Author: David Wilber
In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul expressed that Gentile believers used to be excluded from the commonwealth of Israel. But now, in Christ, they have become fellow citizens and members of God’s household (Eph. 2:11–13, 19). Why were these Gentile believers excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and what did Christ do to include them? Paul explains that there was a “dividing wall of hostility” that existed between Jew and Gentile, which Christ broke down:
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, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
—Ephesians 2:14–16
According to Paul, Christ broke down the wall of division between Jew and Gentile “by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances,” and this allowed for Gentile believers to be included in the commonwealth of Israel. But what does Paul mean by the phrase “law of commandants expressed in ordinances”? Some take this phrase to be as a reference to the Torah, or Law of Moses. For instance, R. L. Solberg argues that this expression in Ephesians 2:15 is “an unambiguous reference to the Mosaic Law.” Solberg further states, “And what does the text say Jesus did to that law? He abolished it.”[1] Thus, according to Solberg, the Law of Moses was the source of division between Jew and Gentile, so Christ abolished it.
However, is this phrase in Ephesians 2:15 really an “unambiguous reference to the Mosaic Law”? Is the Torah really a source of hostility that needed to be abolished? That is unlikely for a few reasons.
Problems with the Antinomian Interpretation of Ephesians 2:15
The first problem with the antinomian interpretation of Ephesians 2:15 is that it breaks Jesus’s explicit commandment in Matthew 5:17 against even thinking that he came to abolish the Mosaic Law: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.” In Matthew 5:18, Jesus further stated that not even the smallest part of the Law would pass away until heaven and earth disappear and all is accomplished—that is, until the consummation of the kingdom at the end of the age, when the present created universe passes away (cf. 2 Pet. 3:7, 13; Rev. 21:1). Moreover, in Matthew 5:19, Jesus instructed his followers to do and teach even the least of the Torah’s commandments. Why would Paul claim that Jesus did something that Jesus himself explicitly commanded his followers not to think he came to do? How could the Law be abolished in Ephesians 2:15 if Jesus taught that nothing in the Law would pass away until heaven and earth pass away and urged his followers to keep it?
A second problem with the antinomian interpretation is that is causes Paul to contradict not only Jesus but also himself. In Romans 3:31, Paul uses the same Greek word for “abolish” (καταργέω) that he uses in Ephesians 2:15. There, he declares that our faith does not abolish the Law but rather establishes it. If Paul thought that Jesus abolished the Law of Moses, why does he say that it is not abolished in Romans 3:31?
A third problem with the antinomian interpretation is that Paul directly affirms the ongoing validity of the Law of Moses. For instance, just a few chapters later, Paul instructs children to obey their parents and directly quotes the Fifth Commandment in support of this instruction:
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
—Ephesians 6:1–3 (cf. Exod. 20:12)
Beyond Ephesians, Paul makes many other statements that affirm the Torah’s ongoing validity. In 2 Timothy 3:16, he states that “all Scripture” is profitable for training in righteousness. In context, he specifcally has in mind the Hebrew Scriptures, including the Law of Moses (2 Tim. 3:15). He also states that the Holy Spirit empowers believers to fulfill the Torah’s righteous requirements (Rom. 8:4), whereas the flesh refuses to submit to the Torah (Rom. 8:7). These statements contradict what we would expect from someone who believed that Christ abolished the Law of Moses.
A fourth problem with the antinomian interpretation is that there is nothing inherent in the Law of Moses that causes hostility between Jewish and Gentile followers of the God of Israel. In fact, the Torah repeatedly states that any “stranger” who desires to join the community and worship Israel’s God is to be loved and treated as a native Israelite:
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
The Torah gives many specific examples of how the stranger should be treated as a native Israelite. For instance, it explicitly requires that these strangers not be restricted from giving offerings at the tabernacle (Num. 15:11–16), or from resting on the Sabbath (Exod. 20:10; 23:12; Deut. 5:14), or from celebrating the festivals (Exod. 12:19; Lev. 16:29; Deut. 16:11). Like native Israelites, strangers are prohibited from eating blood (Lev. 17:10–12), engaging in sexual immorality (Lev. 18:26), and committing blasphemy (Lev. 24:16). The strangers are treated the same as native Israelites concerning the laws of compensation for loss (Lev. 24:17–22), meaning there is equal justice under the Law for native Israelites and strangers. Moreover, the Torah explicitly includes the strangers who attach themselves to Israel’s God to be among the members of the covenant (Deut. 29:1, 10–15; cf. Josh. 8:30–35), and it commands that the Law of Moses be proclaimed in their hearing so that “they may hear and learn to fear the LORD your God, and be careful to do all the words of this law” (Deut. 31:12; cf. Acts 15:21).
