Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.
23. the head ] See 1Co 11:3. The husband and the wife are “one flesh” (Eph 5:31), and the husband, in that sacred union, is the leader. So Christ and the Church are one, and Christ is the Leader.
even as ] Not, of course, that the headship of the husband embraces all ideas conveyed by the Lord’s Headship, but it truly answers to it in some essential respects; see last note, and its reference.
Christ is the head ] See on Eph 1:22, and last note but one here.
the church ] The highest reference of the word “Church” (see Hooker, quoted on Eph 1:22, where see the whole note) is the reference proper to this passage. The out-called Congregation, truly living by the heavenly Bridegroom, in union with Him, and subject to Him, is in view here. The sacred truth of the Marriage-union of the Lord and the Church, brought in here incidentally yet prominently, pervades (in different phases) the Scriptures. See not only the Canticles, but e.g. Psalms 45; Isa 54:5; Isa 61:10; Isa 62:4-5; Jer 3:14; Jer 31:32; Hos 2:2-20; Mat 9:15; Mat 25:1-10; Joh 3:29; Gal 4:21-31; Rev 21:2; Rev 21:9; Rev 22:17. It is observable that in the Revelation as in this Epistle the metaphors of building and of bridal appear in harmony; the Mystic Bride is the Holy City and the Spiritual Sanctuary. Cp. Psa 87:3, where a possible rendering is, “With glorious offers art thou bespoken [ for marriage ], O City of God.”
and he is, &c.] Read, with R.V., [ being ] himself the Saviour of the Body. The reference to the Lord, not to the earthly husband, is certain. And the emphasis (see on next ver.) is that Christ’s unique position, in this passage of comparison, must be remembered; as if to say, “He, emphatically, is to the Church what no earthly relationship can represent, its Saviour.” Some expositors see in this clause, on the other hand, an indirect precept to the husband to be the “preserver,” the loyal protector, of the wife. But the “ but ” which opens the next verse decides against this.
saviour ] So the Lord is called elsewhere, Luk 2:11; Joh 4:42; Act 5:31; Act 13:23; Php 3:20 ; 2Ti 1:10; Tit 1:4; Tit 2:13; Tit 3:6 ; 2Pe 1:1; 2Pe 1:11 ; 2Pe 2:20; 2Pe 3:2 ; 2Pe 3:18; 1Jn 4:14. Cp. for the word “save” in connexion with Him (in spiritual reference), Mat 1:21; Mat 18:11; Luk 19:10; Joh 3:17; Joh 5:34; Joh 10:9; Joh 12:47; Act 4:12; Act 16:31; Rom 5:9-10; Rom 10:9 ; 1Ti 1:15; Heb 7:25. Deliverance and Preservation are both elements in the idea of Salvation. See further, above, on Eph 2:5.
the body ] See on Eph 1:23, Eph 4:16. The Body is the Church, viewed as a complex living organism. The Gr. words Str (Saviour) and sma (body) have a likeness of sound, and perhaps a community of origin, which makes it possible that we have here an intentional “play upon words.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For the husband is the head of the wife – see the notes on 1Co 11:3.
As Christ is the head of the church – As Christ rules over the church, and has a right to direct and control it.
And he is the Saviour of the body – That is, of the church, represented as his body; see notes, Eph 1:23. The idea here seems to be, that as Christ gave himself to save his body, the church; as he practiced self-denial and made it an object of intense solicitude to preserve that church, so ought the husband to manifest a similar solicitude to make his wife happy, and to save her from want, affliction, and pain. He ought to regard himself as her natural protector; as bound to anticipate and provide for her needs; as under obligation to comfort her in trial, even as Christ does the church. What a beautiful illustration of the spirit which a husband should manifest is the care which Christ has shown for his bride, the church! See the notes on Eph 5:25-29.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 23. For the husband is the head of the wife] This is the reason which the apostle gives for his injunctions. See above.
He is the Saviour of the body.] As Christ exercises authority over the Church so as to save and protect it, so let the husband exercise authority over his wife by protecting, comforting, and providing her with every necessary and comfort of life, according to his power.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For the husband is the head of the wife; superior to her by Gods ordination in authority and dignity, as the head in the natural body, being the seat of reason, and the fountain of sense and motion, is more excellent than the rest of the body.
Even as Christ is the head of the church: see Eph 1:22; Col 1:18. The particle as notes not equality, but likeness, Christ being the Head of the church in a more excellent way than the husband is of the wife.
And he is the saviour of the body; i.e. Christ is the Saviour of his church, implying that so likewise the husband is given to the wife to be a saviour to her, in maintaining, protecting, and defending her; and therefore the wife, if she regard her own good, should not grudge to be subject to him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
23. (1Co11:3.)
even asGreek,“as also.”
and he isThe oldestmanuscripts read, “Himself (being) Saviour,” omitting”and,” and “is.” In Christ’s case, the Headshipis united with, nay gained by, His having SAVED the body in theprocess of redemption; so that (Paul implies) I am not allegingChrist’s Headship as one entirely identical with that other, for Hehas a claim to it, and office in it, peculiar to Himself [ALFORD].The husband is not saviour of the wife, in which particular Christexcels; hence, “But” (Eph5:24) follows [BENGEL].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For the husband is the head of the wife,….
[See comments on 1Co 11:3].
Even as Christ is the head of the church; all the elect;
[See comments on Eph 1:22]. And he is the Saviour of the body; not “of our body”, as the Ethiopic version reads, of that part of man, which is called the body; though that indeed is redeemed and saved by Christ, as well as the soul; but “of his body”, as the Vulgate Latin version reads; that is, of the church, which is his body; see Eph 1:23; of which he is the Saviour; he provides everything for it, preserves and protects it, and has wrought out salvation for it, which every member of it partakes of.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For the husband is the head of the wife ( ). “For a husband is head of the (his) wife.” No article with or .
