To what does “abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” refer?

Explanation:

What does it mean that Christ abolished the law of the commandments expressed in ordinances [τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν]? A breakdown of the Greek can help us.

Paul uses the participle of καταργέω (to abolish) to express the result of Christ’s action in the flesh. And what did Christ abolish? The first important term is τὸν νόμον (the law). In his flesh, Christ abolished the law. The noun τὸν νόμον is followed up with the genitive plural, τῶν ἐντολῶν (of the commandments). It is best to take this as a genitive of content. Thus, we would render the phrase the law consisting of commandments, which means that the law comprised various commands. This is followed up by the prepositional phrase ἐν δόγμασιν, which describes the nature of the various laws as being expressed in ordinances or decrees.⁴ In other words, the law of God given to Moses consisted of commands that were expressed as decrees.

Counterargument:

There is no doubt that Christ abolished at least some aspect of the law in the flesh. Still, the Greek presents us with some ambiguity as to which aspects that might entail. The law of the Israelites is often categorized into three groups: moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. The moral laws express God’s unchanging will for holy living, with the Ten Commandments as the heart of the moral laws. The civil laws are those that apply the general principles of the moral law to specific situations relevant to Israel in the ancient Near East. The ceremonial laws were the various ordinances around circumcision, food requirements, washing regulations, and so on.

It is important to point out these three distinctions because there is ambiguity in the prepositional phrase ἐν δόγμασιν (in ordinances). The preposition ἐν can be taken in several ways, including as a preposition of reference.⁵ When we take the preposition this way, we might translate the phrase as the law of commandments with reference to ordinances. In other words, by including the prepositional phrase Paul is specifying a certain category of law.⁶ While Paul does not pinpoint which category he has in mind, the most likely candidate is the ceremonial laws.⁷

Response to counterargument:

The fact that a prepositional phrase can be taken in more than one way is not enough to show that it should in fact be taken as a preposition of reference. Rather, we must look to the context and decide if there are any clues to help resolve the matter. In this case we are helped by the Greek term δόγμα (decree), which is modified by the preposition ἐν.

The term δόγμα is only used five times in the New Testament. In each case it carries a sense of commands that are not necessarily related to ceremonial commands (see Luke 2:1; Acts 17:7; Colossians 2:14). The only passage that alludes to the ceremonial laws is Acts 16:4, where Paul and his companions spread the δόγματα (decisions) that the apostles made regarding the Gentiles. The decisions had to do with whether the Christian Gentiles should follow Jewish customs, including circumcision (Acts 15:5). The Jerusalem council decided that the Gentiles should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality, what has been strangled, and blood (Ephesians 2:15). One could argue that because the δόγματα include the abstention from eating what has been strangled, the δόγματα include ceremonial laws. The problem with that argument is that the δόγματα also include forbidding sexual immorality, which is not a ceremonial law.

In each case the term δόγμα is used for general commands that might include or extend beyond ceremonial laws. Therefore, it is likely that Paul does not use the term δόγμα in a restrictive sense but to encompass the entire Mosaic law.

Explanation:

The notion that Ephesians 2:15 says that Christ abolished the whole Mosaic law is consistent with Paul’s other writings. For example, when we turn to Romans 10, we learn that the Jews were mistaken for thinking they could establish salvation based on the law. Instead, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4). Paul explains that no one will be justified by living according to the works of the law but only through faith in Christ (Romans 10:5–6). Galatians 3:23–28 expresses something similar. The law was a guardian until Christ came (Galatians 3:24). Paul explains that neither the Israelites, the Greeks, the slaves, nor the free require the guardian of the law any longer because we are sons of God, not through the law but through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:25–28).⁸

Another important example comes from Romans 4:15. Paul explains that the promise to Abraham that he and his heir would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through faith (Romans 4:13). The law brings wrath, but where there is no law, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15).

