὁ ποιήσας. “Quippe qui.”

τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν. Both, i.e. both Jews and Gentiles. There is no ellipsis (as of γένη, ἔθνη, or the like). It is simply an instance of the neuter being used of persons in a general sense; cf. Heb 7:7, τὸ ἔλαττον ὑπὸ τοῦ κρείττονος εὐλογεῖται; 1Co 1:27, 1Co 1:28, τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ κόσμου … τὰ ἀσθενῆ (opposed to ver. 26, οἱ σοφοί). So in classical Greek, e.g. Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 11, τὰ φεύγοντα ἱκανοὶ ἐσόμεθα διώκειν.

ἕν. Comp. Gal 3:28, πάντες ὑμεῖς ἕν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Not, says Chrysostom, that He has brought us to that nobility of theirs, but both us and them to a greater; as if one should melt down a statue of silver and one of lead, and the two should come out gold.

καί, exegetical = inasmuch as, He, τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, “brake down the partition wall of the fence.”

μεσότοιχον is a rare word, found, besides the Fathers, only in Eratosth. ap. Athen. vii. 281 D (masc.), and Hesychius. The genitive has been variously explained, as of quality = “the separating partition” (against which is the fact that this adjectival notion belongs to μεσότοιχον itself); or of possession, “the wall which belonged to the fence”; or better, of apposition, “the partition which consisted in the fence.” φραγμός means a fence, hedge, or enclosure, not a separation.

It seems probable that the figure was suggested by the partition which separated the Court of the Gentiles from the temple proper, and on which there was an inscription threatening death to any alien who passed it. That the Ephesian readers can hardly be supposed to be familiar with the arrangements of the temple, is no proof that these may not have been in the apostle’s mind. But it is worth noticing that it was an Ephesian, Trophimus, that St. Paul was charged with bringing into the temple. A more serious objection seems to be, that when the Epistle was written the wall referred to was still standing. But the apostle is not speaking of the literal wall, but using it as an illustration. Any reference to the vail which was rent at the time of the crucifixion would be out of harmony with the context. That vail did not separate Jews and Gentiles.

λύσας is suitable to the figure; cf. Joh 2:19, λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον. It is equally suitable to the following ἔχθραν, since λύειν ἔχθραν is of frequent occurrence in classical writers.

Here it is questioned whether ἔχθραν is to be connected with the words preceding or those following, and if with the preceding, whether ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ is to be taken with λύσας or with κατάργησας. Another alternative will be mentioned presently. We have to choose, then, between the following renderings:—

Having done away with the middle wall, namely, the enmity; having in His flesh annulled the law.

Having in His flesh done away with the middle wall, namely, the enmity, etc.

Having done away with the middle wall, having in His flesh annulled the enmity, namely, the law, etc.

The view which connects ἐν τῇ σαρκί αὐτοῦ with ἔχθραν as = the enmity in his flesh, whether “his flesh” be understood to mean humanity in general (Chrys.) or the Jews (cf. Rom 11:14), must be set aside as inconsistent with the absence of the article before ἐν τῇ σαρκί. The first-mentioned interpretation gives an awkward isolation to ἔχθραν, and adds the harshness of making the specification of manner, ἐν τῇ ς., precede the object and its verb.

The third construction is objectionable, first, because the law cannot itself be called ἔχθρα (the designation of it as δύναμις τῆς ἁμαρτίας, 1Co 15:56, is not analogous); and, secondly, because the position of ἐν τῇ ς. αὐτοῦ would be inexplicable, coming, as it does on that supposition, between the two nouns in apposition, although it has no relation to either. Indeed, it may be added that κατάργησας is not a verb appropriate to ἔχθραν; it does not properly mean to destroy, but “to make of none effect,” “to deprive of power”; of the faith of God, Rom 3:3; of the law, Rom 3:31; the promise, 4:14; persons from the law, 7:2, 6. It is, indeed, used of things coming to an end, as knowledge and prophecy, but coming to an end by being superseded.

The second construction mentioned above seems to have the advantage of these two, although it must be admitted that it is not without difficulty. For the enmity was not the wall of partition. It was not the law only, although that was the ultimate cause, but the separation, religious, moral, and social, which forbade fellowship between Jew and Gentile. This partition was broken down by the annulling of the law.

V. Soden has proposed a view of the passage which, if admissible, would meet the difficulties. It is that τὴν ἔχθραν is the beginning of the participial clause, which, having been interrupted by the statement of the process by which the effect was produced, is taken up again in ver. 16, where ἔχθραν is repeated. If the text had run thus, τὴν ἔχθραν, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντ. ἐν δογ. κατάργησας, ἀπέκτεινε, there would have been nothing harsh in the order of the words. As it is, the parenthesis is enlarged, as in the manner of this Epistle, 2:1 and 4, 11 and 12, 3:1 and 12, and the interrupted thought is resumed in ver. 16. The two participles, κατάργησας, ἀποκτείνας, in their relation to one another, correspond exactly with the two in ver. 14. Soden connects ἐν τῇ ς. αὐτοῦ with the following clause. The parenthetic digressions, however, with which Soden compares this, are not quite parallel. In each of them, while the train of thought is interrupted, it is easy to account for the interruption by the influence of some particular word; they are, in fact, instances of what Paley well calls St. Paul’s habit of “going off at a word.” Thus in 2:1 he goes off at ἁμαρτιαις, ἐν αἷς; in 2:11 at ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί; in 3:1 at ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν τῶν ἔθνων.

The verbal connexion is in each instance easy. But here there is no similar connexion between the words which precede the digression and τὸν νόμον, κ.τ.λ.

The ἔχθρα is obviously that of Jews and Gentiles. This naturally loomed much larger in the apostle’s eyes than it does in ours, or than it did in those of Chrysostom and his successors. With us as with them, the more pressing thought is of the enmity of both Jew and Gentile to God. So Oecumenius: μεσότοιχον φραγμοῦ φησι τὴν ἔχθραν τὴν πρὸς Θεόν, ἡμῶν τε καὶ Ἰουδαίων, ἥτις ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων παραπτωμάτων. And so Chrysostom interprets τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκί as being the μεσότοιχοντ ῷ κοινὸν εἶναι διάφραγμα ἀπὸ Θεοῦ διατειχίζον ἡμᾶς, rejecting the interpretation which makes the law the ἔχθρα. But even though ἡ ἔχθρα is not = ὁ νόμος, it is the annulling of the law that removes the ἔχθρα, and the law is characterised in terms which exclude the natural law. Moreover, the reconciling of both to God is stated as a further object of the removal of the enmity and the creating of both into one new man.

τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν κατάργησας. τὸν ν. τῶν ἐντ. ἐν δ. belong together; “the law of commandments expressed in decrees.” The law consisted of ἐντολαί, and the definite form in which these were expressed was that of δόγματα, authoritative decrees (“legem imperiosam,” Erasm.). This connexion does not require the article to be repeated after ἐντολῶν. For we might with propriety say ἐντολὴν διδόναι ἐν δόγματι, and therefore ἐντολὴ ἐν δ. may form a single conception. So Winer in his later editions. Compare τὸν ὑμῶν ζῆλον ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ, 2Co 7:7. In fact, τῶν ἐντ. τῶν ἐν δ. would denote the ἐντολαί as a particular class, “commandments, even those expressed in decrees.”

Δόγμα in classical Greek means, first, an opinion or resolution. In the plural it is used of the “placita philosophorum,” whence the use of the word in Christian writers in the sense of “dogma.” But it also means a decree (Xen. Demosth. Plato), and this is the meaning which alone it has in the N.T. We have ἐξῆλθε δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος, Luk 2:1; δόγματα Καίσαρος, Act 17:7; τὰ δ. κεκριμένα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστ., ib. 16:4. The word occurs also in Lachmann’s text, Heb 11:23, δ. τοῦ βασιλέως. The remaining passages are the present and Col 2:14. Chrysostom does not seem to have contemplated this meaning. He suggests that what is meant is either faith, δόγμα αὐτὴν καλῶν, for by faith alone He saved us, or the precept τὴν παραγγελίαν, as Christ said, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν. He is followed by Theophylact, Theodoret (δόγματα τὴν εὐαγγελικὴν διδασκαλίαν ἐκάλεσεν), and Oecumenius. Theodore Mops. also connects the word with κατάργησας, but interprets differently, understanding δόγματα of the facts and hopes of the Gospel, “διὰ τῶν ἰδίων δογμάτων· ἵνα εἴπῃ, τῆς ἀναστάσεως, τῆς ἀφθαρσίας, τῆς ἀθανασίας· δόγματα καλέσας ταῦτα ὡς ἐν πράγμασιν ὄντα, the Divine grace working in us so that we do not need commandments and precepts.” This interpretation, as well as Chrysostom’s, would clearly require τοῖς δόγμασιν αὐτοῦ or the like. Against Chrysostom’s view, indeed, it is decisive that it was not by doctrines or precepts that Christ annulled the law. Theodore’s view avoids this error, but gives δόγμα an impossible sense. Of course, when once these commentators connected ἐν. δ. with the following, taking ἐν as instrumental, they were driven to some such interpretation.

Harless also connects ἐν δ. with κατάργησας, thinking that the absence of the article forbids the connexion with ἐντολῶν. But his interpretation is that Christ annulled the law only in respect of δόγματα, comparing Cic. Phil. i. 7, “In maximis vero rebus, id est legibus, acta Caesaris dissolvi ferendum non puto,” and such phrases as ἐν τῇ πίστι ὠνείδισε (Arrian, Exp. iii. 30; Bernhardy, p. 212). St. Paul has already indicated by τῶν ἐντ. that he is not speaking of the law so far as it belonged to the covenants of promise, and now, to avoid all misconception, he adds ἐν δόγμασι. Olshausen follows Harless, who had, indeed, been preceded in this interpretation by Crellius. But this would require the article before δόγμασιν. Moreover, while it is true that the law as σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων or as παιδαγωγὸς εἰς Χριστόν was not annulled, it was superseded. Such a limitation of the statement as to the abolition of the law would be out of place here, and would require more explicit statement, since it is not elsewhere referred to. The Mosaic law as such, not merely in certain aspects of it, has come to an end in Christ. He is the “end of the law,” Rom 10:4. Faith having come, we are no longer ὑπὸ παιδαγωγόν (Gal 3:25).

If ἐν δ. be connected with κατάργησας, then, considering the absence of the article, the only grammatical interpretation seems to be Hofmann’s, viz. that Christ deprived the O.T. law of validity, by putting an end to all precepts, “Satzungen.” He compares the construction in 1Co 2:7, λαλοῦμεν σοφίαν Θεοῦ ἐν μυστηρίῳ, i.e. λαλοῦντες σοφίαν λαλοῦμεν μυστήριον. But surely the N.T. contains many specific precepts which may be properly called δόγματα. Comp. also τὸν νόμον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, Gal 6:2; ἔννμος Χριστοῦ, 1Co 9:21; and the parallel to the present passage in Col 2:14. As Meyer observes, the δόγματα of Christianity are the true ἀεὶ παρόντα δόγματα, Plato, Theaet. p. 158 D. Had the intention been what Hofmann supposes, St. Paul would doubtless have added some qualification, such as ἐν δόγμασι δουλείας. νόμος here is not to be limited to the ceremonial law; there is nothing in the connexion to show such a limitation, which, on the contrary, would make the statement very weak. No reader would fail to see that, as Theodoret says, οὐκ ἀνεῖλε τὸ οὐ μοιχεύσεις, κ.τ.λ. The moral law retains its obligation, not, however, because the Jewish law is only partially annulled, but because its obligation was independent of the law and universal (Rom 2:14). If a Mohammedan becomes a Christian, we do not say that the Koran retains its obligation for him in its moral part, although he still acknowledges the obligation of many moral precepts contained in it. The Christian now fulfils the moral law, not because of external precepts, but because conformity with it is the natural fruit of the Spirit. Hence the contrast between the expressions, “works of the law,” “fruits of the Spirit.”

ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὑτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. The neuter was used in ver. 14 to express the general characteristics of the two classes; but here, where the Jews and Gentiles are conceived as concrete persons, the masculine was necessary.

καινόν is necessary because the one is neither Jew nor Greek. Both have put off their former religious condition, and have received the same new nature. Chrysostom says: ὁρᾶς οὔχι τὸν Ἕλληνα γενόμενον Ἰουδαῖον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτον κἀκεῖνον εἰς ἑτέραν κατάστασιν ἥκοντας. οὐχ ἵνα τοῦτον ἕτερον ἐργάσηται τὸν νόμον κατήργησεν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ. κ.τ.λ. On κτίζειν, cf. ver. 10. It is specially appropriate here with καινὸς ἄνθ. οὐκ εἶπε, Μεταβάλῃ, ἵνα δείξῃ τὸ ἐνεργὲς τοῦ γενομένου, says Chrysostom.

ἐν αὑτῷ. Rec. has ἑαυτῷ, with אc D G K L and most cursives, Chrys., Jerome. αυτω is the reading of א A B P, 17. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles write αὐτῷ, but Westcott and Hort αὑτῷ. The sense here is certainly reflexive.

“In Himself.” Not δἰ ἑαυτοῦ, as Chrys., but, Christ is Himself the principle and ground of the unity; “ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem quaerant,” Calv. Cf. Gal 3:28, πάντες ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Chrysostom, indeed, gives another interpretation, as if it were only a development of the former. “Fusing both this and that, he produced one, an admirable one, Himself having first become this; which is a greater thing than the former creation. For this is the meaning of ἐν ἑαυτῷ, Himself first affording the type and pattern.” Oecumenius states the two interpretations as alternatives, explaining the first as οὐ δἰ ἀγγέλων ἢ ἄλλων τινων δυναμέων.