As Christ also is the head of the church ( ). No article with , “as also Christ is head of the church.” This is the comparison, but with a tremendous difference which Paul hastens to add either in an appositional clause or as a separate sentence.
Himself the saviour of the body ( ). He means the church as the body of which Christ is head and Saviour.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He is the savior of the body. In this particular the comparison between the husband as the head of the wife, and Christ as the head of the Church, does not hold. Hence Rev., properly, renders for and He is, being Himself; Himself separating the clause from what was previously said. The comparison lies in the fact of headship alone. The husband ‘s love and protection cannot be called salvation, in which respect Christ ‘s headship is peculiar to Himself.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For the husband is the head of the wife” (hoti aner estin kephale tes gunaikos) “Because an husband is head of the wife of him.” In the marriage relationship and in the Christian social order of society, the husband has the headship of marriage and the home in the same relation that Christ holds in headship to and of the church; Col 1:18; Eph 1:22.
2) “Even as Christ is the head of the church” (hos kai to christos kephale tes ekklesias) “Even as Christ is the head of the church.” As Christ is the head and leader of the church so is the husband the head and leader of the wife in their sacred marital relationship, 1Co 11:3; Col 1:18.
3) “And he is the savior of the body” (autos soter tou somatos) And he himself is savior (deliver) of the body, church-body, or assembly.” The term “savior of the body” means “protector, deliverer, or provider” of the body the church, Mat 16:18-19; Mat 28:18-20; Eph 3:21. Christ is the savior, deliverer or protector of that which He has bought, Act 20:28, and that body, kind of assembly, one body of which He is the head, Eph 4:4; Eph 1:22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
23. For the husband is the head of the wife. This is the reason assigned why wives should be obedient. Christ has appointed the same relation to exist between a husband and a wife, as between himself and his church. This comparison ought to produce a stronger impression on their minds, than the mere declaration that such is the appointment of God. Two things are here stated. God has given to the husband authority over the wife; and a resemblance of this authority is found in Christ, who is the head of the church, as the husband is of the wife.
And he is the savior of the body. The pronoun HE ( αὐτός) is supposed by some to refer to Christ; and, by others, to the husband. It applies more naturally, in my opinion, to Christ, but still with a view to the present subject. In this point, as well as in others, the resemblance ought to hold. As Christ rules over his church for her salvation, so nothing yields more advantage or comfort to the wife than to be subject to her husband. To refuse that subjection, by means of which they might be saved, is to choose destruction.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(23) For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church.It is instructive to compare this with the partly similar passage in 1Co. 11:3. There the head of the woman is the man, as here; but the head of every man (individually) is Christ, considered in His human nature; and finally, the Head of Christ, as the Son of Man, is God. There, accordingly, headship is simple lordship; the woman is subject to the man, the man is subject to Christ alone; Christ as the Son is subject to the Father. Here, on the other hand, we note, first, that in accordance with the general idea of the Epistle, the headship of Christ over the Church at large takes the place of His headship over the individual; next, that from the idea of His headship so conceived is derived the further idea of a spiritual unity, involving self-sacrifice in the head, as well as obedience to the head; and, lastly, that since the very idea of unity in Christ is unity with God, there is nothing to correspond to the third clause in the former Epistle.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(23, 24) And he is the saviour of the body. Therefore . . .The words and and is are wrongly inserted, and the word therefore is absolutely an error, evading the difficulty of the passage. It should be, He Himself being the Saviour of the Body. But . . . This clause, in which the words He Himself are emphatic, notes (as if in order to guard against too literal acceptation of the comparison) that Christ (and He alone) is not only Head, but Saviour of the Body, i.e., of His body the Church, not only teaching and ruling it, but by His unity infusing into it the new life of justification and sanctification. Here no husband can be like Him, and therefore none can claim the absolute dependence of faith which is His of right. Accordingly St. Paul adds the word But. Though this is so, yet still let the wives, &c.
As the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.The subjection of the Church of Christ is a free subjection, arising out of faith in His absolute wisdom and goodness, and of love for His unspeakable love. Hence we gather (1) that the subordination of the wife is not that of the slave, by. compulsion and fear, but one which arises from and preserves freedom; next (2), that it can exist, or at any rate can endure, only on condition of superior wisdom and goodness and love in the husband; thirdly (3), that while it is like the higher subordination in kind, it cannot be equally perfect in degreewhile it is real in everything, it can be absolute in nothing. The antitype is, as usual, greater than the type.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. Head He does not say Lord, as expressing Christ in his absolute capacity, but as head, representing his relative office. As the first planner and organizer, and perpetual representative of the family to the world, the husband is its naturally and divinely constituted head. By his name is the whole family rightly called. Outside the home, in which the wife is empress of a little kingdom of her own, he is held primarily responsible for the family support, reputation, and advancement. His position is justly held to be dishonoured, guiltily or unfortunately, if that responsibility be not sustained, or the wife be called to supply his place. It is equally unbecoming for her to endeavour, without necessity, either to substitute or overrule him.
Of the wife Including her offspring, who are at once produced by herself, and herself; just as the Church’s offspring are truly herself.
Christ Church So that the family is a picture outlining the sacred original, and, therefore, itself sacred. Human laws may hold marriage a merely civil contract; but divine law holds it to be a divine institution. Hence, it is not the magistrate, but the minister, by whom the marriage rite should be performed, and the church should be its place; since, though not a sacrament, it is a most highly religious act. The marriage itself, however surrounded with jovial circumstances, should be performed by the minister as a most solemn religious ceremonial. He, emphatic and distinctive. Christ is not only head, but he is Saviour of the churchly body.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Eph 5:23. The husband is the head of the wife, It is from the head that the body receives both health and life: St. Paul here pronounces this of Christ, as the head of the church; that by the parallel which he makes use of to represent the relation between husband and wife, he may both shew the wife the reasonableness of her subjection to her husband, and the duty incumbent on the husband to cherish and preserve his wife; as we see that he pursues it in the following verses.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Eph 5:23-24 . ] Reason assigned for the just demanded. For the husband is in the marriage relation the same as Christ is in relation to the church; the former, like the latter, is the head.
