Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
30. members ] Limbs; the word used above Eph 4:25; and cp. Rom 12:4-5; 1Co 6:15 (a strict parallel), 1Co 12:27.
of his flesh, and of his bones ] Three important MSS. (AB ) supported by other but not considerable authority, omit these words. It has been suggested that they were inserted by transcribers from Gen 2:23, as the next verse is certainly quoted from Gen 2:24. But the phrase here is not verbally close enough to that in Gen. to make this likely. A transcriber would probably have given word for word, while the Apostle would as probably quote with a difference, such as we find here. And the difference is significant. “We” are not said here to be “bone of His bone &c.,” which might have seemed to imply that our physical frame is derived from that of the Incarnate Lord, but, more generally, “limbs of His body, out of His flesh and out of His bones.” Our true, spiritual, life and being is the derivative of His as He is our Second Adam, in a sense so strong and real as to be figured by the physical derivation of Eve from Adam. “As for any mixture of the substance of His flesh with ours,” says Hooker ( Eccl. Pol. v. 56, end), “the participation which we have of Christ includeth no such gross surmise [40] ”.
[40] The remarkable chapter which thus closes deserves very careful study. It will be seen that Hooker’s view of “Christ’s body in ours as a cause of immortality” is that it is “a cause by removing, through the death and merit of His own flesh, that which hindered the life of ours.”
In brief, this statement, in the light of other Scripture, amounts to the assertion that “we,” the believing Church, as such, are, as in the Case of Eve and Adam, at once the product of our Incarnate Lord’s existence as Second Adam, and His Bride. This profound and precious truth is not dwelt upon, however. Strictly speaking, it is only incidental here.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For we are members of his body – Of the body of Christ; see 1Co 11:3, note; 1Co 12:27, note; Joh 15:1-6, notes, and Eph 1:23, note. The idea here is, that there is a close and intimate union between the Christian and the Saviour – a union so intimate that they may be spoken of as one.
Of his flesh, and of his bones – There is an allusion here evidently to the language which Adam used respecting Eve. This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; Gen 2:23. It is language which is employed to denote the closeness of the marriage relation, and which Paul applies to the connection between Christ and his people. Of course, it cannot be understood literally. It is not true literally that our bones are a part of the bones of Christ, or our flesh of his flesh; nor should language ever be used that would imply a miraculous union. It is not a physical union, but a union of attachment; of feeling; of love. If we avoid the notion of a physical union, however, it is scarcely possible to use too strong language in describing the union of believers with the Lord Jesus. The Scriptures make use of language which is stronger than that employed to describe any other connection; and there is no union of affection so powerful as that which binds the Christian to the Saviour. So strong is it, that he is willing for it to forsake father, mother, and home; to leave his country, and to abandon his possessions; to go to distant lands and dwell among barbarians to make the Redeemer known; or to go to the cross or the stake from simple love to the Saviour. Account for it as people may, there has been manifested on earth nowhere else so strong an attachment as that which binds the Christian to the cross. It is stronger love that that which a man has for his own flesh and bones; for it makes him willing that his flesh should be consumed by fire, or his bones broken on the wheel rather than deny him. Can the infidel account for this strength of attachment on any other principle than that it has a divine origin?
(See the supplementary note, Rom 8:10, on the union between Christ and his people, in which it is shown that a mere union of feeling and love is far beneath the truth.)
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Eph 5:30
For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.
Membership in Christs body
I. The nature of membership with the body of Christ.
1. Members of the Church of Christ are such nominally and professedly. The Church is a visible organization–a city set on a hill, which cannot be hid–the light of the world, which must shine wherever it exists. Membership in Christs body supposes that we have been baptized, and are in the habit of receiving holy communion; also that we obey the laws, regulations, and discipline which have been made for the orderly government of the Church.
2. To be a member of the body of Christ implies that we are such spiritually and sincerely–in the homage of our minds, the devotion of our lives, and the affections of our hearts.
3. To be a member of the body of Christ implies pardon and regeneration.
II. The importance of becoming members of the body of Christ.
1. Membership with the visible Church of Christ is necessary in order to the existence and perpetuity of the Christian Church. A Church naturally supposes members, just as the whole supposes parts; there must be members, or there can be no Church.
2. Membership with the visible Church of Christ is necessary in order to a right understanding of some very important passages in the Word of God. The Bible knows nothing of solitary religion.
