I want to continue hearing with faith¹ the truth of the Gospel in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Another essay concluded with (Ephesians 2:11-13 EXP15):

Therefore remember that at one time you, the Gentiles by means of the flesh, those called foreskin by those called the circumcision (by means of flesh made by hand) since you were by means of that time apart from Christ, had become an outsider of citizenship of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and godless by means of the world [Table]. But now by means of Christ Jesus you, who at any time are far off, have come into existence near at hand by means of Christ’s bloodshed.

Paul continued (Ephesians 2:14-16 ESV):

For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself² one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.

The Greek is: Αὐτὸς γάρ, For himself (literally, “For He”), ἐστιν, he is, ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, our peace. The 3^rd person singular verb ἐστιν translates he is as the personal pronoun αὐτός (ESV: himself) adds emphasis. I chose He to remind me that αὐτός is in the nominative case: “For He, He is our peace.”

In one sense, this is a simple practical statement, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace (εἰρήνη). It is also profound. Jesus said, (Matthew 10:34-36 ESV):

Do not think that I have come to bring peace (εἰρήνην, a form of εἰρήνη) to the earth. I have not come to bring peace (εἰρήνην, a form of εἰρήνη), but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies (ἐχθροὶ, a form of ἐχθρός) will be those of his own household [Table].³

This seems like an odd thing for the Prince of Peace to say.

A comparison of the English translations of identical Hebrew word strings found in Isaiah 9:6, 7 (9:5, 6) from the ESV and The Complete Jewish Bible follows:

The Prince of Peace comes to bring peace without end. The difficulty seems to arise from translating two occurrences of βαλεῖν in Matthew 10:34 to bring. It is a form of βάλλω: “to throw, cast, thrust; to put, place, lay, set up (a mound); to pour; to rush (intrans.); to send forth (roots).” The same word was translated throw it in Jesus’ second response to a Canaanite woman’s request for healing of her demon-possessed daughter (Matthew 15:21-28 ESV).

And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us” [Table]. He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me” [Table]. And he answered, “It is not right (καλὸν, a form of καλός; e.g., beautiful) to take the children’s bread and throw it (βαλεῖν, a form of βάλλω) to the dogs.”⁴ She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you desire (θέλεις, a form of θέλω).” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Behold, the hour is coming, Jesus clarified the relationship of his peace and faith for his disciples, indeed it⁵ has come, when you will be scattered (σκορπισθῆτε, a form of σκορπίζω), each to his own home, and will leave me⁶ alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. I have said these things to you, that in me (ἐν ἐμοὶ; or, “by means of me”) you may have peace (εἰρήνην ἔχητε).⁷ In the world (ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, or “by means of the world”)⁸ you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.⁹ In other words, believing Jesus’ words about them—you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone—rather than arguing that they were better—more faithful—than that, Jesus’ disciples could have shared his peace as they scattered, rather than being confronted with the proof of their lying hearts.

But perhaps they learned something from that experience, as Paul did from his (Romans 7:15, 18b, 19 ESV):

I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want (θέλω), but I do the very thing I hate…I have the desire (θέλειν, another form of θέλω) to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want (θέλω), but the evil I do not want (θέλω) is what I keep on doing [Table].

In all fairness, Jesus’ peace was directly related to fervently expressing his desire, not to be tortured to death, to his Father in prayer. Yet still He prayed, not my will (τὸ θέλημα μου), but yours, be done.¹⁰ His disciples had the same opportunity to express their desires, to be bold faithful followers of the Lord Jesus, and their own willingness to submit their wills to God’s will, but they slept instead. My purpose here is to understand how He is our peace in a world of tribulation, not to criticize Jesus’ disciples. I’m nearly seventy-two-years-old and am only occasionally as present in the moment as I am suggesting they might have been, despite having the indwelling Holy Spirit of God and the whole Bible at my disposal.

And his disciples did fulfill the prophetic word of Jesus (and the prophet) after Jesus said (Matthew 26:53-56a ESV):

“Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? [Table] But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me [Table]. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.”