] a husband is head of his wife ; hence is without , and with the article.
] as also with Christ the relation of being Head exists, namely, in regard to the church.
] is usually taken as apposition to , [271] according to which would take up the subject again with special emphasis (Schaefer, Melet. p. 84; Bernhardy, p. 283): “ He, the Saviour of the body ,” He who makes His body, i.e. the church, of which He is the Head, partaker of the Messianic (“merito et efficacia,” Calovius). But while there is not here apparent from the connection any purpose, bearing on the matter in hand, for such an emphatic description, [272] there may be urged against it the following , which, if it is not placed in combination with . . . , admits of no logical explanation. Usually , it is true, this is taken syllogistically (so Beza, Grotius, and others, including Matthies, Olshausen, de Wette). But the syllogistic , and that in the Greek writers combined with , is employed for the introduction of the propositio minor (Apollon. Alex. in Beck, Anecd. II. p. 518, 839; Hartung, Partikell . II. p. 384; Fritzsche, ad Rom. v. 14; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 63); whereas here we should have the conclusio , and we should thus have to take , in accordance with its usage as breaking off (“argumentorum enarrationem aut aliam cogitationem abrumpit et ad rem ipsam, quae sit agenda, vocat,” Klotz, l.c. p. 5; comp. Hermann, ad Viger. p. 812; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 78), for , against which, however, militates the fact that the sentence assigning a reason, . . . , has already fulfilled its destined object (Eph 5:22 ), so that it could not occur to any reader to seek in the adversative an inference from this reason-assigning clause. If Paul had wished again to infer , from Eph 5:23 , that which is proved by this verse, he would have written or the metabatic . Besides this, however, Eph 5:24 , as an inference from Eph 5:23 , would contain a very superfluous prolixity of the discourse, inasmuch as the contents of Eph 5:24 was already so fully given by the thought of Eph 5:23 attached to what precedes by means of , that we could not but see here a real logical pleonasm, such as we are not accustomed to meet with in the writings of the concise and sententious Paul. According to Winer, p. 400 [E. T. 565], Eph 5:24 is meant to continue and conclude the argument, so that Eph 5:23 proves the from the position of Christ and the husband, while Eph 5:24 proves it from the demand implied in this position, and hence amounts ultimately to the sense: “ but then , which is the main thing.” But even in this way only a continuing , autem , and not the adversative , at , would be quite in accordance with the thought. When, moreover, it is assumed, with Rckert, Harless, Bleek, that , after the intermediate thought . . . , is used as breaking off and leading back to the theme (see Hartung, l.c. II. p. 37), it is self-evident that the brief clause . . . introduced, moreover, only as apposition has not at all interrupted the development, and consequently has not given occasion for such a leading back to the theme. [273] Hofmann finally takes as repelling a possible objection, and to this effect: “ But even where the husband is not this (namely, one who makes happy, as like Christ he ought to be) to his wife, that subordination nevertheless remains ,” etc. But in this way the very thought, upon which everything is held to turn, is purely read into the passage. In view of all that has been said, I (and Schenkel agrees with me in this) cannot take . . . as apposition, but only as an independent proposition, and I understand in its ordinary adversative sense, namely, thus: “ He for His person, He and no other, is the Saviour of the body; but this relation, which belongs exclusively to Himself, does not take away the obligation of obedience on the part of the wives towards their husbands, nay, rather, as the church obeys Christ, so must also the wives obey their husbands in every respect .” The right view was already perceived by Calvin, when on account of the adversative he proposed the explanation: [274] “Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est servator ecclesiae, nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos praeesse, Christi exemplo, utcunque pari gratia non polleant.” Comp. also Bengel, who aptly remarks: “Vir autem non est servator uxoris; in eo Christus excellit; hinc sed sequitur.” What Hofmann objects is quite irrelevant; for the thought, that Christ is Saviour of the body, is not superfluous , but has its significant bearing in the contrast which follows; and Paul had not to write instead of with a view to clearness, since Christ was, in fact, just designated as ; consequently nothing was now more natural and clear than the designation of believers by , the correlative of . The objection of Reiche, that comes in asyndetically , can have no weight in the case of Paul especially, and of his brief and terse moral precepts (see immediately Eph 5:28 , and comp. in particular Rom 12:9 ff.).
] sc . . See Eph 5:22 .
] in which case it is presupposed that the commanding on the part of the husbands is in keeping with their position as representing Christ towards the wife. , Theodoret.
[271] Holzhausen (comp. already Chrysostom) has again referred to the husband , who is called in comparison with Christ, inasmuch as the being of the wife is conditioned by the husband. Incorrectly, since no reader could refer to any other subject than to the one immediately preceding, , and since it was intelligible to describe the church doubtless, but not the wife, as (without further addition). Nor is ever employed in the N.T. otherwise than of Christ or God.
[272] For the view, that hereby a reminder is given to husbands of the fact, which is often forgotten by them, that they (see ver. 29) ought to make their wives truly happy (Erasm., Beza, Grotius, Estius, and others, including Rckert, Meier, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius; comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 134 f.), is inadmissible, since the instructions for husbands begin only with ver. 25. Harless remarks: “Inasmuch as the apostle finds the obedience of marriage, realized in it by the wife, also in the relation of the church to Christ, he shows immediately the ground of this peculiar relation in the manifestation of the gracious power of the Lord by redemption.” But in this way the question as to the reason determining this addition is not answered, and the gracious power of the Lord is, in fact, not denoted by the simple . Olshausen (so already Piscator) thought that . had merely the design of setting forth Christ more distinctly in the character of , inasmuch as it designates the church as the which He rules. But it is not that has the emphasis; and ., spoken of Christ, needed no elucidation, least of all in this Epistle.
