You didn't address the question. The expression used in Eph. 2:15 is used nowhere else in Scripture. How it should be interpreted is a matter of debate. There are many differnt opinions, by compitent scholars, as to how this expression should be interpreted. What I asked you to do was to consider what "something" should be according to the context, according to the argument Paul was making.

This is easy to do. Just leave the "something" blank, look at the argument, and make a determination as to what "something" should be. You didn't do this.

If you look at A. T. Jones' explanation, it agrees perfectly with
the context and with Paul's argument:

Ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh to God by the blood of Christ. For he who is our peace, who hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us — that was between us — having abolished in his flesh the enmity. Thank the Lord. He hath " abolished the enmity" and we can be separated from the world.

" Hath broken down the middle wall of partition between "—whom? Between men and God, surely. How did he do it ? How did he break down the middle wall of partition between us and God?—By " abolishing the enmity." Good.

True, that enmity had worked a division and a separation between men on the earth, between circumcision and uncircumcision; between circumcision according to the flesh, and uncircumcision according to the flesh. It had manifested itself in their divisions, in building up another wall between Jews and entiles; that is true, but if the Jews had been joined to God, and had not been separated from him, would they have ever built up a wall between them and anybody else ? — No, certainly not, but in their separation from God; in their fleshly minds; in the enmity that was in their minds, and the blindness through unbelief, which put the veil upon their heart — all this separated them from God. And thm because of the laws and ceremonies which God had given them, they gave themselves credit for being the ' Lord's and for being so much better than other' people, that they built up a great separating wall and partition between themselves and other people. But where lay the root of the whole thing, as between them and other people even ? — It lay in the enmity And in Christ, God and man met so that they can be one.

All men were separated from God, and in their separation from God, they were separated from one another. True, Christ wants to bring all to one another; he was ushered into the world with " Peace on earth; good will to men." That is his object. But does he spend his time in trying to get these reconciled to one another, and in trying to destroy all these separations between men, and to get them to say, " Oh, well, let all bygones be bygones; now we will bury the hatchet; now we will start out and turn over a new leaf, and we will live better from this time on "

Christ might have done that. If lie had taken that course, there are thousands of people whom he could have persuaded to do that; thousands whom he could persuade to say, " Well, it is too bad that we acted that way toward one another ; it is not right,
and I am sorry for it; and now let us just all leave that behind, and turn over a new leaf, and go on and do better." He could have got people to agree to that. But could they have stuck to it f—No. For the wicked thing is there still that made ike division. What caused the division?—The enmity, their separation from God caused the separation from-one an- other. Then what in the world would have been the use of the Lord himself trying to get men to agree to put away their differences, without going to ' the root of the matter and getting rid of the enmity that caused the separation ? Their separation from God had forced a separation among themselves. And the only way to destroy their separation from one another, was of necessity to destroy their separation from God. And this he did by abolishing the enmity. And we ministers can get a lesson from this, when churches call us to try to settle difficulties. We have nothing at all to do with settling difficulties between men as such. We are to get the difficulty between God and man settled; and when that is done, all other separations will be ended.

It is true, the Jews in their separation from God had built up extra separations between themselves and the Gentiles. It is true that Christ wanted to put all those separations out of the way, and he did do that. .But the only way that he did it, and the only way that he could do it, was to destroy the thing that separated, between them and God. All the separations between them and the Gentiles would be gone, when the separation, the enmity, between them and God was gone.

Enmity that was in them that separated them first from God. And being separated from him, the certain consequence was

" For he is our peace, who hath made both one.'Made both who one? — God and men, certainly. " And hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity,, . . . for to make in himself of twain [of two] one new man, so making peace." Let us look that over again. " Having abolished in his flesh the enmity." Now omitting the next clause (we are not studying that in this lesson) what did he abolish that enmity for ? What did he break down that middle wall of partition for? Why? "For to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." Does Christ make a new man out of a Jew and a Gentile ? — No. Out of a heathen and somebody else? —No. Out of one heathen and another heathen?— No.

God makes one new man out of GOD and A MAN.


This argument makes so much sense! It's easy to follow, and fits with Paul's theology.

The yoke of bondage is the yoke of sin, not the ceremonial law:



The problem both Jews and Gentiles faces was not the ceremonial law, which simply prefigures Christ's ministry, but sin! We need to be saved from sin.

How is it that aboloshing a figure of Christ's ministry could be helpful in establishing peace? How could a figure of Christ's ministry be called "enmity"? God Himself gave the ceremonial law. Would He give something which would be "enmity" against Himself?

This reminds me of the idea that God initiated the Old Covenant, which genders to bondage. God giving that which genders to bondage, that which is "enmity"? I don't think so.

I think God gives Christ, who delivers us from bondage and enmity.

