Ephesians 2:14-15
Let's now return to the verses in question:
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 himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace (Ephesians 2:14–15, emphasis ours).
Based on these verses, we know:
1. Christ broke down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.
2. This was accomplished by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.
3. The result is unity and peace between believing Jews and Gentiles.
What does it mean that Christ “broke down” in his flesh the dividing wall? The Greek for “broke down” is λυω (luo), which can mean to loose, untie, free, destroy, and/or abolish (BDAG, 606-607). Luo can be used in a very simple sense, such as that of undoing a sandal (Mark 1:7) or untying a donkey (Matthew 21:2). However, sometimes it has more spiritual connotations. For example, luo is used in the following passages:
Paul depicts what Christ broke down as μεσοτοιχον του φραγμου (mesotoichon tou phragmou). Mesotoichon literally means “middle wall” (Hoehner, 368). It is difficult to understand the connotations of this term because it is “rarely used in classical literature, not used in the LXX [Septuagint—Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures], and occurs only here in the NT” (ibid). Phragmou denotes fencing in, blocking up, or fortification (ibid). It is used several times in the Septuagint and four times in the New Testament (Matthew 21:33; Mark 12:1, Luke 14:23, Ephesians 2:14). In the Septuagint and the gospels, it is used to describe a fence around a vineyard or field, or a wall around a city, with the purpose of protection from intruders (Hoehner, 369). Mesotoichon tou phragmou has the sense of a wall that stands in the middle of two parties (“middle wall”), intending to separate them. It is therefore commonly translated “middle wall of separation” (see NKJV) or “the barrier of the dividing wall” (NAS).
Combine this with the function of luo as breaking down, destroying, or freeing us from something: In his flesh, Christ has broken down the wall that stands in the middle of two parties, which intends to separate them. Also recall that luo can be associated with a bond that Satan holds. If Paul intends this sense of luo, then the middle wall that separates is a work of the devil, a bond that he holds, intending to separate two parties.
Ephesians scholar Harold Hoehner describes four common interpretations of the dividing wall (369-371):
Several problems arise with such an interpretation:
Problem One: It stands in contrast to what the Torah itself says.
Many Christians believe that the Torah made it impossible for Jews to interact with Gentiles. They think the Torah excluded Gentiles from associating with faithful Jews. It is true that many Jews attempted to keep Gentiles away; a prime example of this is the 4½ foot wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Jews in the temple. As Josephus said, “There was a partition made of stone … upon it stood pillars, at equal distances from one another, declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, that no foreigner should go within that sanctuary” (Wars, 5.5.2). Did the Torah command such a wall to be built? We will show below that this is not the case and actually the opposite of what God commands.
Many Bible scholars teach that the Mosaic Law created division and barriers between the Jews and the Gentiles. New Testament scholar Max Turner says the following:
1. Christ broke down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility.
2. This was accomplished by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.
3. The result is unity and peace between believing Jews and Gentiles.
What does it mean that Christ “broke down” in his flesh the dividing wall? The Greek for “broke down” is λυω (luo), which can mean to loose, untie, free, destroy, and/or abolish (BDAG, 606-607). Luo can be used in a very simple sense, such as that of undoing a sandal (Mark 1:7) or untying a donkey (Matthew 21:2). However, sometimes it has more spiritual connotations. For example, luo is used in the following passages:
- Luke 13:16: Jesus refers to a woman who needed to be loosed from her bondage to Satan.
- 1 John 3:8: The Son of God has appeared to destroy the works of the devil.
- Revelation 1:5-6: Jesus has freed us from our sins and made us a kingdom.