[273] And how would Paul have returned to his theme? He would have said again, in another form, in ver. 24, that which he had just said in ver. 23! After so short a clause as . . ., what an un-Pauline diffuseness!
[274] He did not, however, himself give it the preference, but erroneously took as ceterum , and in . . . found the thought: “ita nihil esse mulieri utilius nee magis salubre, quam ut marito subsit.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Ver. 23. For the husband is the head ] And would it not be ill-favoured to see the shoulders above the head?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Eph 5:23 . , : because the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church . Reason for a wifely subjection of the kind indicated. It is found in the relation of headship. In the marriage union the husband holds the same relation, viz. , that of headship, as Christ holds to the Church, and the headship of the one represents the headship of the other. For , [605] , Vulg., etc., give , which WH place in the margin. The before rests on the slenderest authority, and is omitted by LTTrWHRV on the testimony of [606] [607] [608] [609] [610] [611] [612] , etc. The anarthrous means “a husband” in the sense of any man belonging to the class of husbands. The article, again, is appropriate in , as a definite relation is expressed there = “a husband is head of his wife”. The indicates the point common to the two subjects each is head , though in relation to different objects. [ ] [ ] : and He is Himself the Saviour of the body . The and the of the TR have considerable authority ( [613] 3 [614] 2, 3 [615] [616] [617] , most cursives, Syr., Arm., etc.); but they are not found in [618] [619] [620] [621] [622] [623] , Vulg., etc., and are to be omitted (with LTTrWHRV). The clause then might be construed as in apposition to the previous , = “as Christ is the Head of the Church He, the Saviour of the body”. But it is best taken as an independent clause, stating in a definite and emphatic way an important point in which Christ, who resembles the husband in respect of headship , at the same time differs from the husband. It is best rendered, therefore, “He, He Himself ( i.e. , = He alone) is the Saviour of the body”. The RV less happily makes it “being Himself the Saviour of the body”. The can only be Christ , and the is the Church the body to which He brings salvation. The husband is head of the wife, and in that he is like Christ; but Christ is also that which the husband is not, viz., Saviour of that whereof He is Head.
[605] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[606] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[607] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[608] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[609] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[610] Codex Augiensis (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.
[611] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[612] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[613] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[614] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[615] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[616] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[617] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .
[618] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[619] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[620] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[621] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[622] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[623] Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
the = a.
even as Christ = as Christ also.
church. App-186.
and He is = He Himself (being).
the saviour = Saviour. Greek. soter; only here in Eph.: not in Rom., Cor., Gal.
the body. See Eph 1:23.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Eph 5:23. , and He Himself) But the husband is not the saviour of the wife; in that Christ excels. Hence but follows.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Eph 5:23
Eph 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church,-Here the headship of the husband is carried out, and illustrated by the headship of Christ over the church. The church is represented as the bride, the wife of Jesus Christ; as Christ is its head, guide, and supporter, so the husband is to the wife. The point of conflict between the authority of the husband and the authority of God cannot rise in the case of Christ and the church, as Christ cannot require things contrary to the will of God.
being himself the saviour of the body.-As Christ is the Savior of the church so the husband is the preserver and supporter of his wife.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
saviour
(See Scofield “Rom 1:16”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
husband: 1Co 11:3-10
even: Eph 1:22, Eph 1:23, Eph 4:15, Col 1:18
he: Eph 5:25, Eph 5:26, Act 20:28, 1Th 1:10, Rev 5:9
Reciprocal: Hos 2:19 – in righteousness Rom 7:4 – that ye Rom 12:5 – General 1Co 6:13 – but for 1Co 6:15 – your 1Co 12:12 – as 1Co 12:27 – General Tit 2:14 – gave
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Eph 5:23.) , -For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is Head of the church. The preponderance of authority is against the article before , which appears in the Received Text. It does not need the article (Winer, 19), though the article would not alter the meaning. It stands here as a species of monadic noun; or it may be rendered as a general proposition-as a husband is the head of the wife-the article before pointing out the special relation-his wife. introduces the reason why wives should be submissive-as to the Lord. In the phrase -as also- is not superfluous, though it occurs only in the second clause and marks the sameness of relation in . Klotz, Devar. vol. 2.635. The meaning of the sentiment, Christ is the Head of the church, has been already explained under Eph 1:22, and again under Eph 4:15-16. The reader may turn to these explanations. As Christ is Head of the church, so the husband is head of the wife. Authority and government are lodged in him; the household has its unity and centre in him; from him the wife receives her cherished help; his views and feelings are naturally adopted and acted out by her; and to him she looks up for instruction and defence. Severed from him she becomes a widow, desolate and cheerless; the ivy which clasped itself so lovingly round the oak, pines and withers when its tree has fallen. And there is only one head; dualism would be perpetual antagonism. This marital headship is man’s prerogative in virtue of his prior creation, for he was first formed in sole and original dignity. 1Ti 2:13. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man, so that he is in position the superior. The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man-a portion of himself-his other self; taken out from near his heart; and, therefore, though his equal in personality and fellowship, being of him and for him and after him, she is second to him. Nay, more, Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression; and to her the Lord God said, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, though the gospel lightens this portion of the curse which has been so terribly felt in all non-Christian lands. Each sex is indeed imperfect by itself, and the truest unity is conjugal duality. Still, though the woman was originally of the man, yet now the man is by the woman-the mother of all living. Finally, the apostle illustrates this headship by the striking declaration, that the woman is the glory of the man, but the man is the image and glory of God. 1Co 11:3-12; 1Ti 2:14.