No, I didn't; it actually happened. One-liners used to be my specialty. But as you can tell from my lengthy contributions, I have gotten over that.

Are you asking if I thought of the line myself? Yes, I did.

Yes, I meant by "did you make this up?" did you make up the one-liner. It's clever.

Tom, you don’t seem to have understood what I said. The carnal mind is enmity against God. The enmity among human beings is a result of this, a result of the carnal mind, of the lack of harmony with God.


I see things in a way a little different from the way Jones sees them, but this doesn’t matter. What really matters is exactly what Jones omitted in this study – “the next clause,” which is precisely “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” He said, “We are not studying that in this lesson,” which implies it is something distinct from the subject that is being analyzed (the enmity), otherwise the clause would have been included in the study. If you do find what he has to say about this clause, you may be surprised.


This is Waggoner’s opinion. My opinion agrees with that of Ellen White, which is that the Jews made both the moral law and the ceremonial law a yoke of bondage. But the expression is not found either in Ephesians or in Colossians, so it is unrelated to the subject in question.


Who said they are synonyms? Again,



They don’t even need to be appositional to one another. The verse can be translated in three different ways.

I've found it! Jones believed that "the law of commandments contained in ordinances" was not only the ceremonial law, but all forms of ceremonialism:



http://www.temcat.com/Remnant-Resource/1895_sermon.htm

or

http://www.crcbermuda.com/bible/righteou...rence-sermon-25

It's interesting that he said,


Hmmm... Jones' opinions were sometimes different from those of Waggoner. Very interesting.

I understood what you said. You seem not to have said what you meant! You said:



You said the carnal mind is not the enmity itself. But now you say:



I agree with this. In fact, this is what I've been saying all along.



This seems unlikely. Jones said what the enmity is, the carnal mind, and how it was abolished. This is the whole point of Paul's argument. How could you fit something else in which would change the whole argument in a 4 word phrase or so?



It's not Ellen White's opinion that sin is a yoke of bondage?

I don't understand how you think Ellen White could endorse Waggoner as she did yet disagree with him and fundamental points like this.



This is precisely Waggoner's argument.



The ceremonial law is a figure of Christ's ministry, right? You claim the ceremonial law is enmity, didn't you? I was asking how a figure of Christ's ministry could be enmity. However, here you seem to be agreeing with the point I've been making, that it is the carnal mind which is enmity against God, so perhaps I misunderstood you.

Let's consider the general argument. I'm suggesting it is what Jones suggested, and you yourself expressed in part in this last post:



Given the carnal mind is the cause of enmity, and in Christ we have peace, doesn't it make sense that Christ aboloshes the enmity by aboloshing the carnal mind?

You have pointed out that the Jews perverted both the ceremonial and moral law, which point I have agree with. But then you argue that peace was made between the Jews and Gentiles by aboloshing one of these perverted laws. How would that help anything? As you correctly pointed out, it is the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which causes enmity between man, not the ceremonial law. So what scratch were it doesn't itch?

The perversion of the law was the problem, not the law. So God fixed the root of the problem, and offers to all a way out of continuing in such perversions.

I agree with Jones. I think this is exactly the point. It is the perversion of the law you referred to earlier, which you pointed out applies to either the ceremonial law or the moral law. This "ceremonialism" includes both laws. This ceremonialism was abolished by Christ's flesh.

What I’m saying now is what I’ve been saying all along. The carnal mind is the enmity against God, not the enmity between human beings. The latter is a result of the carnal mind. (Therefore, carnal mind cannot be equated with enmity. Enmity can be used for both the relationship with God and with men, while carnal mind can only be used for the relationship with God.)


I was aware that Ellen White sometimes refers to sin as a yoke of bondage, but not in the context we are discussing. That’s why I said in my post #101709:




I said the perversion of the ceremonial law was the excuse for the enmity between Jews and gentiles. I've never said the ceremonial law is enmity.


I’m precisely trying to show that the ceremonial law is not the enmity. I’ve quoted the Greek article many times to show that the three words – wall, enmity and law – are related but not synonyms. The law was the excuse for the enmity between Jews and gentiles and, consequently, for the wall that was erected. I’ve said the words need not be appositional (which is expressed by the word “namely”) – which means the verse doesn’t need to be translated ". . . having destroyed the middle wall of partition, having in his flesh abolished the enmity, namely the law of commandments in decrees. . ."
It can be translated in one of the following ways:

". . .having destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely, the enmity; in his flesh having abolished the law of commandments in decrees. . ."

or

". . .having in his flesh destroyed the middle wall of partition, namely, the enmity; having abolished the law of commandments in decrees. . ."


Of course I knew you wouldn't disagree with him.


So what is, to you, “the law of commandments contained in ordinances”?

See next post.