Ephesians 2:15 (abolishment of the law)

[darinhouston]

Translations differ subtly, but I heard this preached as if Jesus completely nullified or did away with the "holiness code" in unifying Jew and Gentile. As I read Romans and elsewhere, and reading this larger section of Ephesians in context, it seems like it wasn't the law that was done away with, but the enmity and division the law created between Jew and Gentile which was obliterated through the provision of Christ. But the short text itself is hard to square with that in some translations.

Thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dizerner]

Good observation. I have to credit Watchman Nee for seeing the fact in Scripture that the Law never dies or is abolished. The holy Law of God is just, righteous and good and lives on forever. What changes then is our relation to it, for we die to it in Christ, who fulfills it.

A literal rendering would go:

For he is our peace who made both one,
the wall of separation broke down, the enmity, in his flesh
the law of commandments in decrees (dogma) rendering idle or inoperative,
in order for him to create the two into one new man making peace,
and might reconcile both in one body to God
through the cross by killing the enmity in himself.

Here I think we can see "the enmity" might be better considered our sin, or the broken commandments, rather than simply the Law itself. Since the Law lives forever, it is us and our sin that were what changed through the cross (esp. in light of overall context).

[Paidion]

As I read Romans and elsewhere, and reading this larger section of Ephesians in context, it seems like it wasn't the law that was done away with, but the enmity and division the law created between Jew and Gentile which was obliterated through the provision of Christ.

Yes, it says He abolished (rendered inoperative) the enmity, but then "the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances" seems to be in apposition to "enmity" since both "enmity" and "law" are in the accusative case (object of "abolished). For the Mosaic law was that which separated the Jew from the Gentile, and that law was abolished though Christ.

However, this doesn't imply that the LAW (the LAW which is above the law of Moses) was abolished. Christ brought out the true LAW of God, which He said could be summed up in loving God and neighbour. It was merely the law of Moses—the commandments contained in the ordinances, decrees, or doctrines of the Israelites which were abolished in Christ. That was the law that was preventing Gentiles who were "aliens to the commonwealth of Israel" from becoming citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. The middle wall of partition which had to be broken down by means of the Messiah's sacrifice of Himself.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:21
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

So the LAW of God (expressed in the law of Christ as recorded in Matt 5, 6, an 7 and also in Luke and elsewhere) has never been abolished. We are under the LAW of God, as was Paul. But we are not under the Mosaic law (thank God!)

[TheEditor]

If a contract or covenant or arrangement prevents person A from being in harmony with person B, then I cannot see how else the twain shall meet unless the arrangement is done away with. The thing that made Jews distinctive as a people were all of those ordinances that caused them to be different; circumcision, dietary laws, grooming and certain modes of dress. It is this code that is called the "wall" or the "enmity." I don't know how one keeps the wall without really keeping it.

Regards, Brenden.

[dwilkins]

The point of the discourse is to describe the promised regathering of Israel under a New Covenant, not like the one given to their fathers in the wilderness:

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
Eph 2:17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

The work of Christ on the cross allowed people to die to their relationship to the Mosaic Law and to escape it in order to be connected to another one. This freedom allowed for the rejoining of the two houses of Israel as well as the Gentiles, which the members of the Northern Kingdom had become embedded in. A parallel concept can be found in Romans 7:

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
Rom 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.
Rom 7:5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Rom 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

So, the Mosaic Law was made obsolete and was ready to pass completely away once the Temple and all of the elements of that religion were destroyed by the Romans. Meanwhile, the Jews who'd been members of the Old Covenant were released from it to sign on to the New Covenant. And, the Gentiles (former Northern Kingdom and non-Northern Kingdom members) were also invited to join the New Covenant. This has nothing to do with no longer having to follow rules, etc., except where certain non-moral rules such as circumcision and Sabbath observance were signs of membership under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant continued all the same moral expectations, though with more subtle and penetrating requirements.

Doug

[dizerner]

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9:21
To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

So the LAW of God (expressed in the law of Christ as recorded in Matt 5, 6, an 7 and also in Luke and elsewhere) has never been abolished. We are under the LAW of God, as was Paul. But we are not under the Mosaic law (thank God!)

I would argue the Sermon on the Mount, was an exposition of the spirit of the OT Law, loving neighbor and God with all the heart, identified as the heart of Mosaic law. So what is the law of Christ? When is law ever associated with Christ?