-Himself Saviour of the body. The words and in the Received Text are found in D2, D3, E2, K, L, in the majority of MSS., and in the Syriac and Gothic versions. Tittmann and Reiche also hold by the longer reading, but the words are wanting in A, B, D1, E1, F, G, while Codex A reads . is emphatic, and can refer only to . Christ is Head of the church-Himself, and none other, Saviour of the body. Winer, 59, 7, note. Some refer it to . Chrysostom’s exposition would seem to imply such a reference, and Holzhausen formally adopts it. But it is of Christ the apostle is speaking, and the independent and emphatic clause, thrown off without any connecting particle, gives a reason why He is head of the church, to wit-Himself Saviour of the body. The reader may turn to the meaning of under Eph 1:23, Eph 4:15-16. The paronomasia is imitated by Clement, ad Corinth. xxxviii.- . Christ is the Saviour of His body the church-not only its Redeemer by an act of atonement, but its continued Deliverer, Preserver, and Benefactor, and so is deservedly its Head. This Headship originated in the benefits which His church has enjoyed, and is based on His saving work; while the conscious enjoyment of that salvation brings the church gladly to acknowledge His sole supremacy. Some, indeed, suppose that in this clause there is an implied comparison, and that the husband is a species of to his wife. Bucer, Bullinger, Musculus, Aretius, Zanchius, Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, Schrader, Rckert, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meier, Matthies, de Wette, and Peile are of this mind. But the clause is peculiar, separating it from what is said before. There is a comparison in , that is, in the point of position and authority, but none in ; for the love and protection which a husband may afford a wife can never be called , and has no resemblance to Christ’s salvation. Some even suppose that the wife is here called , basing their opinion on the language of Eph 5:28. There is no warrant for supposing that in the apostle’s mind there was any etymological affinity between and , which in Homer signifies a dead body. See Stier, in loc.; Benfey, Wurzellex. i. p. 412; and the two derivations in Plato, Cratylus, 38, p. 233; Op. vol. iv. ed. Bekker.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Eph 5:23. A comparison is made between a husband as head of his wife, and Christ as the head of the church. No institution or organization or body. whether temporal or spiritual and whether physical or moral, can prosper without a head, and the body must be under the control of the head. Saviour of the body. Chapter 1:22, 23 says the body of Christ is his church. Hence, unless a person is a member of the body or church of Christ, he has no promise of salvation.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Eph 5:23. Because a husband is head of his wife. The basis of the duty is this unalterable fact A husband, as an example of the class (the article is not found in Greek); his wife brings out the force of the article, pointing to the definite person in the supposed case.
As Christ also is head of the church; His Church, but there is no other than His. On Christ as Head of the Church, comp. chaps. Eph 1:22; Eph 4:15.
He himself is the Saviour of the body; lit., Himself the Saviour of the body. This clause distinguishes Christ from the husband In Christs case the Headship is united with, nay gained by, His having saved the body in the process of Redemption: so that I am not alleging Christs Headship as one entirely identical with that other, for He has a claim to it and an office in it peculiar to Himself (Alford).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 23
Of the body; that is, of his body, the church. The application intended to be made of this is expressed in Ephesians 5:25.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
We need to see another statement of the apostle when he wrote to the Corinthians. 1Co 11:3″But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
Simple explanation, the husband is the head of the wife. This is the idea of the head controls the body and the body is subject to the head. I’m told that in the old days when they cut off a person’s head for a crime, that the brain continues to function for a few short seconds after the head is separated from the body. Now, the head may continue to function for a few moments, but that body can’t just up and decide to go fishing after its head is removed – it just won’t!
To illustrate this Paul mentions that Christ is the head of the church – this same relationship exists within the marriage, or at least should exist.
He goes further and explains that the church is subject to Christ and so the wives should be subject to their own husbands – not in just the small things but in all things.
Now if churches and couples really worked this way in life, we would have a completely different church and there would be drastically less divorce in our churches. Consider this ladies and gentlemen, we have this responsibility before God and we will be held accountable for it.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
5:23 {9} For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: {10} and he is the saviour of the body.
(9) A declaration of the former saying: because God has made the man head of the woman in marriage, as Christ is the head of the Church.
(10) Another argument: because the good estate of the wife depends on the man, so that this submission is not only just, but also very profitable: as also the salvation of the Church depends on Christ, although to a far greater degree.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The reason for the wife’s willing submission is that God has placed wives in a position of authority under their husbands (cf. 1Co 11:12). Likewise He has chosen to place Jesus Christ in authority over the church. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the church and similarly the husband is the deliverer of his wife. The husband’s headship involves loving, serving, caring for, and leading his wife. These are all things that Jesus Christ does for the church.
"To speak in terms of functional equality for husband and wife erroneously removes the complementary quality of the relationship and invalidates the comparison to Christ and the church, who are not functionally equal." [Note: Bock, "A Theology . . .," pp. 317-18.]
Leadership should involve a recognition that God has placed the husband in a position of responsibility. The husband occupies his role by divine placement. Assuming this role does not mean that the husband must execute all of his responsibilities perfectly, since that would be impossible. It does mean that he is accountable to God for his wife and children. Even though Eve ate the fruit first, God approached Adam first to question him about what he and Eve had done (Gen 3:9). The husband’s leadership makes the wife’s submission reasonable. It requires taking the initiative, integrity, and serving the wife (i.e., lightening the load of those who follow; cf. Mat 11:28-30; Mar 10:42-45). Leadership also involves managing the home, not dominating it. A good manager creates an environment in which each person can achieve his or her maximum potential. A responsible father also keeps his children under control (1Ti 3:4). Leading is one of the husband’s primary responsibilities in marriage. [Note: Family Life . . ., pp. 118-19.]