Then all the disciples left him and fled.¹¹ As much as I might wish that Jesus’ words brought them to their senses, that they hurried away to fulfill the prophets’ words, I’m skeptical and suspect that their divided hearts feared those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, more than him (e.g., Jesus) who can destroy both soul and body in hell (γεέννῃ, or “by means of hell”).¹²

Again, my point is not to criticize Jesus’ disciples but to use the Gospel narratives to contrast who they were before his crucifixion, resurrection, ascension and their receiving of the promised indwelling Holy Spirit, and the book of Acts to recognize who they became after. (Frankly, I prefer not to be compared to them at all, though I recognize the same indwelling Holy Spirit in me, causing me to see the transformation He worked in them and leading me on to be more like them.)

Ephesians 2:14 continued: ὁ ποιήσας, who has made, τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν, us both one (literally, “the both one”; e.g., Gentiles…those called foreskin, and those called the circumcision), καὶ, and, τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ, the dividing wall, λύσας, has broken down, τὴν ἔχθραν, of hostility (literally, “the hostility”), ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, in his flesh (or “by means of his flesh”). Three different English translations of καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας follow:

These English translations change some with the addition of the words which follow those above: τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ.

It slows me down and prompts me to wonder what καὶ, and (ESV, NET, KJV), means here. All three translations render τὸ μεσότοιχον, the dividing wall (ESV, though this is more likely the translation of τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ), the middle wall (NET, KJV), in the accusative case as the direct object of the nominative participle λύσας. Both τὸ and μεσότοιχον might be understood in the nominative case as well. I want to consider that possibility if for no other reason than to reject it.

So, if τὸ μεσότοιχον was intended as the subject of its own clause, it needs to do something.

…who has made the both one and the middle wall of partition has broken down the hostility.

Here, and coordinates two relatively independent clauses. The direct object of the second clause, τὴν ἔχθραν, the hostility, is in the accusative case. It fits grammatically, but whose hostility? What hostility is broken down by a middle wall of partition? “For He, He is our peace, who has made the both one and good fences make good neighbors”? If I add ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, in his flesh, to this word string, things get very strange.

…who has made the both one and the middle wall of partition has broken down the hostility in his flesh.

The second independent clause sounds like the opposite of the truth. Frankly, I would feel better understanding the middle wall as the subject of its own independent clause if it were followed by a verb like λύσῃ or ἔλυσε rather than a nominative participle λύσας, like ποιήσας, has made (ESV), in the previous clause. And that’s a good clue to accepting that τὸ μεσότοιχον, the dividing wall (ESV), the middle wall (NET, KJV), should probably be understood in the accusative case.

The translators of the NET did something interesting: and who destroyed the middle wall of partition. With the addition of the pronoun who, they brought the article ὁ across the conjunction and (καὶ), yielding ὁ λύσας to mirror ὁ ποιήσας, who has made, in the clause preceding the conjunction. They may have been on to something. But why stop at ὁ?

For He, He is our peace, who has made the both one and who has made the middle wall of partition.

Here, and indicates a second dependent clause. But now what do I do with the nominative participle λύσας? I could treat it like the verbal adjective that it is.

For He, He is our peace, who has made the both one and who has made the broken down (ESV, KJV), (or) the destroyed (NET), middle wall of partition.

That the Lord made this middle wall of partition is a given.

And Israel, notorious for desiring to be like all the nations, has attempted to break down this dividing wall or destroy this middle wall of partition (1 Samuel 8:4-8 ESV).

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations (gôy, הַגּוֹיִם; Septuagint: ἔθνη).” But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them [Table]. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you [Table].

And the Lord spoke through the prophet Ezekiel:

“Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: Will you defile yourselves after the manner of your fathers and go whoring after their detestable things? When you present your gifts and offer up your children in fire, you defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live, declares the Lord God, I will not be inquired of by you.

“What is in your mind shall never happen—the thought, ‘Let us be like the nations (gôy, כַגּוֹיִם; Septuagint: τὰ ἔθνη), like the tribes of the countries, and worship wood and stone.’¹³

A broken down (ESV, KJV) middle wall of partition corresponds to the nuanced relationship Paul described, though destroyed (NET) is a bit overstated (Romans 11:28-32 ESV).

As regards the gospel, they¹⁴ are enemies (ἐχθροὶ, a form of ἐχθρός) for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy [Table]. For God has consigned all (τοὺς πάντας, “the all,” “them all,” rather than τὰ ἀμφότερα, “the both”) to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (τοὺς πάντας, “the all,” “them all,” rather than τὰ ἀμφότερα, “the both”).