ποιῶν εἰρήνην, present participle, “making peace,” i.e. so that by this new creation He makes (not “made”) peace. The words explain αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν of ver. 14. The peace is, from the context, that between Jews and Gentiles; but as the basis of that is peace with God, the latter thought underlies the former, and to it the apostle now turns.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_2:14, Eph_2:15

These verses contain a confirmation and illustration of what precedes. Ye who were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace. He has effected the twofold reconciliation above referred to. This he has accomplished by abolishing the law. The law, however, is viewed in a twofold aspect in this connection. First, it was that original covenant of works, demanding perfect obedience, whose conditions must be satisfied in order to the reconciliation of men with God. Christ by being made under the law, Gal_4:4, and fulfilling all righteousness, has redeemed those who were under the law. He delivered them from the obligation of fulfilling its demands as the condition of their justification before God. In this sense they are not under the law. Compare Rom_6:14; Rom_7:4, Rom_7:6; Gal_5:18; Col_2:14. But secondly, as Christ abolished the law as a covenant of works by fulfilling its conditions, so he abolished the Mosaic law by fulfilling all its types and shadows. He was the end of the law in both these aspects and therefore, it ceased to bind the people of God in either of these forms. Of this doctrine the whole of the New Testament is full. The epistles especially are in large measure devoted to proving that believers are not under the law in either of these senses, but under grace. Thus it is that Christ is our peace. The abolition of the law as a covenant of works reconciles us to God; the abolition of the Mosaic law removes the wall between the Jews and Gentiles. This is what is here taught. By abolishing the law of commandments, i.e. the law in both its forms, the apostle says, Christ has, first, of the twain made one new man, Eph_2:15; and secondly, he has reconciled both unto God in one body by the cross, Eph_2:16.

Though the general sense of this passage is plain, there is no little diversity as to the details of the interpretation. The Greek is printed for the convenience of the reader. Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας. Our translators, by assuming that ἔχθραν depends on καταργήσας and of course that νόμον is in apposition with it, have in a great measure determined thereby the interpretation of the whole passage. The words μεσότοιχον, ἔχθραν, and νόμον must all refer to the same thing. The sense would then be, For he is our peace, having made the two one by having destroyed the middle wall of partition, that is, by having destroyed, by his flesh, the enmity, viz., the law of commandments with ordinances. The preferable construction is to make ἔχθραν dependent on λύσας. It is then in apposition with μεσότοιχον but not with νόμον; and καταργήσας τὸν νόμον, instead of being a mere repetition of λύσας τὸ μεσότοιχον, is an independent clause explaining the manner in which the reconciliation of the Jews and Gentiles had been effected. The passage then means, He is our peace because he has made the two one by removing the enmity or middle wall which divided the Jews and Gentiles, and this was done by abolishing the law. The reconciliation itself is expressed by saying, He made the two one, having removed the wall or enmity between them. The mode in which this was done, is expressed by saying, He abolished the law.

In the phrase, μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ, middle wall of partition, the latter noun is explanatory of the former, i.e. φραγμοῦ is the genitive of apposition. The middle wall which consisted in the hedge, which separated the two parties. What that hedge was is immediately expressed by the word ἔχθραν. It was the enmity subsisting between them. Having removed the middle wall, i.e. the enmity, or their mutual hatred. By enmity, therefore, is not to be understood the law, as the cause of this alienation, but the alienation itself; because in what follows the removal of the enmity and the abolition of the law are distinguished from each other, the latter being the means of accomplishing the former.

That ἔχθραν is to be connected with λύσας and not, as our translation assumes, with καταργήσας, is argued first from the position of the words, which favors this construction; secondly, because the expression λύειν ἔχθραν is common, and καταργεῖν ἔχθραν never occurs; and thirdly, because the sense demands this construction, inasmuch as the ambiguous phrase middle wall of partition thus receives its needed explanation. The apostle first states, what it was that divided the Jews and Gentiles, viz., their mutual hatred, and then how that hatred had been removed.

The words ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, are not to be connected with λύσας. That is, the apostle does not mean to say that Christ has removed the enmity between the Jews and Gentiles by his flesh. They are to be connected with the following participle (καταργήσας). Having by his flesh, i.e. by his death, abolished the law. This is the great truth which Paul had to teach. Christ by his death has freed us from the law. We are no longer under the law but under grace. Rom_6:14. We are no longer required to seek salvation on the ground of obedience to the law, which says: Do this, and live, and Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them. Christ has freed us from the law as a covenant of works, by being himself made subject to it, Gal_4:5; by bearing its penalty, Gal_3:13; by his body, Rom_7:4; by the body of his flesh, Col_1:22; by his cross, Col_2:14. In this connection the expressions, by the blood of Christ, Eph_2:13; by his flesh, Col_2:14; by his cross, all mean the same thing. They are but different modes of expressing his sacrificial, or atoning death, by which the law was satisfied and our reconciliation to God is effected. The abolishing, therefore, of which the apostle speaks, does not consist in setting the law aside, or suspending it by a sovereign, executive act. It is a causing it to cease; or rendering it no longer binding by satisfying its demands, so that we are judicially free from it; free not by the act of a sovereign but by the sentence of a judge; not by mere pardon, but by justification, Who is he that condemns, when God justifies? Rom_8:34. The law which Christ has thus abolished is called the law of commandments in ordinances. This may mean the law of commandments with ordinances referring to the two classes of laws (ἐντολή and δόγμα), moral and positive; or it may refer to the form in which the precepts are presented in the law, as positive statutes, or commands, τῶν ἐντολῶν giving the contents of the law, and ἐν δόγμασι the form. The idea probably is that the law in all its compass, and in all its forms, so far as it was a covenant prescribing the conditions of salvation, is abolished. The law of which the apostle here speaks is not exclusively the Mosaic law. It is so described in various parallel passages, as holy, just and good, as taking cognizance of the inward feelings, as to make it evident it is the law of God in its widest sense. It is the law which binds the heathen and which is written on their hearts. It is the law from which the death of Christ redeems men. But redemption is not mere deliverance from Judaism, and therefore the law from which we are freed by the death of Christ is not merely the law of Moses. Deliverance from the Mosaic institutions could not have the effects ascribed to the freedom from the law of which Paul speaks. It could not secure reconciliation to God, justification, and holiness, all of which, according to the apostle, flow from the redemption effected by Christ. The antithetical ideas always presented in Pauls writings, on this subject, are the law and grace, the law and the gospel, the system which says: Do and live, and the system which says: Believe and live; as, however, the form in which the law was ever present to the minds of the early Christians was that contained in the Mosaic institutions; as all, who in that day were legalists, were Judaizers, and as the Mosaic economy was included in the law which Christ abolished, in many cases (as in the passage before us), special reference is had to the law in that particular form. But in teaching that men cannot be saved by obedience to the law of Moses, Paul taught that we cannot be saved by obedience to the law in any form. Or rather, by teaching that salvation is not of works of any kind, but of grace and through faith, he teaches it is not by the specific, ceremonial works enjoined in the law of Moses.