3. Membership with the body of Christ is necessary in order to the full and entire performance of ones religious duties.
(1) Sympathy.
(2) Mutual edification.
4. Membership with the body of Christ is necessary as it may help to assist us against our spiritual enemies.
5. Membership with the body of Christ is necessary to give some proof of our attachment to Jesus Christ and His cause.
6. Membership with the body of Christ is necessary if you consider the spiritual benefits to be derived from it. (P. Cooper.)
Members of Christs body
I. The doctrine. A difficult subject, liable to misrepresentation and abuse.
1. The apostle is speaking of believers only.
2. We must put away all sensual and carnal ideas from the consideration of this subject. It is a spiritual union that is here spoken of.
3. We must put away from the consideration of this subject all narrow-mindedness and bigotry. Now let us notice that the text conveys to us three ideas, as characteristic of the relation in which the Church stands to the Redeemer, viz.,
(1) Union;
(2) Dependence;
(3) Sympathy.
II. Duties resulting from this relation.
1. Love.
2. Reverence.
3. Obedience. (Dr. Raffles.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 30. We are members of his body] He has partaken of our nature, as we have partaken of the nature of Adam. And as he is the head of the Church and the Saviour of this body; so we, being members of the Church, are members of his mystical body. That is, we are united to him by one Spirit in the closest intimacy, even similar to that which the members have with the body.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
We are members of his body; his mystical body.
Of his flesh, and of his bones; as Eve was of Adams, Gen 2:23; only that was in a carnal way, this in a spiritual, as by the communication of Christs flesh and blood to us by the Spirit we are united to him, and members of him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
30. ForGreek,“Because” (1Co 6:15).Christ nourisheth and cherisheth the Church as being of one fleshwith Him. Translate, “Because we are members of His body (Hisliteral body), being OFHis flesh and of His bones” [ALFORD](Gen 2:23; Gen 2:24).The Greek expresses, “Being formed out of” or”of the substance of His flesh.” Adam’s deep sleep, whereinEve was formed from out of his opened side, is an emblem of Christ’sdeath, which was the birth of the Spouse, the Church. Joh 12:24;Joh 19:34; Joh 19:35,to which Eph 5:25-27allude, as implying atonement by His blood, and sanctificationby the “water,” answering to that which flowed from Hisside (compare also Joh 7:38;Joh 7:39; 1Co 6:11).As Adam gave Eve a new name, Hebrew, “Isha,“”woman,” formed from his own rib, Ish, “man,”signifying her formation from him, so Christ, Rev 2:17;Rev 3:12. Gen 2:21;Gen 2:23; Gen 2:24puts the bones first because the reference there is to thenatural structure. But Paul is referring to the flesh ofChrist. It is not our bones and flesh, but “we“that are spiritually propagated (in our soul and spirit now,and in the body hereafter, regenerated) from the manhood of Christwhich has flesh and bones. We are members of His glorified body (Joh6:53). The two oldest existing manuscripts, and Coptic orMemphitic version, omit “of His flesh and of His bones”;the words may have crept into the text through the Margin fromGe 2:23, Septuagint.However, IRENUS, 294,and the old Latin and Vulgate versions, with some goodold manuscripts, have them.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For we are members of his body,…. Not of his natural body, for this would make Christ’s human nature monstrous; Christ, as man, is of our flesh and of our bones, or a partaker of the same flesh and blood with us; or otherwise, his incarnation would have been of no service to us; and had our human nature been from Christ, it would not have been corrupted; but our bodies, flesh, and bones, are from the first, and not the second Adam, and so corrupt and sinful; Christ indeed, as God, is the former of all human nature, and, as man, was set up in God’s thoughts as the pattern of it; but the apostle is here speaking of the saints, not as men, but as Christians, as new creatures in Christ; and of what is peculiar to them; and therefore this must be understood of Christ’s mystical body the church; which is his by the Father’s gift, and his own purchase; and of which he is the head, and which is united to him; now of this saints are members; see Ro 12:5.