"Those who are busy undermining the chastity of wedlock to-day are the worst enemies of the commonweal [public good]. Its inviolability is not a question to be settled on grounds of expediency. The corner-stone of society is at stake in the matter." [Note: Simpson, p. 128.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 26
CHRIST AND HIS BRIDE
Eph 5:23-32
WE have extracted from the apostles homily upon marriage the sentences referring to Christ and His Church, in order to gather up their collective import. The main topic of the epistle here again asserts itself; and under the figure of marriage St. Paul brings to its conclusion his doctrine on the subject of the Church. This passage answers, theologically, a purpose similar to that of the allegory of Hagar and Sarah in the epistle to the Galatians: it lights up for the imagination the teaching and argument of the former part of the epistle; it shows how the doctrine of Christ and the Church has its counterpart in nature, as the struggle between the legal and evangelical spirit had its counterpart in the patriarchal history.
The three detached paragraphs present us three considerations, of which we shall treat the second first in order of exposition: Christs love to the Church; His authority over the Church; and the mystery of the Churchs origin in Him.
I. “Husbands, love your wives, even as the Christ also loved the Church, and gave up Himself for her.” This is parallel to the declaration of Gal 2:20 : “He loved me; He gave up Himself for me.” The sacrifice of the cross has at once its personal and its collective purpose. Both are to be kept in mind.
On the one hand, we must value infinitely and joyfully assert our individual part in the redeeming love of the Son of God; but we must equally admit the sovereign rights of the Church in the Redeemers passion. Our souls bow down before the glory of the love with which He has from eternity sought her for His own. There is in some Christians an absorption in the work of grace within their own hearts, an individualistic salvation-seeking that, like all selfishness, defeats its end; for it narrows and impoverishes the inner life thus sedulously cherished. The Church does not exist simply for the benefit of individual souls; it is an eternal institution, with an affiance to Christ, a calling and destiny of its own; within that universal sphere our personal destiny holds its particular place.
It is “the Christ” who stands, throughout this context (Eph 5:23-29), over against “the Church” as her Lover and Husband; whereas in the context of Gal 2:20 we read “Christ”-the bare personal name-repeated again and again without the distinguishing article. Christ is the Person whom the soul knows and loves, with whom it holds communion in the Spirit. The Christ is the same regarded in the wide scope of His nature and office, -the Christ of humanity and of the ages. “The Christ” of this epistle expands the Saviours title to its boundless significance, and gives breadth and length to that which in “Christ” is gathered up into a single point.
This Christ “gave Himself up for the Church,”-yielded Himself to the death which the sins of His people merited and brought upon Him. Under the same verb, the apostle says in Rom 4:25 : He “was delivered because of our trespasses, and raised up because of our justification”-the sacrifice being there regarded on its passive side. Here, as in Gal 2:20, the act is made His own, -a voluntary Surrender. “No man taketh, my life from me,” He said. {Joh 10:18} In His case alone amongst the sons of men, death was neither natural nor inevitable. His surrender of life was an absolute sacrifice. He “laid down His life for His friends,” as no other friend of man could do- the One who died for all. The love measured by this sacrifice is proportionately great. The sayings of Eph 5:25-27 set the glory of the vicarious death in a vivid light. Of such worth was the person of the Christ, of such significance and moral value His sacrificial death, that it weighed against the trespass, not of a man-Paul or any other-but of a world of men. He “purchased through His own blood,” said Paul to the Ephesian elders, “the Church of” Act 20:28 – the whole flock that feeds in the pastures of the Great Shepherd, that has passed or will pass through the gates of His fold. Great were the honour and glory with which He was crowned, when led as a victim to the altar of the worlds atonement. {Heb 2:9} Who will not say, as the meek Son of man treads so willingly His mournful path to Calvary, “Worthy is the Lamb!” Is not the heavenly Bridegroom worthy of the bride, that He consents to win by the sacrifice of Himself! He is worthy; and she must be made worthy. “He gave up Himself that-He might sanctify her, – that He might Himself present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind, -that she may be holy and without blemish.” The sanctification of the Church is the grand purpose of redeeming grace. This was the design of God for His sons in Christ before the worlds foundation, “that we should be holy and unblemished before Him”. {Eph 1:4} This, therefore, was the end of Christs mission upon earth; this was the intention of His sacrificial death. “For their sakes,” said Jesus, concerning His disciples, “I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth”. {Joh 17:19} His purchase of the Church is no selfish act. To God His Father Christ devotes every spirit of man that is yielded to Him. As the Priest of mankind it was His. office thus to consecrate humanity, which is already in purpose and in essence “sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”. {Heb 10:10} Only in this passage, where the apostle is. thinking of the preparation of the Church for its perfect union with its Head, does he name Christ as our Sanctifier; in 1Co 1:2 he comes near this expression, addressing his readers as. men “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” In the epistle to the Hebrews this character is largely ascribed to Him, being the function of His priesthood. One in nature with the sanctified, Jesus our Great Priest “sanctifies us through His own blood,” so that with cleansed consciences we may draw near to the living God. As Christ the Priest stands towards His people, so Christ the Husband towards His Church. He devotes her with Himself to God. He cleanses her that she may dwell with Him forever, a spotless bride, dead unto sin and living unto God through Him.