Paul depicts what Christ broke down as μεσοτοιχον του φραγμου (mesotoichon tou phragmou). Mesotoichon literally means “middle wall” (Hoehner, 368). It is difficult to understand the connotations of this term because it is “rarely used in classical literature, not used in the LXX [Septuagint—Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures], and occurs only here in the NT” (ibid). Phragmou denotes fencing in, blocking up, or fortification (ibid). It is used several times in the Septuagint and four times in the New Testament (Matthew 21:33; Mark 12:1, Luke 14:23, Ephesians 2:14). In the Septuagint and the gospels, it is used to describe a fence around a vineyard or field, or a wall around a city, with the purpose of protection from intruders (Hoehner, 369). Mesotoichon tou phragmou has the sense of a wall that stands in the middle of two parties (“middle wall”), intending to separate them. It is therefore commonly translated “middle wall of separation” (see NKJV) or “the barrier of the dividing wall” (NAS).
Combine this with the function of luo as breaking down, destroying, or freeing us from something: In his flesh, Christ has broken down the wall that stands in the middle of two parties, which intends to separate them. Also recall that luo can be associated with a bond that Satan holds. If Paul intends this sense of luo, then the middle wall that separates is a work of the devil, a bond that he holds, intending to separate two parties.
Ephesians scholar Harold Hoehner describes four common interpretations of the dividing wall (369-371):
- The 4½ foot wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Jews in the temple. On this wall there was an inscription prohibiting any foreigners from entering past the wall, under penalty of death. This seems to fit the context of Jews and Gentiles being separated by a wall. However, Hoehner points out that the Jerusalem wall is never called by the designation “mesotoichon tou phragmou” but rather a different term (druphaktos) and it was still standing at the time of Paul's letter to the Ephesians.
- The curtain that separated the holy of holies from the holy place in the temple. This, however, does not fit the context as it was not a curtain (wall) between two groups of people but rather between all people (on one side) and God (on the other). The wall in Ephesians is not between God and mankind but rather between Jews and Gentiles.
- A cosmic wall that separates the heavens from the earth. Again, with this understanding, we have the same problem as in the second interpretation. The separation is not between the heavenly realm and people on earth, but rather between two people groups on earth, mainly Jews and Gentiles.
- A metaphorical wall. Hoehner agrees with this interpretation, believing Paul is not referring to a literal wall at all, but rather uses “wall” as a metaphor for something that has caused division between Jews and Gentiles. Many, including Hoehner, believe this metaphorical wall represents the Mosaic Law. They point to laws such as circumcision, which created a distinct separation and therefore hostility between Jews and Gentiles. They also point to specific words in the text itself such as law (nomos), commandments (entole), and ordinances (dogma) (2:15). These seem to refer to the commandments and regulations given in the Torah. This is an interpretation that deserves careful examination because, if held, it has severe ramifications on how believers can live their lives. If the Mosaic Law has truly been destroyed, then it has no binding hold on those in Christ. They are free to disregard the commands given in the Torah.
Several problems arise with such an interpretation:
- It stands in contrast to what the Torah itself says.
- It stands in contrast to what Jesus says.
- It stands in contrast to what Paul says elsewhere.
- It doesn't fully account for the Greek words used.
Problem One: It stands in contrast to what the Torah itself says.
Many Christians believe that the Torah made it impossible for Jews to interact with Gentiles. They think the Torah excluded Gentiles from associating with faithful Jews. It is true that many Jews attempted to keep Gentiles away; a prime example of this is the 4½ foot wall that separated the court of the Gentiles from the court of the Jews in the temple. As Josephus said, “There was a partition made of stone … upon it stood pillars, at equal distances from one another, declaring the law of purity, some in Greek, and some in Roman letters, that no foreigner should go within that sanctuary” (Wars, 5.5.2). Did the Torah command such a wall to be built? We will show below that this is not the case and actually the opposite of what God commands.
Many Bible scholars teach that the Mosaic Law created division and barriers between the Jews and the Gentiles. New Testament scholar Max Turner says the following:
The barrier in question was the Mosaic law with its detailed holiness code, which made it all but impossible for faithful Jews to live in close proximity with Gentiles.
