Ephesians 2:14

“`html

The Syntactic Function of τὴν ἔχθραν in Ephesians 2:14-15: An Exegetical Inquiry

This exegetical study of the syntactic function of τὴν ἔχθραν in Ephesians 2:14-15 is based on an undated b-greek discussion. The original inquiry presented two divergent translations of the passage: one from the ESV (“….who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments in ordinances…”) and another from an interlinear Bible (“…He making us both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, annulling in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in decrees…”).

The core exegetical issue revolves around the precise grammatical relationship of the accusative noun phrase τὴν ἔχθραν (tēn echthran, “the hostility/enmity”) within the clause. The ESV appears to interpret τὴν ἔχθραν as an adjectival modifier of μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ (mesotoichon tou phragmou, “the dividing wall of the barrier”), rendering “the dividing wall of hostility.” In contrast, the interlinear translation connects τὴν ἔχθραν directly to the participle καταργήσας (katargēsas, “having abolished/annulled”) as its direct object, with the subsequent phrase τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν (ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin, “the law of commandments in ordinances”) potentially standing in apposition or further clarification to τὴν ἔχθραν. Determining the correct syntactic role is crucial for accurately understanding Paul’s theological assertion regarding the abolition of hostility and the Mosaic Law.

Ephesians 2:14-15 (Nestle 1904):
καὶ γὰρ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, ὁ ποιήσας τὰ ἀμφότερα ἓν καὶ τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ λύσας, τὴν ἔχθραν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• Nestle 1904 reads καὶ γὰρ αὐτός, whereas SBLGNT (2010) reads αὐτὸς γάρ. This is a minor textual variant. The SBLGNT reading places slightly more emphasis on “he himself” (αὐτὸς) at the beginning of the clause, while the Nestle 1904 reading uses καὶ to more explicitly connect to the preceding verse. The exegetical implications for the subsequent clause, however, remain largely unaffected.

Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes

The textual base for this passage in NA28 is consistent with the Nestle 1904 reading concerning the core elements under discussion (τὴν ἔχθραν, καταργήσας, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν), ensuring that the present exegetical inquiry is based on a stable and widely accepted Greek text.

• ἔχθραν (echthran): Accusative singular of ἔχθρα (echthra). BDAG defines it as “the state of being an enemy, enmity, hostility, hatred.” KITTEL (TDNT) emphasizes its concrete and active nature, often representing a profound antagonism. In this context, it refers to the state of animosity or opposition that existed between Jews and Gentiles.
• μεσότοιχον (mesotoichon): Accusative singular, “a partition wall.” This term specifically alludes to the physical barrier in the Jerusalem temple that separated the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts accessible only to Jews, symbolizing the ritual and social division.
• φραγμοῦ (phragmou): Genitive singular of φραγμός (phragmos), meaning “a fence, barrier, hedge.” Here, it reinforces the concept of a dividing wall or barrier, emphasizing its function in separating.
• καταργήσας (katargēsas): Aorist active participle (masculine nominative singular) of καταργέω (katargeō). BDAG: “to cause to be inoperative, to abolish, invalidate, cancel, make of no effect.” KITTEL (TDNT) further details its semantic range, including to render powerless or nullify. The participle agrees with the implied subject (Christ), who is described as “the one who made.”
• δόγμασιν (dogmasin): Dative plural of δόγμα (dogma), “a decree, ordinance, teaching.” In the plural, it typically refers to legal or ceremonial prescriptions, particularly those found in the Mosaic Law. KITTEL (TDNT) traces its development from “opinion” to “authoritative decree” or “religious teaching,” often with legislative force.

Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The two translation variants presented in the initial post highlight a crucial syntactic ambiguity. The ESV translates “…broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments in ordinances…”, while the interlinear reads “…breaking down the middle wall of partition, annulling in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in decrees…”.

The ESV’s rendering, “the dividing wall of hostility,” implicitly treats τὴν ἔχθραν as a genitive of quality or content modifying μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ (mesotoichon tou phragmou). Grammatically, this is problematic because τὴν ἔχθραν is in the accusative case, not the genitive. While English translation often rephrases for clarity and idiomatic expression, such a restructuring in Greek would typically involve a genitive noun or a prepositional phrase (e.g., “wall of hostility”). The ESV’s interpretation here relies on understanding “hostility” as the *nature* or *result* of the dividing wall, rather than a direct grammatical modification of it in the Greek. Rhetorically, this emphasizes the divisive nature of the barrier itself.

The interlinear translation, “annulling in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in decrees,” aligns more closely with the explicit accusative case of τὴν ἔχθραν. In this reading, τὴν ἔχθραν functions as the direct object of the participle καταργήσας (“having abolished”). The subsequent phrase, τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν, also in the accusative case, then stands in apposition to τὴν ἔχθραν. This appositional relationship signifies that “the hostility” is precisely *identified with* or *further defined by* “the law of commandments in ordinances.” This interpretation is grammatically robust, as both phrases are accusative and can function in such a parallel or explanatory relationship. Rhetorically, this construction powerfully identifies the Mosaic Law, particularly its specific ordinances, as the *source* or *embodiment* of the hostility between Jews and Gentiles. It suggests that Christ’s act of abolition targeted the legalistic framework that created and sustained this division.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical analysis, particularly the accusative case of τὴν ἔχθραν and its plausible appositional relationship with τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν, the interpretation where “hostility” is abolished and identified with the Law is significantly more compelling than interpreting τὴν ἔχθραν as a direct genitival modifier of “the dividing wall.” Paul’s argument posits that Christ’s work on the cross abolished the very instrument of division—the Law—thereby nullifying the hostility it engendered.

Here are three suggested translations, emphasizing different nuances within the preferred interpretation:

1. “who made both one, having broken down the dividing wall of the barrier, thereby abolishing in his flesh the hostility—namely, the law of commandments in ordinances.”
   This translation clearly renders τὴν ἔχθραν as the direct object of καταργήσας and explicitly uses “namely” to denote the appositional relationship with τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν, highlighting the identification of the Law with the hostility.
2. “who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of separation, abolishing in his flesh the enmity, which was the law of commandments expressed in decrees.”
   This version employs a relative clause (“which was”) to clarify the appositional link, presenting the law as the manifestation or embodiment of the enmity. It also uses “separation” for φραγμοῦ to enhance clarity.
3. “who united both into one, tearing down the barrier of the dividing wall, having nullified in his flesh the hostility—that very law of commandments structured in decrees.”
   This translation emphasizes the active nullification of the hostility and strongly equates it with the Law through “that very law,” underscoring Paul’s precise theological claim about the abolition of the Mosaic code as the source of division.

“`
The date part of the summary was omitted as it was not present in the original post content, as discussed in the thought process.