I liked the ESV rendering of Ephesians 2:14bc: who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility. Then I looked at it in Greek and noticed that the translators had rendered τὴν ἔχθραν, the hostility, in the accusative case as if it were in the genitive case, of hostility. I asked, Is that what You meant? The path He led me on (as recorded above) alerted me to some aspects of the importance of “beloved enemies.”

The “beloved enemies” who translated the Hebrew—and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, “the prince of peace”¹⁵—rather than—and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace¹⁶—could become overly persuasive apart from their status as “beloved enemies.” Even the “beloved enemies” who translated the Septuagint struggled with this Hebrew text (see table above). A son called Mighty God, Everlasting Father sounds wrong to monotheists until one meets the Lord Jesus Christ and knows Him personally.

Though they didn’t use the word who, the ESV and KJV translators have effectively brought the article ὁ across the and (καὶ) to the next clause: and [who] has broken down (ESV), and [who] hath broken down (KJV). But only the ESV translators brought τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ back across the nominative participle λύσας into the preceding clause.

I favor treating the next phrase in the accusative case, τὴν ἔχθραν, as the beginning of a third dependent clause, second in the list following καὶ, another direct object of ὁ ποιήσας, who has made.

…who has made the hostility by means of his flesh…

This rendering clarifies the hostility (Matthew 26:57, 59-68).

Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered…Now the chief priests¹⁷ and the whole council were seeking false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.¹⁸ At last two¹⁹ came forward and said,²⁰ “This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it²¹ in three days.’” And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” But Jesus remained silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” [Table]. Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has uttered blasphemy. What further witnesses do we need? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death” [Table] Then they spit in his face and struck him. And some slapped²² him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”

John didn’t soft pedal the hostility engendered by Jesus’ flesh (1 John 4:1-6 ESV).

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already [Table]. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God (ἡμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν, or “We from God exist”). Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Ephesians 2:15 continued: τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν, the law of commandments, ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας, expressed in ordinances by abolishing. Clearly, the ESV word order seemed to make more sense: by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. Translating καταργήσας by abolishing sounds wrong to me, however.

The plural noun δόγμασιν which precedes καταργήσας is in the dative case and might be understood as the means by which something was accomplished, but καταργήσας is a singular participle in the nominative case. So, I’m inclined to drop by, leaving: abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. But καταργήσας is in the aorist rather than the present tense. So, I’m inclined to treat this clause as a fourth dependent clause, third in the list following καὶ, another direct object of ὁ ποιήσας, and to treat καταργήσας as a verbal adjective describing the state of the law of commandments by means of δόγμασιν.

…who has made the law of commandments abolished by means of ordinances…

A translators’ note (29) in the NET makes a fairly strong case for the word nullify as a translation of καταργήσας:

Or “rendered inoperative.” This is a difficult text to translate because it is not easy to find an English term which communicates well the essence of the author’s meaning, especially since legal terminology is involved. Many other translations use the term “abolish” (so NRSV, NASB, NIV84), but this term implies complete destruction which is not the author’s meaning here. The verb καταργέω (katargeō) can readily have the meaning “to cause someth. to lose its power or effectiveness” (BDAG 525 s.v. 2, where this passage is listed), and this meaning fits quite naturally here within the author’s legal mindset. A proper English term which communicates this well is “nullify” since this word carries the denotation of “making something legally null and void.” This is not, however, a common English word. An alternate term like “rendered inoperative [or ineffective]” is also accurate but fairly inelegant. For this reason, the translation retains the term “nullify”; it is the best choice of the available options, despite its problems.

That gives me: “who has made the law of commandments nullified by means of ordinances,” or “by means of ordinances nullified” for a word order identical to the Greek: ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας. The plural noun δόγμασιν is a neuter form of δόγμα, dogma, in the dative case, “nullified by means of dogmas”: “a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.”²³ In other words: “who has made the law of commandments (e.g., promises to be pursued by faith) nullified by means of dogmas” (which incite people to pursue a law that would lead to righteousness…as if it were based on works). 

As Paul wrote (Romans 9:31, 32 ESV):

Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law [Table]. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone [Table].