Concerning these regulations the Letter of Aristeas (c.100 BC) maintains, the legislator [Moses] surrounded us with unbroken palisades and iron walls to prevent our mixing with any of the other peoples in any matter, being thus kept pure in body and soul... worshipping the one almighty God (139) or, again, And therefore, so that we should be polluted by none nor be infected with perversions by associating with worthless persons, he has hedged us about on all sides with prescribed purifications in matters of food and drink and touch and hearing and sight (149). A literal barrier in the temple itself which prohibited Gentiles, on pain of death, from entering the inner courts where Israel worshipped, was merely the outward expression of the Mosaic requirements (1230, emphasis ours).
Turner states that the dividing wall in Ephesians is without question the Mosaic Law. He concludes that the wall in the temple is the outward expression of the Torah. Yet he does not show this to be the case in the Torah itself, but rather quotes the Letter of Aristeas as his source. Aristeas claims that the purpose of the law given to Moses was to keep Gentiles out and therefore keep Israelites pure. Interestingly, this is more likely a reference to the Oral Law, also believed by Jews to have been given to Moses by God, which did in fact create such a separation. Let's look at the written Torah to see if it has a similar purpose.
The Old Testament teaches the following about relationships with Gentiles and treatment of Gentiles (i.e. sojourners, strangers, aliens):
1. Gentiles are not to be oppressed, but rather cared for, supported, taken into the home, and loved even as you would love yourself.
The Old Testament teaches the following about relationships with Gentiles and treatment of Gentiles (i.e. sojourners, strangers, aliens):
1. Gentiles are not to be oppressed, but rather cared for, supported, taken into the home, and loved even as you would love yourself.
You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Exodus 22:21, emphasis ours).
You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Exodus 23:9, emphasis ours).
When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 19:33–34, emphasis ours).
If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you (Leviticus 25:35, emphasis ours).
2. Gentiles are to be included in the Sabbath, gleanings, Torah regulations, and festivals.
Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed (Exodus 23:12, emphasis ours).
And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 19:10, emphasis ours).
There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you (Exodus 12:49, emphasis ours).
You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the LORD your God (Leviticus 24:22, emphasis ours).
And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your son and your daughter, your male servant and your female servant, the Levite who is within your towns, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow who are among you, at the place that the LORD your God will choose, to make his name dwell there (Deuteronomy 16:11, emphasis ours).
3. Gentiles are to be welcomed and included in the temple.
Likewise, when a foreigner, who is not of your people Israel, comes from a far country for your name’s sake (for they shall hear of your great name and your mighty hand, and of your outstretched arm), when he comes and prays toward this house, hear in heaven your dwelling place and do according to all for which the foreigner calls to you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that this house that I have built is called by your name (1 Kings 8:41–43; cf. 2 Chronicles 6:32,33, emphasis ours).
And the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, to minister to him, to love the name of the LORD, and to be his servants, everyone who keeps the Sabbath and does not profane it, and holds fast my covenant--these I will bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples (Isaiah 56:6–7, emphasis ours).
4. Gentiles are equated with widows and orphans. The implication is that Gentiles ought to be treated with the same love and care as God tells us to give to widows and orphans.
For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt (Deuteronomy 10:17-19, emphasis ours).
The LORD watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless (Psalm 146:9a, emphasis ours).
“Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me,” says the LORD of hosts (Malachi 3:5, emphasis ours).
If the Torah itself, as well as the larger Old Testament, teaches these things, we cannot conclude with Turner that the dividing wall is the outward expression of the Mosaic requirements. Rather, the dividing wall is antithetical to the requirements of the Torah. This wall creates separation whereas God commanded inclusion and care, even so great as to bring the Gentile into your home, include him in all aspects of your life, most certainly to include worship of the One True God, and to love the stranger as you would yourself. The wall of separation that Paul refers to did just the opposite. How then can it be a metaphor for the Torah?