“That He might sanctify her, having cleansed her in the laver of water by the word.” The Church s purification is antecedent in thought to her sanctification through the sacrifice of Christ; and it is a means thereto. “Ye were washed, ye were sanctified,” writes the apostle in 1Co 6:19, putting the two things in the same order. It is the order of doctrine which he has laid down in the epistle to the Romans, where sanctification is built on the foundation laid in justification through the blood of Christ. Through the virtue of the sacrificial death the Church in all her members was washed from the defilements of sin, that she might enter upon Gods service. Of the same initial purification of the heart St. John writes in his first epistle: {1Jn 1:7-9} “The blood of Jesus, Gods Son, cleanses us from all sin He is faithful and just, that He should forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” This is “the redemption through Christs blood,” for which St. Paul in his first words of praise called upon us to bless God. {Eph 1:7} It is the special distinction of the New Covenant, which renders possible its other gifts of grace, that “the worshippers once cleansed” need have “no further consciousness of sins.” {Heb 10:2; Heb 10:14-18} In the theological use here made of the idea of cleansing, St. Paul comes into line with St. John: and the epistle to the Hebrews. The purification is nothing else than that which he has elsewhere styled justification. He employs the terms synonymously in the later epistle to Titus. {Tit 2:14-15; Tit 3:1-7}
“Having cleansed” is a phrase congruous with the figure of the laver, or bath, {comp. again Tit 3:5-7} -an image suggested, as one would think, by the bride-bath of the wedding-day in the ancient marriage customs. To this St. Paul sees a counterpart in baptism, “the laver of water in the word.” The cleansing and withal refreshing virtues of water made it an obvious symbol of regeneration. The emblem is twofold; it pictures at once the removal of guilt, and the imparting of new strength. One goes into the bath exhausted, and covered with dust; one comes out clean and fresh. Hence the baptism of the new believer in Christ had, in St. Pauls view, a double aspect. It looked backward to the old life of sin abandoned, and forward to the new life of holiness commenced. Thus it corresponded to the burial of Jesus, {Rom 6:4} the point of juncture between death and resurrection. Baptism served as the visible and formal expression of the souls passage through the gate of forgiveness into the sanctified life.
Along with this older teaching, a further and kindred significance is now given to the baptismal rite. It denotes the souls affiance to its Lord. As the maidens bath on the morning of her marriage betokened the purity in which she united herself to her betrothed, so the baptismal laver summons the Church to present herself “a chaste virgin unto Christ”. {2Co 11:2} It signifies and seals her forgiveness, and pledges her in all her members to await the Bridegroom in garments unspotted from the world, with the pure and faithful love which will not be ashamed before Him at His coming. For this end Christ set up the baptismal laver. Upon our construction of the text, the words “that He might sanctify her” express a purpose complete in itself-viz., that of the Churchs consecration to God. Then follow the means to this sanctification.: “Having cleansed her in the water-bath through the word,”-which washing, at the same time, has its purpose on the part of the Lord who appointed it-viz., “that He might present her to Himself” a glorious and spotless Church.
At the end of Eph 5:27 the sentence doubles back upon itself, in Pauls characteristic fashion. The twofold aim of Christs sacrifice of love on the Churchs behalf-viz., her consecration to God, and her spotless purity fitting her for perfect union with her Lord-is restated in the final clause, by way of contrast with the “spots and wrinkles and such like things” that are washed out: “but that she may be holy and without blemish.”
We passed by, for the moment, the concluding phrase of Eph 5:26, with which the apostle qualifies his reference to the baptismal cleansing; we are by no means forgetting it. “Having cleansed her,” he writes, “by the laver of water in [the] word.” This adjunct is deeply significant. It impresses on baptism a spiritual character, and excludes every theurgic conception of the rite, every doctrine that gives to it in the least degree a mechanical efficacy. “Without the word the sacrament could only influence man by magic, outward or inward” (Dorner). The “word” of which the apostle speaks, is that of Eph 6:17, “Gods word-the Spirits sword”; of Rom 10:8, “the word of faith which we proclaim”; of Luk 1:37, “the word from God which shall not be powerless”; of Joh 17:8, etc., “the words” that the Father had given to the Son, and the Son in turn to men. It is the Divine utterance, spoken and believed. In this accompaniment lies the power of the laver. The baptismal affusion is the outward seal of an inward transaction, that takes place in the spirit of believing utterers and hearers of the gospel word. This saving word receives in baptism its concrete expression; it becomes the verbum visibile.
The “word” in question is defined in Rom 10:8-9 : “If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved!” Let the hearer respond, “I do so confess and believe,” on the strength of this confession he is baptised, and in the conjoint act of faith and baptism – in the obedience of faith signified by his baptism-he is saved from his past sins and made an heir of life eternal. The rite is the simplest and most universal in application one can conceive. In heathen countries baptism recovers its primitive significance, as the decisive act of rupture with idolatry and acceptance of Christ as Lord, which in our usage is often overlaid and forgotten.
This interpretation gives a key to the obscure text of St. Peter upon the same subject: {1Pe 3:21} Baptism saves you-“not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the questioning with regard to God of a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The vital constituent of the rite is not the application of water to the body, but the challenge which the word makes therein to the conscience respecting the things of God, -the inquiry thus conveyed, to which a sincere believer in the resurrection of Christ makes joyful and ready answer. It is, in fine, the appeal to faith contained in baptism that gives to the latter its saving worth. The “word” that makes Christian ordinances valid is not the past utterance of God alone, which may remain a dead letter, preserved in the oracles of Scripture or the official forms of the Church, but that word alive and active, re-spoken and transmitted from soul to soul by the breath of the Holy Spirit. Without this animating word of faith, baptism is but the pouring or sprinkling of so much water on the body; the Lord s supper is only the consumption of so much bread and wine. All the nations will at last, in obedience to Christs command, be baptised into the thrice-holy Name; and the work of baptism will be complete. Then the Church will issue from her bath, cleansed more effectually than the old world that emerged with Noah from the deluge. Every “spot and wrinkle” will pass from her face; the worldly passions that stained her features, the fears and anxieties that knit her brow or furrowed her cheek, will vanish away. In her radiant beauty, in her chaste and spotless love, Christ will lead forth His Church before His Father and the holy angels, “as a bride adorned before her husband.” From eternity He set His love upon her; upon the cross. He won her back from her infidelity at the price of His blood. Through the ages He has been wooing her to Himself, and schooling her in wise and manifold ways that she might be fit for her heavenly calling. Now the end of this long task of redemption has arrived. The message goes forth to Christs friends in all the worlds: “Come, gather yourselves to the great supper of God! The marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready! He hath given her fine linen bright and pure, that she may array herself. Let us rejoice and exult, and give to Him the glory!” Through what cleansing fires, through what baptisms even of blood she has still to pass ere the consummation is reached, He only knows who loved her and gave Himself for her. He will spare to His Church nothing, either of bounty or of trial, that her perfection needs.