Counterargument:

This argument will not do because we know from Paul’s other writings that the law of God still stands. In fact, Paul explicitly states in Romans 3:31 that we by no means overthrow the law by the fact that we are justified through faith. Rather, we uphold the law.⁹

Further, Paul consistently relies on the law of God for the content of his ethical instruction. For example, in Galatians 5:13 Paul exhorts the congregation to serve one another, explaining that the whole law is fulfilled by the command, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Galatians 5:14). And in Romans 13:8 Paul explains that by loving each other the Romans fulfil the law.

In these examples, Paul does not set the law aside but relies on it as an authority that should motivate the Christian to love.

Response to counterargument:

The above passages are not (indeed, cannot be) contrary to Ephesians 2:15; rather, they provide a theological lens through which to see what it means that Christ abolished the Mosaic law. In one sense, the Mosaic law could be understood as a set of moral rules that reflect God’s will. When taken in this way, the Mosaic law is indeed never set aside (Rom 3:31).

In another sense, the Mosaic law plays the role of accuser, convicting all those who dare stand before God on the merit of their own righteousness and works.¹⁰ And the ceremonial aspects of the law excluded the Gentiles and created enmity between them and the Jews.

Now Jesus Christ has abolished these two negative aspects of the Mosaic law. Believers are justified through the blood of Christ so that the requirements of the law no longer condemn those who place their faith in him. Instead, believers are justified because Jesus obeyed the law, thereby abolishing its accusatory function for those who believe. No longer are Jews and Gentiles threatened with death by the requirements of the law but are imparted life through the work of Jesus Christ.¹¹ Further, the ceremonial laws can be abandoned altogether, so that there is no longer division between the Jews and the Gentiles.

Possible weaknesses:

The weakness with this view is that if Paul refers to the whole law, one expects Paul to use the simple term ὁ νόμος (the law). By using such a term there would be no question that Paul refers to the whole law. Instead, he used the more complex phrase τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν (the law of commandments expressed in ordinances). This more complex phrase lends some ambiguity because it is conceptually possible to categorize the law of Moses into separate ordinances. Still, Paul can use whatever phrase he wants to refer to the whole law, even if it adds ambiguity. Our task is to analyze the context, word meanings, grammar, and so on, to resolve what is initially ambiguous to the reader.

Explanation:

We know that there is no problem with the moral law because the moral law expresses the will of God. This means that the moral law will never be abolished. In fact, we have Jesus own words on the matter recorded in Matthew 5:17 when he says that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law. Paul speaks similarly in Romans 3:31 where he writes that faith does not nullify the law. At the same time, we know from Hebrews that the ceremonial law was only a shadow of the true reality that is fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 9:9–10). Since the moral law is never abolished and the ceremonial law is considered a copy of Christ’s work, only dealing with external regulations, we should assume that Christ abolished the ceremonial laws through his work on the cross.

Counterargument:

Oftentimes Paul will talk about the law in one of two ways. Either he will focus on the nature of the law, which as this view rightly points out is good in itself, or he will focus on the law as a means of salvation. The law as a means of salvation is not adequate, not because the law is not good but because humans are sinful and cannot uphold the law. Where the law reveals a path to salvation, it simultaneously accuses us for falling short of that path. Thus, for salvation to occur, a new, better means of salvation must be revealed. This is what Paul means when he says that Christ abolished the law. It is not that the law is no longer good, but that since Jesus took the punishment for our sins, we are forgiven, so the law no longer stands as our accuser. Instead through faith in Jesus Christ a new path of salvation is revealed, and the condemnation of the law is abolished for both Jews and Gentiles alike.

Explanation:

Paul states in Ephesians 2:15 that Christ abolished the law of commands expressed in ordinances in order to create one new man out of two. When he says that Christ did this to create one new man out of two, he is referring to the separation of the Jews and the Gentiles. Paul explains this more clearly back in Ephesians 2:12 where he reminds the Gentiles that before Christ came, they were alienated from Israel, which included alienation from the covenant promises. Next, he writes that they have been brought near by the blood of Christ who has broken the wall of hostility (Ephesians 2:14) by abolishing the law (Ephesians 2:15). In other words, there was a wall between the Jews and Gentiles that vanished when Christ abolished the law of commands expressed through ordinances. Given the immediate context, it is likely that Paul refers to the ceremonial laws that separated Jews and Gentiles.¹⁴