Problem Two: It stands in contrast to what Jesus said.
Not only does such an interpretation prove inconsistent with what the Torah teaches, but it also is contrary to what our Messiah teaches. The cross cannot break down (14) and abolish (15) the Torah because Jesus himself said he did not come to do this.
Problem Two: It stands in contrast to what Jesus said.
Not only does such an interpretation prove inconsistent with what the Torah teaches, but it also is contrary to what our Messiah teaches. The cross cannot break down (14) and abolish (15) the Torah because Jesus himself said he did not come to do this.
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17–19).
Jesus specifically says that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, that they will not pass away until heaven and earth themselves pass away, and that we should not teach each other to disregard or relax even the least of the commandments. That is pretty strong language. Further, when Jesus says “whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments,” he uses the word “luo,” the same word used in Ephesians 2:14, referring to the “breaking down” of the dividing wall. If Jesus condemns those who luo the commandments found in the law, then how is it that he at the same time is said to luo the dividing wall? Jesus cannot say whoever “breaks down” (relaxes/luo) the commandments will be least in the kingdom, if he, the King himself, “broke down” (luo) these same commandments. The dividing wall cannot then refer to the law, lest Jesus' work stand in contrast with his words.
Problem Three: It stands in contrast to what Paul writes elsewhere.
We might show multiple places where Paul obeys and encourages obedience to the Torah (see the section on Galatians 3). In this instance, looking at Romans 3:31 is particularly helpful because it uses some of the same words to refer to the law that Paul uses in Ephesians two. In Romans three Paul says, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31). The Greek word here for law is nomos and clearly refers to God's law (see our discussion on Romans 3). Paul asks if our faith somehow overthrows the law. The Greek word for overthrow is katargeo. Katargeo is also used in Ephesians 2:14-15, which states that Christ “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing [katargeo] the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” In Romans, Paul asks if we abolish (katargeo) the Torah and responds emphatically that we do not, yet in Ephesians, he says that Christ abolished (katargeo) the law. How can this be? If Paul says in Romans that he does not “katargeo” the law, but says in Ephesians that Christ did “katargeo” the law, we have a contradiction. Either the law is upheld or the law is abolished, not both. It is our contention that Paul does not contradict himself, and thus the dividing wall cannot be the Law of Moses.
Examining Paul's usage of katargeo in other epistles (in addition to the Romans passage above) sheds light on how Paul might be using the word in Ephesians two. First Corinthians 15 is of particular significance since it includes a parallel theme to Ephesians:
Problem Three: It stands in contrast to what Paul writes elsewhere.
We might show multiple places where Paul obeys and encourages obedience to the Torah (see the section on Galatians 3). In this instance, looking at Romans 3:31 is particularly helpful because it uses some of the same words to refer to the law that Paul uses in Ephesians two. In Romans three Paul says, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31). The Greek word here for law is nomos and clearly refers to God's law (see our discussion on Romans 3). Paul asks if our faith somehow overthrows the law. The Greek word for overthrow is katargeo. Katargeo is also used in Ephesians 2:14-15, which states that Christ “has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing [katargeo] the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” In Romans, Paul asks if we abolish (katargeo) the Torah and responds emphatically that we do not, yet in Ephesians, he says that Christ abolished (katargeo) the law. How can this be? If Paul says in Romans that he does not “katargeo” the law, but says in Ephesians that Christ did “katargeo” the law, we have a contradiction. Either the law is upheld or the law is abolished, not both. It is our contention that Paul does not contradict himself, and thus the dividing wall cannot be the Law of Moses.
Examining Paul's usage of katargeo in other epistles (in addition to the Romans passage above) sheds light on how Paul might be using the word in Ephesians two. First Corinthians 15 is of particular significance since it includes a parallel theme to Ephesians:
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying [katargeo] every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed [katargeo] is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet” (1 Corinthians 15:22–27a, emphasis ours).