It is objected to the above interpretation of this passage, which is the common one, that in order to justify connecting ἐν δόγμασι with ἐντολῶν (the law of commandments in ordinances), the article should be used. It is therefore urged that ἐν δόγμασι must be connected with καταργήσας; and the passage read, having abolished by doctrine the law of commandments. To this, however, it is answered

l. That the connecting article is frequently omitted in cases where the qualifying word is intimately connected with the word to be qualified, so as to form one idea with it. See Eph_2:11; 2Co_7:7; Col_1:4.

2. That καταργήσας has its qualifying clause in the words ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ. It would be incongruous to say that Christ abolished the law by his death, his doctrine.

3. The word δόγμα never means doctrine in the New Testament, and therefore cannot have that meaning here.

4. And finally the sense is bad, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture.

The law was not abolished by Christ as a teacher; but by Christ as a sacrifice. It was not by his doctrine, but by his blood, his body, his death, his cross, that our deliverance from the law was effected. The doctrine of the passage, therefore, is that the middle wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, consisting in 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 way of access to God, common to Jews and Gentiles.

The design of Christ in thus abolishing the law was two-fold. First, the union of the Jews and Gentiles in one holy, Catholic church. And, Secondly, the reconciliation of both to God. The former is expressed, by saying: In order that he might create the two, in himself, one new man, making peace. The two, τοὺς δύο, are of course the two spoken of above, the Jews and Gentiles. They were separate, hostile bodies, alike dead in trespasses and sins, equally the children of wrath. They are created anew, so as to become one body of which Christ is the head. And, therefore, it is said, ἐν αὐτῷ, in himself, i.e. in virtue of union with him. Union with Christ being the condition at once of their unity and of their holiness. They are created εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον. They are one, and they are new, i.e. renewed. Καινός means newly made, uninjured by decay or use; and in a moral sense renewed, pure. See Eph_4:24; 2Co_5:17; Gal_6:15; Col_3:10. Making peace, ποιῶν εἰρήνην. The present participle is here used, because the effect or operation is a continuous one. 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 nations is removed. There is now one fold and one shepherd. Since the abrogation of the law there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for all believers are one in Christ Jesus. Gal_3:28.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As by the ceremonies and worship appointed by the Law, the Jews were divided from the Gentiles, so now Christ, having broken down the partition wall, joineth them both together, both in himself, and betwixt themselves, and to God. Whereby it followeth, that whosoever established the ceremonies of the Law, maketh the grace of Christ void and of none effect.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

he--Greek, "Himself" alone, pre-eminently, and none else. Emphatical.

our peace--not merely "Peacemaker," but "Himself" the price of our (Jews' and Gentiles' alike) peace with God, and so the bond of union between "both" in God. He took both into Himself, and reconciled them, united, to God, by His assuming our nature and our penal and legal liabilities (Eph 2:15; Isa 9:5-6; Isa 53:5; Mic 5:5; Col 1:20). His title, "Shiloh," means the same (Gen 49:10).

the middle wall of partition--Greek, ". . . of the partition" or "fence"; the middle wall which parted Jew and Gentile. There was a balustrade of stone which separated the court of the Gentiles from the holy place, which it was death for a Gentile to pass. But this, though incidentally alluded to, was but a symbol of the partition itself, namely, "the enmity" between "both" and God (Eph 2:15), the real cause of separation from God, and so the mediate cause of their separation from one another. Hence there was a twofold wall of partition, one the inner wall, severing the Jewish people from entrance to the holy part of the temple where the priests officiated, the other the outer wall, separating the Gentile proselytes from access to the court of the Jews (compare Eze 44:7; Act 21:28). Thus this twofold wall represented the Sinaitic law, which both severed all men, even the Jews, from access to God (through sin, which is the violation of the law), and also separated the Gentiles from the Jews. As the term "wall" implies the strength of the partition, so "fence" implies that it was easily removed by God when the due time came.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 14. For he is our peace] Jesus Christ has died for both Jews and Gentiles, and has become a peace-offering, shalom, to reconcile both to God and to each other.

Who hath made both one] Formed one Church out of the believers of both people.

The middle wall of partition] By abolishing the law of Jewish ordinances, he has removed that which kept the two parties, not only in a state of separation, but also at variance.

This expression, the middle wall, can refer only to that most marked distinction which the Jewish laws and customs made between them and all other nations whatsoever.

Some think it refers to their ancient manner of living among the Gentiles, as they always endeavoured to live in some place by themselves, and to have a river or a wall between them and their heathen neighbours. Indeed, wherever they went, their own rites, ordinances, and customs were a sufficient separation between them and others; and as Jesus Christ abolished those customs, admitting all into his Church, both Jews and Gentiles, by repentance and faith, he may be said to have broken down the middle wall of partition. When, at the death of Christ, the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom, it was an emblem that the way to the holiest was laid open, and that the people at large, both Jews and Gentiles, were to have access to the holiest by the blood of Jesus.

Some think there is an allusion here to the wall called chel, which separated the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles; but this was not broken down till the temple itself was destroyed: and to this transaction the apostle cannot be supposed to allude, as it did not take place till long after the writing of this epistle.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

14. For he is our peace. He now includes Jews in the privilege of reconciliation, and shows that, through one Messiah, all are united to God. This consideration was fitted to repress the false confidence of the Jews, who, despising the grace of Christ, boasted that they were the holy people, and chosen inheritance, of God. If Christ is our peace, all who are out of him must be at variance with God. What a beautiful title is this which Christ possesses, — the peace between God and men! Let no one who dwells in Christ entertain a doubt that he is reconciled to God.

Who hath made both one. This distinction was necessary. All intercourse with the Gentiles was held to be inconsistent with their own superior claims. To subdue this pride, he tells them that they and the Gentiles have been united into one body. Put all these things together, and you will frame the following syllogism: If the Jews wish to enjoy peace with God, they must have Christ as their Mediator. But Christ will not be their peace in any other way than by making them one body with the Gentiles. Therefore, unless the Jews admit the Gentiles to fellowship with them, they have no friendship with God.

And breaking down the middle wall of partition. To understand this passage, two things must be observed. The Jews were separated, for a certain time, from the Gentiles, by the appointment of God; and ceremonial observances were the open and avowed symbols of that separation. Passing by the Gentiles, God had chosen the Jews to be a peculiar people to himself. A wide distinction was thus made, when the one class were “fellow-citizens and of the household” (Ephesians 2:19) of the Church, and the other were foreigners. This is stated in the Song of Moses:

“When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel: for the Lord’s portion is his people, Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8,9)

Bounds were thus fixed by God to separate one people from the rest; and hence arose the enmity which is here mentioned. A separation is thus made. The Gentiles are set aside. God is pleased to choose and sanctify the Jewish people, by freeing them from the ordinary pollution of mankind. Ceremonial observances were afterwards added, which, like walls, enclosed the inheritance of God, prevented it from being open to all or mixed with other possessions, and thus excluded the Gentiles from the kingdom of God.

