Vers. 14, 15.--Such an effect Christ produces by his nature; he himself is our peace. In that idea there is couched not merely that Christ institutes peace, that he is the Peace-maker, but that he himself, in his essence, is peace, and that he alone has peace who lives in him and his element. Where discords dwells inwardly, there outwardly, too, peace is only mock peace. Thus Christ is called, even in Isaiah ix. 6, prince of peace (3, äpxwv eipývns). Therefore in the name "our peace," ueis implies not the Jews alone; Paul here speaks from the point of view of the whole human race, in which all distinctions are levelled. (See on Gal. iii. 28.) Christ manifests himself as our peace both inwardly and outwardly; Paul, no doubt, on account of the special need of his first readers, dwells especially on the external features of the reconciliation. Christ abolishes the division of mankind into Jews and non-Jews, he makes both halves one. The neuter, тà dupóтepa, Paul himself (vers. 15, 16) interprets by Toùs dúo, Toùs dupотépovç, i. e., Jews and non-Jews. Both form a unity in their relation to Christ (John x. 16), one flock under one shepherd. This uniting efficiency of Christ is still more closely described by Paul in the explanatory words: καὶ λύσας τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ, and breaking down the middle wall of partition. This middle wall of partition is further explained by the rǹv Exopav, the enmity, and the whole train of thought is more accurately determined by the final words "in his own flesh doing away the law of commands in ordinances” (ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασι καταργή σας). True, it has been proposed to connect τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ avrov, and even Lachmann has accepted that punctuation; but this mode of taking the context yields no fitting sense; for the interpretation of Bugenhagen, Schulthess, and others, who explain Expa Ev Tỹ σaρkì avтov, "enmity in his people, in the corporeal relatives of Christ" (as oáps is used Rom. xi. 14), sufficiently refutes itself. It is only in the above given connexion of the words that the writer's exposition proceeds step by step elucidating itself. Now, first of all, as to the form of the phrase λύειν τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ, it is clear that vev here, as at John ii. 19, has the meaning of "to dissolve, destroy, and therefore remove." Meσóтoxov, paries interΜεσότοιχον, gerinus or intermedius, denotes a party-wall, a partition-wall; Phavorinus interprets it rò diappaypa. It is very rare in profane writers, διάφραγμα. yet Athenæus has it, Lib. vii. p. 281. Ed. Casaubon. The combination μɛσóτoxov тоv opayμov is meant, however, to render the barrier prominent, as the means of separation, "the barrier which forms and is meant to form the hedge, the separating medium." This phrase points, of course, immediately to the law, which produced the separation between those who were under theocratic government and those who were not under it, by expressly declaring the Gentiles unclean, and forbidding all communication with them on the part

of the Jews. In the Rabbis, therefore, the law is called a or sad, sepes, sepimentum, and the Masoreh again. (See Buxtorf, lex. talm. p. 1447.) The investigations as to what sort of barrier Paul meant, seem idle; if, however, it is to be supposed that he, in using the universally intelligible figure, had something special in his mind, it is most reasonable to understand the wall which divided the forecourt of the Gentiles from the precincts of the inner temple, and thus was a symbol of their separation from the covenants of promise. The presupposed reference of the peoóroixoν тоv прayμov to the law, seems, however, to have a doubt cast on it by the epexegetic Tv Exopav. Erasmus, Cornelius à Lapide, and Rückert understand it rather of the reciprocal enmity between Jews and Gentiles. But if TU ἔχθραν were different from μεσότοιχον, καί would not be wanting ; if it is to explain the previous phrase, the idea, "the party-wall is enmity," seems unfitting; the enmity may well be a consequence of the separating medium, but not the separating medium itself. Besides, Paul himself surely gives the explanation immediately by the following, "abolishing the law of commands," which stands exactly parallel to the μεσότοιχον λύσας. The ἔχθρα can and must be here taken as an effect of the law. But the question is, as what effect? Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Ecumenius, to whom Harless has given in his adhesion, understand by the Exopa the enmity of the Jews and Gentiles together against God, which arises through the operation of the law, in that it makes sin abound. (Rom. v. 20, vii. 13, viii. 3 ; Gal. iii. 10.) The last-named interpreter defends this acceptation by laying emphasis on the καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ τῷ Θεῷ, and reconciled to God, which follows in ver. 16, and which he understands of inward reconciliation through Christ, and therefore of the abolishment of guilt and enmity against God, in opposition to the merely outward union of Jews and Gentiles. According to this, as Harless interprets the passage, the two members of the clause expressive of purpose correspond to the two members of the principal sentence; that is to say, the first member of the subordinate sentence, iva, down to εipvm, to the first member of the principal sentence, & nonoaç down to ev, and the second member of the subordinate sentence, καὶ ἀποκαταλλάξῃ down to ἐν αὐτῷ, to the second member of the principal sentence, kaì rò μeσóтoixov down to Kaтaруnoαç. Thus, then, Paul spoke not merely of the amalgamation of the Jews and Gentiles into one, through Christ, but also of the abolishment of the enmity of the sinful world against God. through the atonement. But the twofold subject, which this interpretation supposes, is not found in Paul's discussion. The ȧroκαταλλάσσειν (ver. 16) is, by the addition τοὺς ἀμφοτέρους ἐν ἑνὶ σώpari, referred to the relation between Jews and Gentiles, just as the preceding KTĺžεv Toùs duo. In vers. 17-22 we see most clearly that