Note the themes of kingdom and rulers and authorities in this passage. In the Corinthians passage, what is destroyed, or abolished, by Christ is every rule and every authority and power, after which Christ delivers the kingdom to God. Likewise, in Ephesians, Christ is placed high above every ruler and authority, destroying their kingdoms. When we interpret Ephesians 2:14-15, we should keep this in mind.
Problem Four: It doesn't fully account for the Greek words used.
In Ephesians 2:15a, Paul says that Christ broke down the dividing wall “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” Most understand the law of commandments expressed in ordinances to be a direct reference to the legal code of the Mosaic Law. The Greek phrase here is τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασιν καταργησας (ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin katargesas). Nomon is translated “law,” entolon is translated “commandments,” and dogmasin is translated “ordinances.”
Nomos (Law)
Nomos (the dictionary form of nomon) is the Greek word for law. It can refer to the Torah and in many cases it does. For example, in the Matthew five passage discussed previously, Jesus refers to the Law (nomos) and the Prophets. However, nomos is not limited to the Torah but can also refer to any governing law or set of rules. In his discussion of nomos in The Dictionary of New Testament Background, scholar L.A. Jervis says the following:
Problem Four: It doesn't fully account for the Greek words used.
In Ephesians 2:15a, Paul says that Christ broke down the dividing wall “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” Most understand the law of commandments expressed in ordinances to be a direct reference to the legal code of the Mosaic Law. The Greek phrase here is τον νομον των εντολων εν δογμασιν καταργησας (ton nomon ton entolon en dogmasin katargesas). Nomon is translated “law,” entolon is translated “commandments,” and dogmasin is translated “ordinances.”
Nomos (Law)
Nomos (the dictionary form of nomon) is the Greek word for law. It can refer to the Torah and in many cases it does. For example, in the Matthew five passage discussed previously, Jesus refers to the Law (nomos) and the Prophets. However, nomos is not limited to the Torah but can also refer to any governing law or set of rules. In his discussion of nomos in The Dictionary of New Testament Background, scholar L.A. Jervis says the following:
The Greek word usually rendered “law” by the translators of the NT is nomos. This word meant both “law” and “custom” and so could refer to the laws of a society and to that society's habits and customs (632).
There are examples even within the New Testament where nomos does not refer to the Mosaic Law. For example, Paul refers to a nomos of works versus a nomos of faith in Romans 3:27. Here Paul uses nomos to point out that some are governed by works whereas others are governed by faith. Even if you think that a nomos of works refers to the Mosaic Law (which is contrary to what the Mosaic Law itself says – see our discussion on Romans 9-11), you must admit that there is an additional nomos of faith. They cannot both refer to the Mosaic Law, but they can each refer to a governing set of rules.
Similarly, in Romans 8:2, Paul refers to the nomos of sin and death, which is juxtaposed against the nomos of the Spirit of life. One law is based on a government (if you will) of sin and death, the other based on a government of the Spirit. Clearly Paul understood that nomos does not have to refer to the Mosaic Law. He sometimes used it in different ways. Might he have done so in Ephesians 2:15?
Also, in extra-biblical sources, nomos does not necessarily refer to the Torah. For example, Josephus refers to a “nomos of war” (War 3:363) and a “nomos of nature” (War 3:374). Even within Judaism, nomos does not refer simply to the Torah, but can also refer to the entire Hebrew Bible. Further, nomos can refer to the “two branches of divine revelation—the written Torah and the oral Torah, which are traditionally viewed as having been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai” (Grossfeld, 1242). The oral Torah is separate from the first five books of the Bible. These are extra laws that were set in place by the Pharisees after the return from the Babylonian exile to prevent Israel from going into exile once again. They functioned as a fence to prevent Israel from disobeying the Torah. These laws were by nature more restrictive than the Torah. The idea was that if these were not disobeyed, then the Torah would not be disobeyed. Initially given orally, they were later written down and collected in the Talmud. When Jews refer to the Torah, they are often including the Oral Law.