But now, the apostle, says, the enmity is removed, and the wall is broken down. By extending the privilege of adoption beyond the limits of Judea, Christ has now made us all to be brethren. And so is fulfilled the prophecy,

“God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem.” (Genesis 9:27)

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

14. he is our peace] “He:”—the glorious living Person gives its essence to the sacrificial Work.

“Our peace:”—i.e., as the connexion indicates, the “peace” between the Tribes of the New Israel, the Gentile and Jewish believers; such peace that now, within the covenant, “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal_3:28; Col_3:11). The special aspect of this truth here is the admission of the non-Jewish believer to the inmost fulness of spiritual privilege; but this is so stated as to imply the tender companion truth that he comes in not as a conquering intruder but as a brother, side by side with the Jewish believer, in equal and harmonious peace with God.

who hath made both one] Lit., Who made both things one thing. “Both” and “one” are neuters in the Gr. The idea is rather of positions and relations than of persons (Monod).—“One:”—“one thing,” one community, or rather, one organism. (By the same word is expressed the Unity of the Father and the Son, Joh_10:30.) In Gal_3:28 (“ye are all one”) the Gr. has the masculine, “one [person],” “one [man],” as expressly in the next verse here.

hath broken down … partition] Lit., did undo the mid-wall of the fence, or hedge. The next verse makes it clear that this means the Law. In Divine intention the Law was a “hedge” (Isa_5:2) round the Old Israel, so long as their chief function was to maintain a position of seclusion. And it thus formed a “partition” between the Old Israel and the outer world, not only hindering but, for the time, forbidding such fusion as the new order brought in.

It is possible that the phrase was immediately suggested by the demarcation between the Court of the Gentiles and the inner area of the Temple.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he is our peace,.... The author of peace between Jew and Gentile: there was a great enmity of the Jew against the Gentile, and of the Gentile against the Jew; and chiefly on account of circumcision, the one being without it, and the other insisting on it, and branding one another with nicknames on account of it; but Christ has made peace between them by abrogating the ceremonial law, which was the occasion of the difference, and by sending the Gospel of peace to them both, by converting some of each, and by granting the like privileges to them all, as may be observed in the following verses: and Christ is the author of peace between God and his people; there is naturally in man an enmity to God; sin has separated chief friends; nor can man make his peace with God; what he does, or can do, will not do it; and what will, he cannot do; Christ is the only fit and proper person for this work, being a middle person between both, and is only able to effect it, being God as well as man; and so could draw nigh to God, and treat with him about terms of peace, and agree to them, and perform them; and which he has brought about by his blood, his sufferings and death; and which is made on honourable terms, by a full satisfaction to the law and justice of God; and so is a lasting one, and attended with a train of blessings: moreover, Christ is the donor of peace, of external peace in his churches, and of internal peace of conscience, and of eternal peace in heaven: this is one of the names of the Messiah with the Jews (b);

"says R. Jose the Galilean, even the name of the Messiah is called "peace"; as it is said, Isa 9:6 "the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace";''

see Mic 5:5 where it is said, "and this man shall be the peace"; which the Jewish (c) writers understand of the Messiah:

who hath made both one; Jews and Gentiles, one people, one body, one church; he united them together, and caused them to agree in one, and made them to be of one mind and judgment by the above methods; as well as he gathered them together in one, in one head, himself, who represented them all:

and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; the ceremonial law, which was made up of many hard and intolerable commands, and distinguished, and divided, and kept up a division between Jews and Gentiles: so the Jews call the law a wall, "if she be a wall", Sol 8:9 , "this is the law", say they (d): and hence we read of , "the wall of the law" (e); and sometimes the phrase, a "partition wall", is used for a division or disagreement; so R. Benjamin says (f), that between the Karaites and Rabbanites, who were the disciples of the wise men, there was "a middle wall of partition"; a great difference and distance; and such there was between the Jew and Gentile, by reason of the ceremonial law; but Christ removed it, and made up the difference: the allusion seems to be to the wall which divided the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles, in the temple, and which kept them at a distance in worship.

(b) Perek Shalom, fol. 20. 1. Baal Hatturim in Numb. xxv. 12. (c) Vid. Kimchi in loc. (d) T. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 87. 1. (e) Caphtor, fol. 95. 1. & 101. 1. (f) Itinerar. p. 28.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

Ver. 14. For he is our peace] That is, our peace maker and peace matter. {a} When he was born, there was among all nations a general aut pax, aut pactio, either peace or an agreement for peace, as Florus observeth. When he took his name, he would not have it either entirely Hebrew, as Jesus, or entirely Greek, as Christ, but both Jesus and Christ, to show (saith one) that he is our peace that hath reconciled two into one, &c.

{a} ειρηνη παρα το εις εν ειρειν.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he is our peace - There is evident allusion here to Isa 57:19. See the notes at that verse. The “peace” here referred to is that by which a “union” in worship and in feeling has been produced between the Jews and the Gentiles Formerly they were alienated and separate. They had different objects of worship; different religious rites; different views and feelings. The Jews regarded the Gentiles with hatred, and the Gentiles the Jews with scorn. Now, says the apostle, they are at peace. They worship the same God. They have the same Saviour. They depend on the same atonement. They have the same hope. They look forward to the same heaven. They belong to the same redeemed family. Reconciliation has not only taken place with God, but with each other. “The best way to produce peace between alienated minds is to bring them to the same Saviour.” That will do more to silence contentions, and to heal alienations, than any or all other means. Bring people around the same cross; fill them with love to the same Redeemer, and give them the same hope of heaven, and you put a period to alienation and strife. The love at Christ is so absorbing, and the dependence in his blood so entire, that they will lay aside these alienations, and cease their contentions. The work of the atonement is thus designed not only to produce peace with God, but peace between alienated and contending minds. The feeling that we are redeemed by the same blood, and that we have the same Saviour, will unite the rich and the poor, the bond and the free, the high and the low, in the ties of brotherhood, and make them feel that they are one. This great work of the atonement is thus designed to produce peace in alienated minds every where, and to diffuse abroad the feeling of universal brotherhood.

Who hath made both one - Both Gentiles and Jews. He has united them in one society.

And hath broken down the middle wall - There is an allusion here undoubtedly to the wall of partition in the temple by which the court of the Gentiles was separated from that of the Jews; see the notes and the plan of the temple, in Mat 21:12. The idea here is, that that was now broken down, and that the Gentiles had the same access to the temple as the Jews. The sense is, that in virtue of the sacrifice of the Redeemer they were admitted to the same privileges and hopes.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Christ destroyed the enmity which, like a wall of separation, stood between Jew and Gentile, and united them into one people. He did this in his flesh, by his own blood, or the sacrifice he made of his flesh on the cross. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

For he is our peace; i.e. Peace-maker, or Mediator of peace, both between God and man, and between Jew and Gentile. He is called

our peace, as elsewhere our righteousness, redemption, salvation. God is said to reconcile us, 2Co 5:19, but Christ only to be our peace.