That the Lord made the law of commandments is a given (Exodus 20). And pursuing righteousness as if it were based on works was the upshot of the partial hardening [that] has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.²⁴

For by people of strange lips and with a foreign tongue the Lord will speak to this people, to whom he has said, “This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose”; yet they would not hear. And the word of the Lord will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little, that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.²⁵

What I have, then, in relatively few words is another²⁶ of Paul’s panoramic history lessons: “For He, He is our peace: who has made the both one, and who has made the broken down middle wall of partition, who has made the hostility by means of his flesh, who has made the law of commandments nullified by means of dogmas” ἵνα, that (or “in order that”), τοὺς δύο, the two, κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ, he might create in himself (or “He might create by means of himself”), εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον, “into” one new man (or “into one new human”), ποιῶν εἰρήνην, making peace (Ephesians 2:14, 15 EXP16):

For He, He is our peace: who has made the both one, and who has made the broken down middle wall of partition, who has made the hostility by means of his flesh, who has made the law of commandments nullified by means of dogmas in order that He might create by means of himself the two into one new human, making peace.

Laid out like this I’m more inclined to understand the both who [He] has made one (ὁ ποιήσας) differently from the two He might create (κτίσῃ, a form of κτίζω) into one new human (εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον). The former one is probably more akin to Paul’s insight that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin,²⁷ while the latter one is the sum total of all who did receive him (e.g., Jesus: The true light, which gives light to everyone²⁸), who believed in his name, [who were given] the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God²⁹: the new self (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον), created (κτισθέντα, a participle of κτίζω) after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.³⁰ And remember, the verb κτίσῃ, He might create, a form of κτίζω in the subjunctive mood is both the result and the purpose of the list of things the Lord has made:

…if the subjunctive mood is used in a purpose or result clause, then the action should not be thought of as a possible result, but should be viewed as a definite outcome that will happen as a result of another stated action.³¹

This one new human (ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) is happening, no matter what I see with my eyes or imagine in my mind: For God has consigned all to disobedience, that (ἵνα) he may have mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, a form of ἐλεέω in the subjunctive mood) on all (τοὺς πάντας, “the all,” “them all”).³²

Ephesians 2:16 continued: καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ, and might reconcile, τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους, us both (literally “the both”), ἐν ἑνὶ σώματι, in one body (or “by means of one body”), τῷ θεῷ, to God (or “by means of God”), διὰ τοῦ σταυροῦ, through the cross, ἀποκτείνας τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν αὐτῷ, thereby killing the hostility (or “having killed the hostility by means of Him”). The ESV translators seem to have understood ἀποκτείνας in the present tense rather than the aorist tense.

For He, He is our peace: who has made the both one, and who has made the broken down middle wall of partition, who has made the hostility by means of his flesh, who has made the law of commandments nullified by means of dogmas in order that He might create by means of himself the two into one new human, making peace, and might reconcile the both by means of one body to God (by means of God) through the cross, having killed the hostility by means of Him (ἐν αὐτῷ).³³

The ESV translators chose thereby for ἐν αὐτῷ. While it encourages me that their customary translation in him means “by means of Him,” it gives me pause to wonder why they chose thereby here. Did they understand αὐτῷ as a neuter, it, referencing the cross? Though the article τοῦ, the, can be neuter, σταυροῦ, cross, is masculine. Were they concerned that in him raised too many questions to whom him might refer? Truly, ἐν αὐτῷ here refers to God the Father, God the Son, through God the indwelling Holy Spirit, and all that He, the One God, has done.

For by means of grace you are, were and continue to be saved through faith, and this not from within you, God’s gift, not out from works, so that no one may boast [about oneself]. For we are his workmanship, created by means of Christ Jesus to good works which God prepared beforehand, so that by means of them we (e.g., the one new human) may walk.³⁴

According to a note (80) in the NET Jesus alluded to Psalm 110:1 in Matthew 26:64. The following table compares the Greek of that allusion with the Septuagint.

According to a note (82) in the NET Jesus alluded to Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 26:64. The following table compares the Greek of that allusion with the Septuagint.

Tables comparing Isaiah 9:6; 9:7; 1 Samuel 8:4; 8:5; 8:6; Ezekiel 20:30; 20:31; 20:32; Isaiah 28:11; 28:12 and 28:13 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and comparing the Greek of Isaiah 9:6; 9:7; 1 Samuel (Reigns, Kings) 8:4; 8:5; 8:6; Ezekiel 20:30; 20:31; 20:32; Isaiah 28:11; 28:12 and 28:13 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor), and comparing Ephesians 2:15; John 16:32; Matthew 26:59-61 and 26:67 in the KJV and NET follow.