ἀπο

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

curse.

As,

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

necessary, because those words might have been misunderstood. For this breaking down the middle wall, etc., might seem, from its relation to the law, to stand in antagonism with the declarations of the Lord at Matth. v. 17, 18, where the abolition of the law is expressly disavowed. Paul cannot intend to utter the antinomian error that Christ had abolished (karapynoas) the law in general, both in its moral and ceremonial parts, in every relation; but only that the law had obtained through Christ a totally different position, and so far was made inoperative in a certain relation. This relation, which through Christ is changed in reference to the law, Paul designates by the phrase vóμos t☎v ¿vτoλ☎v, law of commandments, and the addition ev dóypaoi, in ordinances. The word "commandment” (¿vToλ), denotes the expression of the law (vóuoç) for the individual case; thus the unity of the law comprises a multitude of vroλaí. It cannot be supposed that the ceremonial ordinances alone are here so called; the moral commandments of the vóuoç are also to be taken as Evroλaí: but Paul names the law here "the law of commandments," in order to contrast it in the dividedness of its precepts with the oneness of the spirit (v évì пvεúμaтi, ver. 18), which reigns in the gospel. While the law says, do this, do that, do not this, do not that, the gospel has but the one commandment of love, and even that not in the form of a commandment, but as an influence of grace. Certainly this holds good also of the law of the Gentiles written in their hearts. This, too, declares itself in a multitude of separate exhortations and warnings; but we need not mention that ó vóμos T☎V EVTOλõv, the law of commandments, cannot possibly be referred to this inner law also. If it were still doubtful, the ¿v dóypas, in ordinances, which follows would, at all events, make the reference to the universal moral law impossible.

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

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

=

was used of the doctrines of philosophical schools. But here this meaning neither suits the context, nor harmonizes in its sentiment with the doctrine elsewhere taught by the sacred writers. We nowhere find it taught in the New Testament that Christ by his precepts made the law of no effect; it is constantly said, by his death, by his blood. So also here Ev Ty oаpkì avrov, in his own flesh, is to be connected with karapynoaç, doing away, so as to express the means by which Christ works the abrogation of the law; it denotes the offering up of his flesh, and therefore v T aipari avrov, in his blood αἵματι (ver. 13), or dia тov σravpov, by his cross (ver. 16). But further, it is impossible to discover how v doyaoi could be so connected with KаTaρуnoaç, that it should mean "He made the law of no effect καταργήσας, through his doctrines." Such a sentiment would certainly have required év Toiç dóуuaoi avтou. Therefore other interpreters, particularly Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Michaelis, Storr, and, among the later ones, Koppe, Flatt, Theile, Rückert join ev dóyμασι with τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν, which precedes. But Winer (Gr., p. 196, seq.) and Harless have correctly observed, in opposition to that view, that it would require the repetition of the article.* Were ἐν δόγμασι meant to determine more exactly the νόμος, it must have been τὸν ἐν δόγμασι ; if to determine the ἐντολῶν it should have been Tv iv dóyuaot. Besides, we cannot thus well avoid tautology; "the law of the commandments in ordinances" says idem per idem. Nothing remains, therefore, but, with Harless (in favour of whose interpretation Winer, too, declares, ubi supra) to join, indeed, ¿v δόγμασι with καταργήσας, but not to refer it to Christian precepts, but to the form of command in which the law of the Old Testament appears; and to consider that form as the part of the law abolished by Christ, so that the sense of the words is this: "Christ has, by offering up his flesh, made the law, which declared itself in a multitude of precepts, inoperative in relation to the commanding form of its ordinances, and gained for man in lieu of it the one spirit of love."

δόγμασι.

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

*Winer, in the 6th edition of his Grammar (§ 31, Anm.) unites &v dóyuaou with tvToλov, and regards them as forming one conception "commandments in (special) ordinances." He thus withdraws his objection based on the absence of the article (Tv v dóy.), and refers to § 20, 2, where he has accumulated many analogous examples of its omission.-[K.