Who hath made both one; i.e. one body, or one people, or one new man, Eph 3:15.

And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having taken away the ceremonial law, which was as a wall of separation between Jew and Gentile, as appears in the next verse. It seems to be an allusion to that wall of the temple which parted between the court of the people into which the Jews came, and the outmost court, that of the Gentiles, who, when they came to worship, might not come into the other court, and were excluded by this wall.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

For he is our peace. Explanatory of the preceding verse of the way by which we are brought nigh. Christ is not only our Peacemaker, but our Peace, and that in the fullest sense, the very substance and living spring of it, establishing it at the beginning, keeping it up to the end; and the complex notion of peace is here not only peace between Jew and Gentile, but between God and both. Consult Old Testament predictions of peace in connection with Messiah (Isa_9:5, Isa_9:6; Mic_5:5; Zec_9:10, etc.) Who made both one; literally, both things, both elements; so that there is now no ground for separating between a Jewish element and a Gentile; they are unified. And broke down the middle wall of the partition. The general idea is obvious; the particular allusion is less easily seen. Some think it is to the veil that separated the holy of holies from the holy place; (Heb_10:20) but that could hardly be called a wall. Others the wall that separated the court of the Jew from that of the Gentiles; but that wall was literally standing when the apostle wrote, and besides, the Ephesians could not be supposed to be so familiar with it as to make it a suitable illustration for them. In the absence of any specific allusion, it is best to understand the words generally, "broke down that which served as a middle wall of partition what is mentioned immediately in the following verse.

Christ and his work of reconciliation. Here we have three topics:

(1) Christ our Peace;

(2) thereby bringing us nigh;

(3) the subject summed up.

I CHRIST OUR PEACE. Observe the several statements (vers. 14-17).

1. He made both Jew and Gentile one (see Exposition).

2. He broke down the middle wall of partition.

3. He abolished the cause of enmity between Jew and Gentile the Law of commandments in ordinances.

4. He constituted himself a new Man, to which both Jew and Gentile belong.

5. He thereby reconciled both to God.

6. All this he effected by his cross.

7. He not only effected it, but came and preached peace to the far off and the nigh. The idea conveyed is that no single thing was left undone that could contribute to the great double result of reconciling Jew and Gentile, first to God, and thereby to each other. Thus reconciliation to God effects reconciliation between man and man, as sometimes a child, mutually beloved, may effect reconciliation of parents after a difference.

II CHRIST AS OUR PEACE BRINGING US NIGH (Ver. 18.)

1. True Christians have access to the Father.

2. This is secured meritoriously "through Christ.

3. And efficaciously "by the one Spirit.

How much is implied in having access to the Father! Access to his love, his wisdom, his transforming influence, his capacity of satisfying the soul in all its lawful propensities, and blessing it forever!

III SUMMING UP. (Ver. 19.) The relation established with God is not a temporary or occasional one, but close, abiding, indestructible. The reconciliation is effected, not for a day, but for evermore. (Rom_8:35-39)

Vers. 14-16.

Christ our Peace.

He is so by effecting two reconciliations, and thus obliterating two deep and long-standing alienations. He "hath made both one" Jew and Gentile

-and "he hath reconciled both unto God in one body by the cross." Christis our Peace, not simply as our Peacemaker, but as our Peace objectively considered and with regard to our relation to God; for the apostle represents our nearness to God as grounded in Christ as our Peace. He is therefore our Peace, as he is called our Righteousness and our Redemption, (1Co_1:30) and while thus he is our Peace toward God, he is the ground of peace in every other relation, and especially between man and man. Thus he abides our continual Peace, for he did not make peace and end his relation toward us, but is the Source of our abiding reconciliation with God as well as of the continuous enjoyment of peace. Thus the Old Testament prophecies which connect peace with the Messiah find their just fulfillment. (Isa_9:5, 6 57:2, 7) Peace was the legacy which he left to his disciples. (Joh_14:27) It is "the peace to which we are called in one body". (Col_3:15) It is that which "keeps our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus". (Php_4:7) Consider

I HOW HE HAS MADE PEACE BETWEEN JEW AND GENTILE.

1. He did so by leveling in the dust the middle wall of partition that separated them widely for ages, in a word, by abolishing the narrow particularism of Judaism. The wall in question was the ceremonial law law of commandments contained in ordinances given to Israel as a separate people and of positive appointment. The moral law was no part of the partition wail, and contains in itself nothing either to excite enmity or to establish separation between man and man. The death of Christ did not abolish it; it was the law of ceremonies only that was abolished in the cross, for when he died, it disappeared like a shadow when the substance was come. The moral law, as embodied in the Decalogue, was older than the Mosaic institute, and therefore survived its fall. The partition wall that kept Jew and Gentile apart was

(1) an ancient barrier of separation. It lasted sixteen hundred or two thousand years, according as we date its origin from Abraham or Moses. A Puritan Father says, "The foundation of the wall of separation was laid in Abraham"s time when circumcision was first given, for that began the quarrel; reared up higher by Moses" rites; further lengthened and stretched out in all times of the prophets, throughout all ages, till Christ, who came to abolish it and break it down.

(2) It was a high barrier. It kept the Jew effectively apart for more than a millennium and a half, that he might be trained for the universalist dispensation that was to be established in the fullness of times.

(3) It engendered a deep hostility on both sides. It was this enmity" that made the barrier so serious an element of separation. The Jew regarded the Gentile with a proud and supercilious superiority, and the Gentile regarded the Jew as an enemy of the human race. Literature is full of the evidences of this continuous hostility. The Gentiles were called in contempt "the uncircumcised" and "sinners of the Gentiles." Juvenal, Tacitus, Martial, Horace, repay the debt in the language of bitter and contemptuous sarcasm.

1. Consider the grand instrument of reconciliation between Jew and Get, the. "In his flesh." The language refers expressly to the condition of penal curse-bearing to which the atoning Savior spontaneously subjected himself.

2. As the apostle once represents sin as being condemned in Christ"s flesh, (Rom_8:3) so here our Lord is regarded as having in his flesh taken upon him the sins of his people, as the great cause of enmity and disunion, and having exhausted at once the sin of man and the wrath of God on the cross, he thus at once abolished the law of ceremonies and annihilated the enmity which found its occasion in it. The cross is still the instrument of reconciling man to man. The world has made many efforts to unite men on a basis of liberty, equality, fraternity often trying to bring about a union even by the most terrible bloodshed; but no principle has yet been discovered to unite man to man save the gospel of Christ, with its doctrine of atonement through the blood of the cross.

3. Consider the ultimate result of the death of Christ. "To make of twain one new man, so making peace." Those previously sundered were by the cross lifted into a higher unity, and placed upon a platform of equal privilege that obliterated all the old causes of division. The reconciling power of the cross ran through all the relations of men and all the relations of life. The person of Christ crucified became henceforth the great Center of unity.