Of his flesh and of his bones: for so the church may be called, his own flesh, his flesh and bones, on account of the marriage relation she stands in to him, and that spiritual union there is between them, which these phrases are expressive of; and which the near relation of man and wife is an emblem of; these words are wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Ethiopic version.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Of his flesh and of his bones ( ). These words are in the Textus Receptus (Authorized Version) supported by D G L P cursives Syriac, etc., though wanting in Aleph A B 17 Bohairic. Certainly not genuine.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Omit of His flesh and of His bones.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For we are members of his body” (hoti melle esmen tou somatos autou) “Because we are members of his body (church body) or assembly.” As the first Adam had but one wife, Eve; as God the Father has but one wife, natural Israel; so Jesus Christ has but one Bride to which He is one day to be married, the church assembly, which is His one body, Eph 4:4; Joh 3:28-29; 2Co 11:1-2; Rev 19:5-9; Jer 3:8; Jer 3:14; Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:21-25. Just as the church cannot have two heads it cannot have two bodies (a local and universal), as erroneously held by some. As a body with two heads is a monstrosity so a head with two bodies would be a monstrosity.
2) “Of his flesh, and of his bones” (This statement is not found in Nestle Greek text); But the phrase, when used in the New Testament, simply affirms that our Lord’s church-body is made up and composed of human beings of living flesh and bones, not of mystical, invisible, intangible spirits. His church body is compared to the physical human body of flesh and bones, 1Co 12:12-27; Rom 12:4-5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. First, this is no exaggeration, but the simple truth. Secondly, he does not simply mean that Christ is a partaker of our nature, but expresses something higher ( καὶ ἐμφατικώτερον) and more emphatic.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
30. Members of his body Conceptually, but not literally; just as husband and wife are one flesh; not, in fact, one single material hermaphrodite body, but so imaged in fancy as thereby to illustrate literal truth more forcibly than any mere literal statement can. We are, also, members of Christ’s body, not as offspring derived from him, (as Eve from Adam,) but as one with him in love, as are man and wife.
Of his flesh, and of his bones These words are of doubtful genuineness. They are an evident allusion to Gen 2:23: “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.” Bengel says, Moses names “bones” first and Paul “flesh;” the former so because the bones are the supports of the natural frame; but in the new creation the “flesh” of Christ is the main element. Thus far, well; but, unfortunately, he adds: “Not our bones and flesh, but we ourselves are spiritually propagated from the humanity of Christ, which has flesh and bones.” It is not of propagation or derivation that St. Paul speaks, but of conceptual identity.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Eph 5:30-31. For we are members, &c. The Apostle had here two things in view; the one was, to press men to love their wives, by the example of Christ’s love to his church; and the force of the argument lay in this, that a man and his wife were one flesh, as Christ and his church were one; but this latter being a truth of the greater consequence of the two, he was as intent on settling it upon their minds, though it were but an incident, as the other, which was the argument he was upon: and therefore having said, Eph 5:29 that every one nourisheth and cherisheth his own flesh, as Christ doth the church, it was natural to subjoin the reason; viz. because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: this proposition he took as much care to have believed, as that it was the duty of husbands to love their wives; and when he had asserted this doctrine of Christ and his church being one, in the words of Adam concerning Eve, Gen 2:23. (which he, in his concise way of expressing himself, understands both of the wife, and of the church), he goes on with the words in Gen 2:24 which make their being one flesh a reason why a man was more strictly to be united to his wife, than to his parents, or any other relations. Instead of, For this cause, Eph 5:31 some would render the Greek, Answerably thereto, or on the other hand. See Mat 19:4-7 and Eph 5:28.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Eph 5:30 . Reason why Christ the church: because we are members of His body . is prefixed with emphasis; for we are not an accidens , but integral parts of His body. Comp. 1Co 12:27 .