According to Ephesians 2:14–16, the “law of commandments expressed in ordinances” is something that causes hostility between Jews and Gentiles, but that is not what the Law of Moses does. Again, as we have seen, the Law of Moses prohibits expressing hostility toward Gentile believers, and it also goes to great lengths to express that Gentile believers should be loved and included. If Jewish and Gentile believers obeyed the Law of Moses, they would be unified, not divided. Therefore, it makes little sense for Paul to be referring to the Law of Moses as the source of hostility between Jews and Gentiles.
In light of these considerations, it is unlikely that Paul is referring to the Torah itself in Ephesians 2:15. But if the “law of commandments expressed in ordinances” is not a reference to the Torah, what is it that Paul claims Christ abolished? A closer examination of the specific words Paul uses in this verse clarifies what he is referring to.
A Pronomian interpretation of Ephesians 2:15
If Paul meant to refer to the Law of Moses in Ephesians 2:15, he could have just said “law.” However, in this verse, he says “law” with several qualifying terms: “of commandments” (τῶν ἐντολῶν) and “expressed in ordinances” (ἐν δόγμασιν). According to New Testament scholar Lionel Windsor, these qualifying terms make a significant impact on how this phrase should be understood:
[T]he qualifications perform more than a descriptive function. Rather, they perform a defining function: they specify what would otherwise be ambiguous. In other words, the qualifications indicate that what has been abolished is not necessarily the law in every sense, but rather the law as understood and used in a certain way: “the law of the commandments in decrees.”[2]
As Windsor notes, these qualifications function to define “law” more specifically as a particular understanding and use (or more accurately, misuse) of the law. Again, if Paul meant to refer to the Law of Moses itself, he could have just said “law.” There would be no need to add these qualifications.
What, then, is the understanding and use of the law that Paul says Christ abolished? According to the previous verse, this “law of commandments expressed in ordinances” is related in some way to “the dividing wall” that Christ broke down. What is this dividing wall? In Greek, the term refers to an internal wall in a building (μεσότοιχον). Considering the temple imagery that Paul uses a few verses later (Eph. 2:21–22), many scholars have suggested that Paul is alluding to the barrier in the Jerusalem temple that excluded Gentiles from the more sacred parts of the temple precincts.[3] That is, there was a physical “dividing wall” between Jews and Gentiles in the Second Temple. Josephus records that there was an inscription on this wall warning that any foreigner who entered “forbidden” spaces would be put to death (Josephus, Antiq. 15.417; Jewish Wars 5.193–94; 6:124–26). It is true that the Law of Moses pronounces a death sentence on anyone who enters the tabernacle improperly (Num. 1:51), but it never commands that Gentiles cannot worship at the temple, nor that any kind of wall should be built to separate Jews and Gentiles. On the contrary, as we saw above, the Torah allows any Gentile who desires to draw near to God the same access to God’s presence that native-born Israelites have (Num. 15:11–16). This separation between Jew and Gentile, enforced by a literal wall, was a command that was established by the Jewish leaders in the first century, not by Moses.
As Windsor observes, the inscription on the temple’s dividing wall mentioned by Josephus “fits well with the definition of a ‘decree’ (δόγμα),” or ordinance.[4] The Greek word translated “ordinances” in Ephesians 2:15 is δόγμα, which means “a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed.”[5] In other words, δόγμα refers to official decrees about the application of laws. In Scripture, such “ordinances” often come from earthly leaders or rulers (e.g., Luke 2:1; Acts 16:4; 17:7; LXX Est. 4:8; 9:1; Dan. 6:12). Hence, the use of this word confirms the idea that Paul is addressing not the Law of Moses itself, but rather a particular understanding and use of the Law.
In light of the immediate context and the precise words that Paul uses in Ephesians 2:15, “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” is best understood as extrabiblical rules developed from a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Law—rules that resulted in hostility and division between Jews and Gentiles. The whole context of Ephesians 2 is about having Jewish and Gentile believers worship together in unity, and so the extrabiblical and divisive laws that hinder that unity are what Paul says Christ abolished.
In what way did Christ abolish these man-made rules? By establishing a community that rejects them and instead follows the Torah properly. For example, in the first century, there was a man-made rule prohibiting Jews and Gentiles from fellowshipping and eating together. The Torah never commands that Jews and Gentiles must eat separately, but extrabiblical texts like the book Jubilees did (Jub. 22:16). We see in the New Testament that some Jewish groups that disputed with the apostles held to this unbiblical and divisive “law” (Acts 11:2–3). Even Peter himself held to this unbiblical rule until the Lord revealed to Peter in a vision that he should not refuse to associate with Gentiles (Acts 10:15, 28). Notably, when Peter states, “you yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation” (Acts 10:28), the term translated “unlawful” (ἀθέμιτον) refers to what was considered “uncustomary,” not to a prohibition found in the Torah.[6]
For the Messiah’s community, these extrabiblical rules that created hostility between Jews and Gentiles are abolished. That is, the Messiah’s followers are to reject these man-made rules, and they did. Hence, Paul describes this abolishment of man-made, divisive rules as Christ metaphorically breaking down the dividing wall between Jewish and Gentile believers in the temple. Christ did not abolish the Law of Moses; he abolished the misuse of the Law of Moses that created man-made rules resulting in unbiblical division between Jews and Gentiles.