II HOW CHRIST IS OUR PEACE IN EFFECTING RECONCILIATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. "That he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Nothing can be more explicit than the declaration that Christ"s mission was intended to reconcile God and man, who were previously alienated by sin. It is often contended that, as God is essentially a God of love, it becomes us to think only of reconciliation on man"s Side. There are, in fact, two reconciliations, the one based on the other a reconciliation of God to man, and a reconciliation of man to God. The apostle says elsewhere that God has reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ", (2Co_5:18) and that it pleased "the Father, having made peace through the blood of the cross, to reconcile all things unto himself". (Col_1:20) The scheme of salvation, whether we take account of the incarnation or the atonement, emanated from the Divine good pleasure as the supreme source of all blessings. It is always important to emphasize the fact that the atonement is the effect, not the cause, of God"s love. The peace here spoken of is peace on a basis of law and justice; for the offering up of Christ so magnified the Law and exhausted all its demands, that, on the ground of that propitiation, God could be at once just and the Justifier of the ungodly. This is according to another passage: "God hath sent forth his Son to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness". (Rom_3:25) If this be so, it is an error to hold that the only purpose of Christ"s death was the manifestation of Divine love. It was, in fact, a manifestation of Divine justice as well as of Divine love; and if it was not a manifestation of Divine justice, that is, if there was no righteousness making that death necessary, it is difficult to see how there could be a manifestation of love in his dying. It follows also that it is an error to depreciate the importance of Christ"s death, and to lay the main emphasis of his mission upon the virtues of his life. The Bible knows nothing of a gospel without a cross, or of a gospel which makes the cross a mere affecting incident at the close of a sublime career; it rather exhibits the cross as the grand procuring cause of life and redemption to man. If you take away the cross, you dry up the stream of blessing which has flowed down through all Christian ages, you put an end to the abiding peace of God"s people, and you paralyze the right arm of the ministry. Therefore we are justified in regarding the reconciliation between God and. man as resting on Christ"s work, and this work as charged with reconciling power, not as it moved the human heart or led to a new conduct in man, but as it introduced a new relation in which men were placed before God. T.C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For he is our peace - Not only as he purchased it, but as he is the very bond and center of union. He who hath made both - Jews and gentiles, one church. The apostle describes,

1. The conjunction of the gentiles with Israel, ver. 14, 15. And,

2. The conjunction of both with God, ver. 15-18. Each description is subdivided into two parts. And the former part of the one, concerning abolishing the enmity, answers the former part of the other; the latter part of the one, concerning the evangelical decrees, the latter part of the other. And hath broken down the middle wall of partition - Alluding to that wall of old, which separated the court of Israel from the court of the gentiles. Such a wall was the ceremonial law, which Christ had now taken away.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The reconciliation effected by Christ:

v. 14. For he is our Peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us,

v. 15. 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;

v. 16. and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the Cross, having slain the enmity there by;

v. 17. and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

v. 18. For through Him we both have access by one spirit unto the Father.

The thought of the passage is that God, by the redemption of Christ, has gathered His Church out of Jews and Gentiles. So far as the present relation between Jews and Gentiles in the congregation is concerned, Paul writes: For He Himself is our Peace, who made both one and broke own the dividing wall of separation, the enmity, in His flesh. Jesus Christ is our Peace, He established peace between the two parties that seemed irreconcilable, between Jews and Gentiles. This great object of His life he brought about by uniting the two contending parties in one perfect unit. This He did by removing completely the wall, or partition, which separated Jews and Gentiles and caused constant enmity. The Mosaic Law, with all its precepts, institutions, and ceremonies, was a fence, or wall, which shut off the people of Israel from the Gentiles, which shut out the heathen from the privileges of the Jews. Christ abolished the Ceremonial Law and fulfilled the Moral Law.

This the apostle explains: (He removed the wall) by abolishing the enmity in His flesh, the law of commandments in ordinances. In His flesh, by the sufferings of His body, by going into death for the sins of the world, Christ has put the Law out of commission, He Bas abrogated the divine Law as a master of men. The curse, the guilt, the punishment lay upon Him, and so the Law has expended its might and power in His case. See Rom 7:6. Incidentally, Christ removed the enmity between Jews and Gentiles. The separation between the two could not exist without hostility, especially since the Ceremonial Law was a law of precepts in ordinances, and as such challenged opposition and enmity. The Gentiles were deterred from joining the people of God by the prospect of being kept in bondage by the countless and detailed instructions of the Law which governed the minutest acts of daily life, even as today people are not brought into church by the preaching of the Law. So Christ’s purpose in abrogating the Law was: That He might create the two in Himself to one new man, making peace. By making peace between the two estranged parties in the manner described, Christ brought about a union of the Jews and Gentiles to a unit, a gathering of the Christian Church from the Israel according to the flesh as well as from the Gentile nations. The holy Christian Church thus formed is the one body of Christ, and Christ’s work in bringing about this union is an evidence of His creative power.

In the same way and with the same object Jesus effected still more: And (that He) reconcile both in one body to God, having through the Cross killed the enmity in Himself. The word "reconciliation" in this connection does not refer to the removal of the hostile relation between God and man as much as to the abrogation of man’s hostile position and conduct over against God. It was Christ’s intention to bring both Jews and Gentiles before God as a unit people, as a single body, thus establishing perfect communion with God. This plan seemed destined for success from the start because Christ in Himself, by giving Himself into death, killed and removed the enmity between Jews and Gentiles. By sacrificing Himself and becoming obedient even to the death on the cross, He removed the obstacle that stood in the way of peace, the Law, which engendered hostility, thus making way for the union of Jews and Gentiles in one body, thus bringing about the perfect harmony of an evenly balanced and developed organic whole.

How this intention of Christ was realized and is being realized, Paul states: And thus He came and preached peace to you that were afar off and peace to those that were near. Having obtained a perfect redemption for all men, having removed the cause of disharmony and hostility, Jesus now comes in and through the Spirit, Joh 14:18; Act 26:23, in the Gospel. Christ, through the Holy Spirit, is personally present in and with the message of grace as it is preached throughout the world, and through this Word speaks to the hearts of men. It is a good, a joyful news, and its content is peace with God, the salvation earned by Christ on the cross with His suffering and death. This peace is now freely proclaimed to those that formerly were strange and distant, far from the chosen people of God and unacquainted with the evangelical promises, but also to those to whom the preaching of the Kingdom was entrusted of old: to Gentiles and to Jews Christ has proclaimed one and the same peace and thus restored peace between them. All believers in Christ are now united by the bond of this common knowledge and faith. Of them all together it holds true: For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. To this the experience of both Jews and Gentiles will cause them to agree. Christ is the Way; through Him the way to the Father is opened, through Him all have become partakers of the one Spirit. This unity of the Spirit, the unity of the sonship of God, the same right as children toward the Father of Jesus Christ, that is the bond which unites Jews and Gentiles, all the members of the Church of Christ. They all address Him: Abba, Father, with the same certainty of being heard, for all hindrances have been removed.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He is our peace: that is,

1. He is the Mediator of our peace, the great peace-maker betwixt God and men.

2.He is our peace: that is, the purchaser of our peace.