. ] More precise definition of the just said, in order to express this relation as strongly as possible: (proceeding) from His flesh and from His bones . This form of expression is a reminiscence of Gen 2:23 , [283] where Adam expresses the origin of Eve out of his bones and out of his flesh, [284] to which origin the derivative relation of Christians to Christ is analogous, of course not physically, but in the spiritual, mystical sense, inasmuch as the Christian existence as such the specific being and spiritual nature of Christians proceeds from Christ, has in Christ its principle of origination , as in a physical manner Eve proceeded from Adam. The at any rate non-literal expressions are not intended to bear minuter interpretation. They do not affirm that believers are produced and taken out of Christ’s glorified body (Gess, Person Christi , p. 274 ff.; comp. Bisping), which is already forbidden by the expression “flesh and bones.” Rather is the same thing intended only brought, in accordance with the connection, into the definite sensuously genetic form of presentation suggested by Gen. l.c. which elsewhere is denoted by (2Co 5:17 ; Gal 6:15 ), as well as by , (Gal 2:20 ), by (Gal 3:27 ), by the relation of the to Christ (1Co 6:17 ), and in general by the expressions setting forth the Christian . [285] Comp. the , 2Pe 1:4 . With various modifications it has been explained of the spiritual origination from Christ already by Chrysostom (who understood the regeneration by baptism), Ambrosiaster, Theodoret, Oecumenius ( , , ), Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Vorstius (“spirituali tantum ratione ex ipso Christo quasi procreatos esse”), Calvin (“qui spiritus sui virtute nos in corpus suum inserit, ut vitam ex eo hauriamus”), Calovius, Bengel, Matthies, de Wette (who, however, in the second edition, regards the words as spurious), Hofmann, Reiche, and others; while, withal, Koppe (so also Meier) thought only arctissimam quamlibet conjunctionem to be denoted, whereby justice is not done to the genetic signification of the . Others explained it: in so far as we have the same human nature as He . So Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Thomas, Michaelis; comp. also Stolz and Rosenmller. Decidedly erroneous, partly because Paul could not in this sense say: “we are of Christ’s flesh and bone,” but only the converse: “Christ is of our flesh and bone” (Rom 1:3 ; Rom 9:5 ; Joh 1:14 ); partly because the element of having like nature with Christ would apply not merely to Christians, but to men as such generally. Others refer it to the crucifixion of Christ: “ex carne ejus et ossibus crucifixis , i.e. ex passione ejus predicata et credita ortum habuit ecclesia,” Grotius. Comp. already Cajetanus, as also Zanchius, Zachariae, Schenkel, having reference to Joh 6:51 f., Joh 14:18 ff. But the crucifixis is purely imported, and could the less be guessed here, inasmuch as from the words the history of Adam and Eve inevitably came to be recalled; and there is nothing to remind us (in opposition to Schenkel) of the “martyr-stake of the cross,” upon which Christ “ gave up ” His flesh and bones “and suffered them to be broken ” (? see Joh 19:33 ; Joh 19:36 ). Others, finally, have explained it of the real communion with the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper . So recently, [286] in addition to Kahnis and Thomasius, III. 2, p. 73, also Harless and Olshausen, the latter of whom says: “it is the self-communication of His divine-human nature, by which Christ makes us to be His flesh and bone; He gives His people His flesh to eat and His blood to drink.” But not even the semblance of a plea for explaining it of the Supper lies in the words; since Paul has not written , which would have been specific in the case of the Supper, but ! Rckert has renounced any attempt at explanation, and doubts whether Paul himself thought of anything definite in the words. A very needless despair of exegesis!
[283] This reminiscence the more readily suggested itself to the apostle, not only in general, because he was wont to think of Christ as the second Adam (Rom 5:12 ff.), but also specially because he was just treating of the subject of marriage .
[284] That Paul should not prefix , as in Gen 2:23 , but , was quite naturally suggested to him by ver. 29. The explanation of Bengel is arbitrary and far-fetched.
[285] Philo also, p. 1094, applies the words of Gen. l.c. to a spiritual relation to the relation of the soul to God. If the soul were better and more like God, it would be able to make use of those words, because, namely, it , .
[286] Many of the older expositors, following Theodoret and Theophylact, at least mixed up the Supper in various ways in their interpretation. So Beza and Calvin say that it is obsignatio et symbolum of the mystic fellowship with Christ here meant. Grotius found an allusion to the Supper; while, on the other hand, Calovius maintained that we were ex Christo not only by regeneration, but also by the communication of His body and blood in the Lord’s Supper.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 2123
UNION WITH CHRIST
Eph 5:30. We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
THAT the eternal Son of God assumed our nature, and lived and died for the salvation of men, is doubtless the fundamental truth on which we are to build our hopes. But we shall have a very partial view of that truth, if we consider it merely in reference to our acceptance with God. The Apostles state it as the strongest of all motives to obedience, and as the pattern which, as far as circumstances will admit of it, we are bound to imitate. To go no further than the context; St. Paul is stating the duties of husbands and wives: and, having observed that wives are to be as obedient to their husbands, in all lawful things, as the Church is to Christ, he shews, that husbands are not, however, at liberty to act the tyrant; but that they should at all times be influenced by love, and consult the good and happiness of their wives, as much as Christ himself does of the Church, to whom he stands in a similar relation [Note: ver. 2230.].
