Interpretive Options

The Wall is the Cosmic Divide between God and Humankind

As mentioned, a major interpretive option is that the dividing wall is that which separates God and humans.  This view gains support from Paul’s shift in to the neuter gender in ἀμφότερα (both) which is often used for non-personal ideas.  The neuter term could refer to the realms of heaven and earth. The German scholar Schlier has also found evidence from Gnostic and Jewish apocalyptic sources supporting this kind of separation. Further, Christ is seen as reconciling the realms of heaven and earth in Col. 1:20 “reconciling all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of his Cross; through him whether things on earth or things in heaven.” (Barth).

Though the shift to the neuter ἀμφότερα is not wholly expected here, it is not unprecedented for Paul to use neuter terms to refer to groups (1 Cor. 27-28; 3:8). Also Schlier’s evidence for this view is either late or difficult to support in light of underdeveloped understanding of the penetration of Gnostic ideas in Asia Minor  (Best). This view also has a difficult time explaining how the Jewish law relates to the division of God and humankind and the phrase “the two are made one.” Some commentators also reject the view as being too complicated and vague to have any value  (O’Brien).

A variation of this view sees the “dividing wall” as the temple curtain protecting the Holy of Holies which was torn at Christ death (Mark 15:38). But the term in Ephesians is “wall,” not “curtain,” and this view suffers from the same problems as above.

The Wall is the Temple Wall in Jerusalem

In 1871, a temple wall was discovered with the inscription “Let no foreigner enter within the partition and enclosure surrounding the temple. Whoever is arrested will himself be responsible for his death which will follow” (Hoehner). This confirms Josephus’ descriptions of the wall (Ant. xv 417). Around the turn of the 20th century, many commentators such as Abbott  and Westcott,  found this discovery compelling evidence for understanding “the wall” (μεσότοιχον) as the actual wall in the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. This view fits with the immediate context of Jew and Gentile relations () and with the following mention of a temple (Eph. 2:22). Paul’s knowledge of the Jewish temple and its customs makes this seem to be a natural illustration (Best). In addition, our Lord uses the same verb, λύω, to describe the destruction of temple (John 2:19).

Though the context of Jew and Gentile relations is evident, the recipients of the letter in Asia Minor were not likely to have been familiar with the temple wall in Jerusalem rendering this illustration at least as ambiguous as it is for today’s readers (Abbott, Best). Also, the temple in Eph. 2:21 is not a physical temple which means Eph. 2:21 cannot contextually support this view. Further, Josephus does not use either Μεσότοιχον (Best) or φραγμοῦ (Lincoln) in reference to the temple wall of Jerusalem. A more subtle problem with this view is that PAUL is not arguing for the Gentiles gaining Jewish privileges by gaining access to the temple and following the Law. He is describing the removal of hostility between the two groups, thus making them one (Best).

The Wall is the Jewish Law

Another interpretive option under Jew/Gentile relations is seeing the wall as the divide caused by the Jewish Law itself. Gentiles in Asia Minor would surely be aware of this division (Best, Lincoln).

This view is supported by the discussion of Jew and Gentile relations as well as oral tradition that praised the Law as a fence protected Jews from Gentile impurity (Best). The term τοῦ φραγμοῦ “signifies a fence or railing erected for protection” (cf. Isa. 5:5; Matt 21:33, Barth). Lincoln and O’Brien also note that the three successive nouns for law (τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν) convey a sense of the oppressiveness of the Law, keeping Gentiles out.An objection to this view is that none of the supporting literature uses the term τὸ μεσότοιχον to describe the Law. But because this term is rare, this becomes an argument from silence which does not cause any of the views to gain or lose much support. Another objection is that the wall would exist as a protecting wall only from the Jewish point of view. The Gentiles would not be likely to see the Law as something positive, but as evidence of the arrogance and elitist attitude of the Jews.

Some raise a more serious objection that this view requires Paul to be antinomian, equating the Law with enmity (Best). Further, the meaning participle καταργήσας (“make inoperative”) is not directly parallel with μεσότοιχον “destroyed.” Christ did not destroy the Law, he fulfilled its operation (Matt. 5:17). This also requires ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ to modify μεσότοιχον while it sits between two nouns it has no relation to.

The Wall is Metaphorical Division between Jew and Gentile

So far our analysis has led us to understand the wall is between Jews and Gentile, but that it cannot specifically refer to the temple wall in Jerusalem or to the Jewish Law. A final option is that the wall is the general division between Jews and Gentiles caused by the Jewish Law. This view is supported by much of the evidence above, but escapes the theological and grammatical problems. In taking this view, some translations use the preposition by (“destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in the flesh the law”) to emphasize that this metaphysical wall was removed by abolishing the law, but that the Law itself was not the only cause of separation. This view also includes Roman oppression of Jews and Jewish arrogance toward Gentiles, while emphasizing that the Law’s removal paves the way for reconciliation. Some church fathers took a similar view (Best) and it is also supported by understanding μεσότοιχον as “middle wall” implying a two-sided division. Further, the removal of the Law also paves the way for humankind’s reconciliation to God which fits well with verse 16. This view seems to best fit the contextual discussion of Jews and Gentiles, the grammatical and lexical options, and theological flow of Paul’s argument.