Windsor provides an excellent summary:
[W]hat has been abolished is the law understood primarily as a set of “commandments” as expressed and promulgated by certain authoritative “decrees” concerning the observance of these commandments. The law understood in this way had indeed produced hostility between Jews and gentiles—as illustrated by the officially sanctioned inscription at the dividing-wall in the temple. This is what Paul is claiming to have been abolished by Christ. Paul is not denigrating the law itself, nor is he ruling out any possible attempt to apply the law to the lives of believers. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul later quotes a Mosaic “commandment” as the basis for moral instruction of gentile believers, noting that it is (literally) “[the] first commandment in promise” (ἐντολὴ πρώτη ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ, Eph 6:2). The “promise” in view here involves Israel’s inheritance of the promised land (Eph 6:3), an inheritance in which the gentiles have also come to have a share (Eph 1:13–14; 3:6, cf. 2:12).[7]
Conclusion
The antinomian reading of Ephesians 2:15, which posits that Christ abolished the Law of Moses, not only contradicts other statements from both Christ and Paul in Scripture but also fails to account for the immediate context and Paul’s precise wording in the passage. It seems strange that Paul would declare that Christ did something that Christ himself said he did not come to do. Moreover, as we have seen, Paul repeatedly affirms the ongoing validity of the Law of Moses, including elsewhere in Ephesians. Besides these contradictions, Paul’s description of “the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” does not match what the Law of Moses teaches concerning how Gentiles should be treated. Hence, it is unlikely that Ephesians 2:15 says that Christ abolished the Law of Moses. A more accurate interpretation takes Paul to be referring to extrabiblical rules based on misapplications of the Law of Moses that resulted in hostility between Jews and Gentiles. That is what Paul says Christ abolished. This pronomian interpretation of Ephesians 2:15 accounts for the immediate context and Paul’s precise wording in the verse and also has the advantage of not forcing Paul to contradict the Law of Moses, the Messiah, and himself.
[1] R. L. Solberg, Torahism: Are Christians Required to Keep the Law of Moses? (Franklin, TN: Williamson College Press), 86, Kindle Version.
[2] Lionel J. Windsor, Reading Ephesians and Colossians after Supersessionism: Christ’s Mission Through Israel to the Nations (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2017), 136–137.
[3] See sources cited in Lionel J. Windsor, “Israel and the Apostolic Mission: A Post-Supersessionist Reading of Ephesians and Colossians,” Religions 14 (2023), 7.
[4] Windsor, Reading Ephesians, 137.
[5] BDAG, “δόγμα.”
[6] See Paul T. Sloan: "I translate 10:28's ἀθέμιτον as 'uncustomary' rather than 'forbidden' (NASB) or 'against our Law' (NIV); the latter translations suggest that a Pentateuchal law prohibits such action when in fact it does not (Jesus and the Law of Moses: The Gospels and the Restoration of Israel within First-Century Judaism [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2025], 219n12).
[7] Windsor, Reading Ephesians, 139–140.
IMAGE: Jerusalem Temple Warning
ΜΗΟΕΝΑΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗΕΙΣΠΟ
ΡΕΥΕΣΘΑΙΕΝΤΟΣΤΟΥΠΕ
ΡΙΤΟΙΕΡΟΝΤΡΥΦΑΚΤΟΥΚΑΙ
ΠΕΡΙΒΟΛΟΥΟΣΔΑΝΛΗ
ΦΘΗΕΑΥΤΩΙΑΙΤΙΟΣΕΣ
ΤΑΙΔΙΑΤΟΕΞΑΚΟΛΟΥ
ΘΕΙΝΘΑΝΑΤΟΝ
Translation: "Let no foreigner enter within the parapet and the partition which surrounds the Temple precincts. Anyone caught [violating] will be held accountable for his ensuing death."
About David Wilber
David is first and foremost a passionate follower of Yeshua the Messiah. He is also a writer, speaker, and teacher.
David’s heart is to minister to God’s people by helping them rediscover the validity and blessing of God’s Torah and help prepare them to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope within them (1 Peter 3:15)…