When we read nomos, we have to keep all these usages and emphases in mind. Can it refer to the written law given to Moses on Sinai? Absolutely! Can it also refer to the extra laws that have been added by Rabbis in the form of the Oral Law? Certainly! And can nomos simply refer to any set of rules that govern a person or group of people? An emphatic yes! In fact, we see in the examples from Romans above that we can be governed by a nomos that is completely antithetical and contradictory to God's nomos (i.e. the law of works; the law of sin and death).
Entole (Commandments)
Entole is the root word of entolon, which is translated “commandments” in Ephesians 2:15. Like nomos, it can refer to commandments found in the Mosaic Law, yet it can also refer to commandments given by others. Its usage is not limited to the Torah. BDAG describes entole as either 1) an order authorizing a specific action (like a warrant) or 2) a mandate or ordinance (340). An example of the first usage is in John 11:57 when the chief priests and Pharisees give orders (entolas) that if anyone knew where Jesus was, they should inform the leaders so they could arrest him. These orders clearly do not refer to God's commands given to Moses. The second sense would include references to commandments given to Moses by God. However, it could also include commandments that were not of divine origin.For example, in Titus 1:14, Paul refers to the commands (entolais) of those who turn away from the truth. Here, Paul uses a form of entole in a way that does not refer to the commandments of God given to Moses. So again we ask, might Paul use entole in a similar way in Ephesians 2:15? At the very least, we must be open to the possibility.
Dogma (Ordinances)
Dogma is the root word of dogmasin, translated “ordinances” in Ephesians 2:15. Many understand this to be a reference to the regulations of the Mosaic Law. However, outside of Ephesians two and Colossians two, every time dogma is used in the New Testament (Luke 2:1, Acts 16:4, and 17:7), it refers to a decree made by a person or group of people, not to God's laws. Dogma is also used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) and non-biblical contemporary sources (e.g. the writings of Josephus). In the vast majority of these occurrences, dogma again refers to decrees made by men. In a few of these instances, dogma may refer to God's law (e.g. 4 Maccabees 10:2; Against Apion 1.8), though it is not the normal usage. Therefore, just as with nomos and entole, we should not assume that dogma refers to the Torah. In fact, we should lean toward its normal usage as a reference to decrees of man. Context, of course, will be the determining factor. Thus in Ephesians, we ask, “How did Paul understand and use dogma?” In our discussion of Colossians 2, we show how Paul used dogma (and its related forms) to refer to man-made rules, regulations, and traditions. In Colossians 2:20-22, he says that these regulations are according to human precepts and teachings. At the very least, then, in Ephesians we must consider the possibility that dogma means something other than the Torah. Further, if we are going to be consistent with the historical and biblical usage of dogma, including Paul's usage of it in Colossians, we see strong evidence that dogma refers to decrees of men.
Paul says Christ abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. We know that nomos and entole do not exclusively refer to the Mosaic Law and can even refer to laws and commands that are antithetical to God's commands. Likewise, dogma normally refers to decrees made by man, and was used by Paul in Colossians in this very way. Therefore, we cannot say that “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” necessarily refers to the Mosaic Law, when in so many instances these words do not refer to the Mosaic Law.
Similarly, in Romans 8:2, Paul refers to the nomos of sin and death, which is juxtaposed against the nomos of the Spirit of life. One law is based on a government (if you will) of sin and death, the other based on a government of the Spirit. Clearly Paul understood that nomos does not have to refer to the Mosaic Law. He sometimes used it in different ways. Might he have done so in Ephesians 2:15?