Well here:

4 For Christ is the end of the law (Rom 10:4 NAS)

1 Cor 9:20, the verse before 21, says:

as under the law, though not being myself under the law (1Co 9:20 NAS)

Yet due to one play on words in one place in the NT we are told there is such a thing as the "law of Christ." But where ever is a "law" that is associated with Christ that we are told we can keep?

24 Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ (Gal 3:24 NAS)
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, (Gal 3:13 NAS)
4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law (Gal 5:4 NAS)

But we are told this is only the law of Moses and never anything more. Yet the very heart and lynchpin of Mosaic law was said to be... love. If we are defining love as never punishing for sin, we seem to run into a definition of love that is not Biblical. And lest we think people can argue that Paul himself thought differently, Paul over and over again described fulfilling the law of Moses (not of Christ!) as love.

10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law. [of MOSES not Christ] (Rom 13:10 NAS)
14 For the whole Law [of MOSES not Christ] is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Gal 5:14 NAS)
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, [of MOSES not Christ] according to the Scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well. (Jam 2:8 NAS)

But here we find the one time the law of Christ is defined:

2 Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal 6:2 NAS)

Wait so... love is the law of Christ AND the law of Moses? What did Christ command?

34 A new commandment, give I unto you,--That ye be loving one another.

And what did Moses command?

17 'You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.
18 'You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the LORD. (Lev 19:17-18 NAS)

Wait, wait? Isn't this in Matthew 5, 6 and 7?? Judge not? Forgive as you are forgiven? Love even people you could rightfully bear a grudge against? Isn't the Old Testament just about killing people and wrath?

So where is the difference between the law of Christ and Moses? And if we can't fulfill the law of Moses how can we fulfill the law of Christ?

Well the answer is found in Romans 8:
1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:1-4 NAS)

Here is the law of Christ, the law of sin, and the law of Moses. One law set us free from from another law because we could not keep a third law which third law is still yet fulfilled in us by being freed from the second law by the first law. If without love we are nothing (1 Cor 13) then without Christ we are nothing (Joh 15) then only the Spirit of Christ can fulfill the Law of Christ (Gal 3:3). The Spirit of Christ is what sets us free yet in that freedom fulfills.

[TheEditor]

Doug,

Am I reading correctly or are you making a hyper-dispensationalist argument with respects this passage? I have only come across this reading in those circles. Is it common in Preterist circles as well? Is theology like politics; both extremes meet at the other end?

Seriously though; on what basis do you read this as applying primarily to Judah and the 10 tribe kingdom? Or does it just appear that way to me because I am thick?

Regards, Brenden.

[dwilkins]

I'd be fascinated to know where you've found a hyper-dispensationalist to debate. I've read a few of their books, so I'm aware of their position, but I've never been able to interact with one.

But, given your comment, I'm not sure you understand their position because it's essentially the opposite of mine. The hyper-dispensationalist position is that none of the New Testament written before Paul's meeting with the Jews in Acts 28 applies directly to Christians because the church doesn't start until the Jews have finally, completely rejected Paul. So, they'd say that the prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon; some of them might add the pastoral epistles depending on when they were written) are meant to be used by the church. They suggest a strict and eternal separation between Israel and the Church. So, when I say that the advantage of the obsolescence of the Mosaic Law is that the Jews can leave the Mosaic Law to join with the Gentiles to unify and form a nation under the New Covenant, they would categorically object to this.

Doug

[TheEditor]

Hi Doug,

They are like hen's teeth to be sure, but they are there. I had a friend that was a promoter of EW Bullinger. To be honest, I found all of it a bit tedious and, as with most "templates" put over Scripture, much shoe-horning was necessary. Perhaps that's where Full Preterists share some commonality with them.

Seriously though, are you implying that Paul was primarily aiming this passage at the 10 tribe kingdom?

Regards, Brenden.

[dwilkins]

I'm not seeing where you get that I have limited the point of the passage to the 10 Tribe kingdom. I have now, several times, explained how it engages the Jews (members of the Southern Kingdom, primarily), the 10 Tribes in the dispersion, and the non-Israelite Gentiles. The point of the passage is that they can all join a single new nation under the New Covenant. They could not do so (the two sticks couldn't be rejoined per Ezekiel and Hosea) until a proper exit from the Mosaic Covenant could be arranged for the members of the Southern Kingdom (again, see Romans 7). The mystery Paul is referring to in this book is the method by which this would be accomplished. The answer is that Christ as a party in the Mosaic Covevant would die (and the Jews could participate in his death) so that the covenant would be broken for good ("made obsolete" per Hebrews).

Doug