The words before us are, in this view, deserving of the deepest attention; since they not only unfold a most mysterious and important truth, but tend in the highest degree to meliorate our tempers, and to diffuse universal happiness. Let us consider then,
I.
The union which subsists between Christ and his Church
There is a personal union which Christ has with our nature, by means of his incarnation [Note: Joh 1:14.], and which was necessary for the executing of the great work which he had undertaken [Note: Heb 2:11; Heb 2:14; Heb 2:16.]. But in this the whole human race participate, without any distinction. The union which Christ has with the Church is distinct from that, and is,
1.
Legal
[There is, among men, an union between a debtor and his surety; insomuch that, if a debt be not discharged, the surety is as much answerable for it as if he had contracted it himself: and if, on the contrary, it be discharged by the surety, the creditor has no further claim on him that contracted it. Thus it is with respect to Christ and his Church. He is the surety of the new covenant [Note: Heb 7:22.]: having undertaken for us, he was charged with our debt; it was exacted of him, and he was made answerable [Note: Isa 53:7. Bishop Lowths version.]. Having paid the debt, his payment is put to our account; By his obedience we are made righteous [Note: Rom 5:19.]. In a word, He who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we (who had no righteousness) might be made the righteousness of God in him [Note: 2Co 5:21.].]
2.
Spiritual
[Very much is spoken in Scripture respecting the spiritual union which subsists between Christ and his people. To mark that they stand by him alone, it is compared to a foundation and the superstructure [Note: Eph 2:20-22.]. To shew that he is the one source of vital influence to them all, it is illustrated by a root and the branches [Note: Joh 15:5.]. To intimate that one Spirit pervades both him and them [Note: 1Co 6:17.], it is set forth under the image of a body; he being the Head, and they the members [Note: Eph 4:15-16.]. To convey some idea of the tender endearments with which it is accompanied, it is shadowed forth by a marriage union. This is the representation given in the text. He is our husband [Note: Isa 54:5.]; and we are his bride [Note: Rev 21:9.]: and, as Adam said of Eve when she was brought to him, She is flesh of my flesh, and bone of my bones [Note: Gen 2:23.], so may we say respecting the Lord Jesus Christ, We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Whatever beauty there is in all the other figures, methinks there is a peculiar propriety in that which is now under our consideration, because it marks that volition, yea, and those means also, whereby the union is effected. The Lord Jesus Christ displays before our eyes his excellency and glory, his suitableness and sufficiency; and, by the constraining influence of his love, inclines us to leave all that has hitherto been esteemed by us, in order to connect ourselves with him, and enjoy his presence [Note: Psa 45:10-11. Mar 10:29-30.]. We accept that gracious proposal, Thou shalt not be for another man; so will I also be for thee [Note: Hos 3:3.]. and being thus engaged by a solemn covenant, we surrender up ourselves to him, whether it be for better or for worse in this world, determining through grace to be faithful unto him, even until death.]
We prosecute the idea of a marriage union no further at present, because it will be more fully opened, while we shew,
II.
The blessings resulting from it
It is needless to expatiate upon the comforts and benefits of that relation among men: but we cannot be too minute in specifying the blessings that result from an union with Christ. The chief of them will come under our review, while we observe, that,
1.
He has communion with us in all our trials
[One who understands the duties of a husband, and labours faithfully to discharge them, is ever ready to sympathize with his partner in her afflictions of whatever kind, and solicitous to the utmost to relieve them. What is done to her, whether it be good or evil, he considers it as done to himself. Thus it is with our blessed Lord. Are we tempted? a consciousness of his relation to us calls forth his sympathy, and engages his utmost exertions on our behalf [Note: Heb 2:17-18; Heb 4:15.] Are we persecuted? He feels in his inmost soul the dagger that pierces us [Note: Zec 2:8. Act 9:4.] Do we labour under distresses of any kind? In all our afflictions he is afflicted [Note: Isa 63:9.]; and every attempt made to mitigate our trouble, he accepts, as if he himself were personally relieved [Note: Mat 25:35-40.] ]
2.