Counterargument:

It is true that Paul has in mind the historical hostility between the Jews and the Gentiles in Ephesians 2:14–15. Still, the wall of hostility is not simply the ceremonial laws, but the fact that Israel was chosen to be God’s people, under the guardianship of the whole Mosaic law, while the Gentiles were not. The Mosaic law was not only about ceremony and separation, but it was also about the covenant promises of God. God made a covenant Israel through Moses that if they obeyed the law of God, they would be protected. Paul mentions this in Ephesians 2:12 where he reminds the Gentiles that they were strangers to the covenant promises, having no hope and without God in the world. The Ephesians were not without God simply because they did not participate in the ceremonial laws; they were without God because they were not God’s chosen people, guarded by the Mosaic covenant.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that in Paul’s writings he often states that we are no longer under the law, but he does not distinguish between the ceremonial and moral law. Therefore, unless he says otherwise, we should assume that when Paul talks about the law, he means the whole Mosaic law.

Explanation:

To understand Ephesians 2:15 we need to understand the grammar used by Paul. In Ephesians 2:14–15 Paul uses two participles, λύσας (to break) and καταργήσας (to nullify). Due to the flexibility of Greek grammar, there are two ways to translate Ephesians 2:15, depending on the object of each participle. For example, we could take the object of λύσας to be τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ (the dividing wall of hostility). In this case what Christ broke is the dividing wall. We could then take the object of καταργήσας (to nullify) to be τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν. The phrase would be translated, nullifying the hostility in his flesh, which was the law of commandments and decrees.¹⁶ In other words, Christ nullifies not the law but the hostility between the Jews and the Gentiles caused by the improper understanding of the law.

The benefit of this interpretive strategy is that it aligns with Paul’s broader writings. Paul is clear that he does not wish to abolish the law (Romans 3:31). Therefore, we should assume that Paul does not contradict himself in Ephesians 2:15 by stating that Christ abolished the law.¹⁷ Rather, the law itself is good and is a pointer to Christ. What Christ abolished is the sinful hostility between the Jews and the Gentiles so that the law can be used appropriately.¹⁸

Counterargument:

The reality is there are at least four ways to render Ephesians 2:14–15, but this is not uncommon with Greek texts due to the flexibility of the grammar.¹⁹ This means that in order to decide the most appropriate translation we need to consider other factors including the immediate context and Paul’s broader theology. One thing we note is that about the immediate context is that Paul makes a connection between the covenant and promises of God given to the nation of Israel, and the fact that the Gentiles were formerly excluded from God (Ephesians 2:12). Now, Paul explains, the Gentiles have been brought near because Christ nullified whatever hindered the Gentiles from entering that covenant. Given the broad scope of Paul’s thinking, it seems that the barrier is more than hostility between Jews and Gentiles; the barrier is the fact that the covenant promises were established only for those who had the Mosaic law. Now that Christ has nullified the law through his sacrifice on the cross, both the Jews and the Gentiles are brought near to God by the same faith.

To support this view, we have other passages that clearly express the fact that Christ abolished the law (see Interpretation 1 argument 2). The most poignant example might come from Romans 4:14–15 where Paul explains that if the law still stands, then faith is null and the promises of God are void. The reason is that the law brings wrath but where there is no law there is no transgression. Of course, this does not imply that the law of God is bad in and of itself. Rather, humans are sinful and unable to uphold the law; therefore, God established a new covenant on better promises through Christ and his obedience.

Possible weakness:

The weakness of this view is that it is not clear how it fits in with the New Testament as a whole. The notion is that on the cross, Christ broke down the hostility between Jews and Gentiles so that the law could lead these to Christ. Normally we believe that Christ’s death on the cross nullifies the hostility between us and God, so what does it mean that Christ’s death nullifies the hostility between Jews and Gentiles? Further, where else do we learn in the New Testament that Christ reconciled Jews and Gentiles so that the law could point them to Christ? There may be some truth in this view, but it needs to be fleshed out much more carefully.