II. Concerning Christs lordly authority over His Church we have had occasion to speak already in other places. A word or two may be added here.
We acknowledge the Church to be “subject to Christ in everything.” We proclaim ourselves, like the apostle, “slaves of Christ Jesus.” But this subjection is too often a form rather than a fact. In protesting our independence of Popish and priestly lords of Gods heritage, we are sometimes in danger of ignoring our dependence upon Him, and of dethroning, in effect, the one Lord Jesus Christ. Christian communities act and speak too much in the style of political republics. They assume the attitude of self-directing and self-responsible bodies.
The Church is no democracy, any more than it is an aristocracy or a sacerdotal absolutism: it is a Christocracy. The people are not rulers in the house of God; they are the ruled, laity and ministers alike. “One is your Master, even the Christ; and all ye are brethren.” We acknowledge this in theory; but our language and spirit would oftentimes be other than they are, if we were penetrated by the sense of the continual presence and majesty of the Lord Christ in our assemblies. Royalties and nobilities, and the holders of popular power-all whose “names are named in this world,” along with the principalities in heavenly places, when they come into the precincts of the Church must lay aside their robes and forget their titles, and speak humbly as in the Masters presence. What is it to the glorious Church of Jesus Christ that Lord So-and-so wears a coronet and owns half a county? or that Midas can fill her coffers, if he is pleased and humoured? or that this or that orator guides at his will the fierce democracy? “He is no more than a man who will die and appear before the judgment seat of Christ?” The Churchs protection from human tyranny, from schemes of ambition, from the intrusion of political methods and designs, lies in her sense of the splendour and reality of Christs dominion, and of her own eternal life in Him.
III. We come now to the profound mystery disclosed, or half-disclosed at the end of this section, that of the origination of the Church from Christ, which accounts for His love to the Church and His authority over her. He nourishes and cherishes the Church, we are told in Eph 5:29-30, “because we are members of His body.”
Now this membership is, in its origin, as old as creation. God “chose us in Christ before the worlds foundation”. {Eph 1:4} We were created in the Son of Gods love, antecedently to our redemption by Him. Such is the teaching of this and the companion epistle. {Col 1:14-18} Christ recovers through the cross that which pertains inherently to Him, which belonged to Him by nature and is as a part of Himself. From this standpoint the connection of Eph 5:30-31 becomes intelligible. It is not, strictly speaking, “on account of this”; but “in correspondence with this” says the apostle, suiting the original phrase to his purpose. The derivation of Eve from the body of Adam, as that is affirmed in the mysterious words of Genesis, is analogous to the derivation of the Church from Christ. The latter relationship existed in its ideal, and as conceived in the purpose of God, prior to the appearance of the human race. In St. Pauls theory, the origin of woman in man which forms the basis of marriage in Scripture, looked further back to the origin of humanity in Christ Himself.
The train of thought that the apostle resumes here he followed in 1Co 11:3-12 : “I would have you know that the head of every man is the Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God Man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.” So it is with Christ and His bride the Church.
“The Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her to the man. And the man said,”
“This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called Woman [Isshah], because she was taken out of Man [Ish]. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: And they shall be one flesh”. {Gen 2:21-24}
Thus the first father of our race prophesied, and sang his wedding song. In some mystical, but real sense, marriage is a reunion, the reincorporation of what had been sundered. Seeking his other self, the complement of his nature, the man breaks the ties of birth and founds a new home. So the inspired author of the passage in Genesis explains the origin of marriage, and the instinct which draws the bridegroom to his bride.
But our apostle sees within this declaration a deeper truth, kept secret from the foundation of the world. When he speaks of “this great mystery,” he means thereby not marriage itself, but the saying of Adam about it. This text was a standing problem to the Jewish interpreters. “But for my part,” says the apostle, “I refer it to Christ and to the Church.” St. Paul, who has so often before drawn the parallel between Adam and Christ, by the light of this analogy perceives a new and rich meaning in the old. dark sentence. It helps him to see how believers in Christ, forming collectively His body, are not only grafted into Him (as he puts it in the epistle to the Romans), but were derived from Him and formed in the very mould of His nature.
What is affirmed in Col 1:16-17, concerning the universe in general, is true in its perfect degree of redeemed humanity: “In Him were created all things,” as well as “through Him and for Him.” Eve was created in Adam; and Adam in Christ. We are “partakers of a Divine nature,” by our spiritual origin in Him who is the image of God and the root of humanity. The union of the first human pair and every true marriage since, being in effect, as Adam puts it, a restoration and redintegration, symbolises the fellowship of Christ with mankind. This intention Was in the mind of God at the institution of human life; it took expression in the prophetic words of the Book of Genesis, whose deeper sense St. Paul is now able for the first time to unfold.
In our union through grace and faith with Christ crucified, we realise again the original design of our being. Christ has purchased by His blood no new or foreign bride, but her who was His from eternity, -the child who had wandered from the Fathers house, the betrothed who had left her Lord and Spouse. In regard to this “mystery of our coherence in Christ,” Richard Hooker says, in words that suggest many aspects of this doctrine: “The Church is in Christ, as Eve was in Adam. Yea, by grace we are every one of us in Christ and in His Church, as by nature we are in our first parents. God made Eve of the rib of Adam. And His Church He frameth out of the very flesh, the very wounded and bleeding side of the Son of man. His body crucified and His blood shed for the life of the world are the true elements of that heavenly being which maketh us such as Himself is of whom we come. For which cause the words of Adam may be fitly the words of Christ concerning His Church, flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones-a true native extract out of mine own body. So that in Him, even according to His manhood, we according to our heavenly being are as branches in that root out of which they grow.”