Also, in extra-biblical sources, nomos does not necessarily refer to the Torah. For example, Josephus refers to a “nomos of war” (War 3:363) and a “nomos of nature” (War 3:374). Even within Judaism, nomos does not refer simply to the Torah, but can also refer to the entire Hebrew Bible. Further, nomos can refer to the “two branches of divine revelation—the written Torah and the oral Torah, which are traditionally viewed as having been given to Moses on Mt. Sinai” (Grossfeld, 1242). The oral Torah is separate from the first five books of the Bible. These are extra laws that were set in place by the Pharisees after the return from the Babylonian exile to prevent Israel from going into exile once again. They functioned as a fence to prevent Israel from disobeying the Torah. These laws were by nature more restrictive than the Torah. The idea was that if these were not disobeyed, then the Torah would not be disobeyed. Initially given orally, they were later written down and collected in the Talmud. When Jews refer to the Torah, they are often including the Oral Law.
When we read nomos, we have to keep all these usages and emphases in mind. Can it refer to the written law given to Moses on Sinai? Absolutely! Can it also refer to the extra laws that have been added by Rabbis in the form of the Oral Law? Certainly! And can nomos simply refer to any set of rules that govern a person or group of people? An emphatic yes! In fact, we see in the examples from Romans above that we can be governed by a nomos that is completely antithetical and contradictory to God's nomos (i.e. the law of works; the law of sin and death).
Entole (Commandments)
Entole is the root word of entolon, which is translated “commandments” in Ephesians 2:15. Like nomos, it can refer to commandments found in the Mosaic Law, yet it can also refer to commandments given by others. Its usage is not limited to the Torah. BDAG describes entole as either 1) an order authorizing a specific action (like a warrant) or 2) a mandate or ordinance (340). An example of the first usage is in John 11:57 when the chief priests and Pharisees give orders (entolas) that if anyone knew where Jesus was, they should inform the leaders so they could arrest him. These orders clearly do not refer to God's commands given to Moses. The second sense would include references to commandments given to Moses by God. However, it could also include commandments that were not of divine origin.For example, in Titus 1:14, Paul refers to the commands (entolais) of those who turn away from the truth. Here, Paul uses a form of entole in a way that does not refer to the commandments of God given to Moses. So again we ask, might Paul use entole in a similar way in Ephesians 2:15? At the very least, we must be open to the possibility.
Dogma (Ordinances)
Dogma is the root word of dogmasin, translated “ordinances” in Ephesians 2:15. Many understand this to be a reference to the regulations of the Mosaic Law. However, outside of Ephesians two and Colossians two, every time dogma is used in the New Testament (Luke 2:1, Acts 16:4, and 17:7), it refers to a decree made by a person or group of people, not to God's laws. Dogma is also used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) and non-biblical contemporary sources (e.g. the writings of Josephus). In the vast majority of these occurrences, dogma again refers to decrees made by men. In a few of these instances, dogma may refer to God's law (e.g. 4 Maccabees 10:2; Against Apion 1.8), though it is not the normal usage. Therefore, just as with nomos and entole, we should not assume that dogma refers to the Torah. In fact, we should lean toward its normal usage as a reference to decrees of man. Context, of course, will be the determining factor. Thus in Ephesians, we ask, “How did Paul understand and use dogma?” In our discussion of Colossians 2, we show how Paul used dogma (and its related forms) to refer to man-made rules, regulations, and traditions. In Colossians 2:20-22, he says that these regulations are according to human precepts and teachings. At the very least, then, in Ephesians we must consider the possibility that dogma means something other than the Torah. Further, if we are going to be consistent with the historical and biblical usage of dogma, including Paul's usage of it in Colossians, we see strong evidence that dogma refers to decrees of men.
Paul says Christ abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances. We know that nomos and entole do not exclusively refer to the Mosaic Law and can even refer to laws and commands that are antithetical to God's commands. Likewise, dogma normally refers to decrees made by man, and was used by Paul in Colossians in this very way. Therefore, we cannot say that “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” necessarily refers to the Mosaic Law, when in so many instances these words do not refer to the Mosaic Law.