3. He is our peace; that is, the establisher of our peace. All which is to be understood, not only of peace betwixt God and man, but also betwixt man and man. Who hath made both one; that is, both Jews and Gentiles one church.

Here note, That there was a very great and deep-rooted enmity betwixt Jews and Gentiles, until Christ purchased their peace and reconciliation.

The Jews derided, scorned, and hated the Gentiles as unclean, compared them to dogs and swine.

The Gentiles, they reproached the Jews for circumcising their flesh, esteemed them, of all nations, the worst; and would hold their nose at the Jews when they met them, and cry, O faetentes Judaei! O ye stinking Jews! and turn away their eyes from them.

Learn from hence then, That the uniting of both Jew and Gentile into one church, was one blessed effect and sweet fruit of the purchase of Christ’s blood; Christ’s offering of himself was intended as a sacrifice for enmities between man and man, as well as for enmities between God and man: He is our peace, who hath made both one.

Observe next, What Christ hath done in order to his making peace between Jew and Gentile;

1. He has abolished the ceremonial law, called here a partition- wall, betwixt the Jews and the Gentiles; in allusion, no doubt, to that wall to Solomon’s temple which separated the court of the Jews from that of the Gentiles, that they could neither come at, nor look at one another. So that this partition-wall being said to be broken down, intimates to us, that Jew and Gentile, who before had two manner of religions, the one in and under a covenant with God, the other afar off, and without God; yet now by Christ are both adopted into the same church, partakers of the same covenants, incorporated into the same faith, entitled to the same glory.

2. Christ has abolished the enmity and perpetual strife which was occasioned between Jew and Gentile, upon the account of the observation of the ceremonial law, and the ordinances thereunto belonging: He hath abolished the enmity; that is, the ceremonial law, which made the enmity between them. The ceremonial law was the cause and the continuer of that enmity which was betwixt Jew and Gentile: this is called the law of commandments contained in ordinances: because Almighty God did actually separate the Jews from all the world, by giving them ordinances and commandments, judicial and ceremonial laws, containing many visible and external observances, which forbade them to communicate with the Gentile world.

Now Christ being come in the flesh, all those observances ceased, and those legal ordinances vanished away; all nations become blessed in Christ, and Jews and Gentiles become one church, both alike the people of God, both admitted equally into covenant, and both alike blessed.

Here note, That the moral law, summarily comprised and comprehended in the Ten Commandments, was no part of the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile. Nor did the death of Christ abrogate this law, nor is it at all abolished: but it was the law of ceremonies only, which the sufferings and death of Christ put an end unto; for when he died, they all vanished; as the shadow disappears when the substance is come.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

14–18. For he is our peace. It is the Crucified Christ that brought you nigh, for he, he only, is our peace. The creator of peace between Jew and Gentile; between alienated man and God. Who hath made both one. Jew and Gentile one. The old distinctions are destroyed. All are on the same footing before God. Hath broken down, etc. Having broken down, or ended, the law of Moses which built up a wall between the Jews and Gentiles.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

14. Αἰτὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν. Cf. Mic 5:5; Isa 9:6. It is characteristic of this group of Epistles that the effect should be regarded as due in the first instance to what Christ is in Himself rather than to any specific acts performed by Him. His doings and sufferings have their power not, if we may so speak, for their own sake, but from the light which they throw on the nature and character of the doer and the sufferer. All that He achieved was already implied in what He was. To know Him (Php 3:10) is at once the goal and the inspiration of the highest moral endeavour. In this sense it may even be true to say that the Incarnation is the Atonement. Controversy with false teachers at Colossae had shown afresh the importance of a right understanding of Christ both as the Image of the invisible God and as the Head at once of the created Universe and the Church. It is characteristic of Ephes. that the power at work reconciling man to man and man to God should be traced back to its source in the same Personality. Cf. 1Co 1:30. Peace is personified in Php 4:7; Col 3:15.

ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν κ.τ.λ. The main purpose of this sentence is clear, though the relation of its parts cannot be precisely determined. It is best on the whole to take τὴν ἔχθραν (1°) as governed by λύσας and explanatory of τὸ μ. τ. φ. So the stichometry of D, and Origen. then τὸν ν. τ. ἐντ. ἐν δ. κατ. is a subordinate clause showing how He destroyed the enmity, viz. ‘by abolishing the Law.’

The alternative is to throw the weight of the sentence on καταργήσας, ‘He made the two systems one, and destroyed the wall … by abolishing.’ This treats τὸν νόμον τ. ἐντ. ἐν δ. as = τὴν ἔχθραν. It is difficult, however, to believe that St Paul would have regarded them as interchangeable in this way.

τὰ ἀμφότερα … τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους. He speaks first of the abolition of the distinction between the systems (cf. Joh 4:21 ff.). The union between the men moulded by the systems follows.

τὸ μεσότοιχον. The barrier in the Temple at Jerusalem, which it was death for the uncircumcised to pass, aptly symbolized the division. The reference further prepares the way for the thought of the one true Spiritual Temple with which the paragraph concludes.

λύσας. See Intr., p. lxxxviii. λύω has at the same time a recognized use in connexion with ἔχθραν.

ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ. ‘In the humanity that He assumed at His Incarnation,’ not of course simply by appearing in the flesh but by offering it on behalf of all on the Cross (cf. Col 1:22, ἀποκατήλλαξεν ἐν τῷ σώματι τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ). References to the ‘Flesh’ of Christ to describe His Human Nature, familiar to us from Joh 1:14, are rare in St Paul (Rom 8:3; 1Ti 3:16). For σάρξ as constituting the reconciling offering cf. Joh 6:51. Origen writes τοῦτο οὖν τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ ἔχθρα τύγχανον ἐλύθη διὰ τοῦ ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι τὸν σωτῆρα ἡμῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο λέγεται λέλυσθαι ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our peace [η ειρηνη ημων] . Christ is similarly described in abstract terms in 1Co 1:30; wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption. So Col 1:27, hope of glory. Christ is thus not merely our peace - maker, but our very peace itself.

Both [τα αμφοτερα] . Lit., the both. The neuter gender shows that Jews and Gentiles are conceived by the writer merely as two facts. The masculine is used in vers. 15, 16.

Hath broken down [λυσας] . Lit, loosened or dissolved. Rev., giving the force of the aorist tense, brake down. The participle has an explanatory force, in that He brake down.

The middle - wall of partition [το μεσοτοιχον του φραγμου] . Lit., the middle wall of the fence or hedge. The wall which pertained to the fence; the fact of separation being emphasized in wall, and the instrument of separation in fence. The hedge was the whole Mosaic economy which separated Jew from Gentile. Some suppose a reference to the stone screen which bounded the court of the Gentiles in the temple.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.