then in apposition with μεσότοιχον, but not with νόμον ; and καταργήσας τὸν νόμον, instead of being a mere re- petition of λύσας τὸ μεσότουχον, is an independent clause explaining the manner in which the reconcilia- tion 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. 6. 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 re- moved 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 aliena- tion 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 accom- plishing 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 favours this con-
CHAP. II. vs. 14, 15. 133
struction; 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 par- tion thus receives its needed explanation. The apostle first states, what it was that divided the Jews and Gen- tiles, 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 every one 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 eross, Col. 2,14. In this connection the expressions, “by the blood of Christ,” v.18; “by his flesh,” v. 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 recon-