We have communion with him in all his benefits
[A woman, from whatever rank she be taken, is no sooner united in the marriage-bond, than she is exalted to a participation of all the honours and possessions of her husband. Thus it is with the Church when united unto Christ. Is he possessed of a perfect righteousness, commensurate with the highest demands of law and justice? They who are joined to him by faith, are partakers of it all, and may boldly call him, The Lord our Righteousness [Note: Jer 23:6.]. However sinful they may have been in former times, in him shall they be justified, and in him may they glory [Note: Isa 45:24-25.] Has he within himself an inexhaustible fountain of grace [Note: Col 1:19.]? They may receive it out of his fulness [Note: Joh 1:16.]: and having had a measure of it communicated to them, they may go to him for more [Note: Jam 4:6.]: yea, whatever supplies they may need, they shall have sufficient for them [Note: 2Co 12:9.]; sufficient to mortify every sin [Note: Rom 6:14.], to fulfil every duty [Note: Php 4:13.], to triumph over every enemy [Note: Rom 8:37.] Is he enthroned on high, the heir and Lord of all things [Note: Heb 1:2.]? Let not his people think that even these things are too great for them: for they shall have a throne like unto his throne [Note: Rev 3:21.], a kingdom like unto his kingdom [Note: Luk 22:29.], a glory like unto his glory [Note: Joh 17:22.] ]
Address
1.
Those who have reason to believe that they are married to Christ [Note: Jer 3:14. Isa 62:5.]
[If we congratulate our friends when they are settled in life with a fair prospect of happiness, shall we not much more congratulate you; you, who by your connexion with Christ are become children of the living God [Note: Joh 1:12.]? What earthly advancement can be compared with this? Who among the children of men is so wise to discern, so tender to regard, so able to relieve, your every want? We hope that you know your union with him. It is certainly your privilege to know it, and to rejoice in it [Note: Joh 14:20.]. Rejoice then in the Lord alway, and again I say, Rejoice [Note: Php 4:4.] But together with your privileges, remember also the duties which this high relation bringeth with it. Would you be unfaithful to him, or grieve him in any thing? God forbid. Remember the fervent attachment [Note: Tit 2:4.], the humble reverence [Note: Eph 5:33.], the unreserved submission [Note: Eph 5:22; Eph 5:24. 1Pe 3:1; 1Pe 3:5-6.], which a dutiful wife feels towards her husband: and let these feelings be transferred in the highest possible degree to your august Head [Note: Eph 5:23. 1Co 11:3.] and be exercised towards him without any intermission or alloy [Note: If this were preached on the occasion of a Marriage, it would be proper to shew to the parties present, that their cheerful performance of their relative duties is indispensable, as an evidence of their union to Christ.]. ]
2.
Those who have no evidence that such an union has been formed
[They who have felt no need of an union with Christ, will be ready to say, like Ezekiels hearers, Ah! Lord God, doth he not speak parables [Note: Eze 20:49.]? But indeed we speak forth the words of truth and soberness [Note: Act 26:25.]. You hope to bring forth fruit to God in some other way than by an union with Christ: but you may as well expect a branch to be fruitful, when separated from the vine [Note: Joh 15:4-5.]. The image in the text is applied by St. Paul in reference to this very thing: he tells us, that we must be married unto Christ, that we may bring forth fruit unto God [Note: Rom 7:4.]. Moreover, if you be not united to Christ in this world, you will in vain hope for an union with him in the world to come. This is the time wherein you are to be betrothed to him. Seek then to know him: seek to become an object of his regard: seek to be united to him as intimately as he is to his Heavenly Father [Note: Joh 17:21; Joh 6:56-57.]. Be not contented with seeking, but strive; strive to obtain an interest in his favour; nor cease from your labour till you can say, My beloved is mine, and I am his [Note: Son 2:16.]. Then shall you have the most delightful fellowship with him [Note: 1Jn 1:3.]: you shall have such manifestations of his regard, as the world can neither know nor receive [Note: Joh 14:21-22. ib. ver. 17.]: and, when all earthly connexions shall cease, your happiness shall be consummated in the everlasting fruition of his love [Note: 1Th 4:17.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
Ver. 30. Of his flesh, and of his bones ] While he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit, 1Co 6:17 . This union is neither natural, nor corporal, nor political, nor personal, but mystical and spiritual; and yet it is no less true and real than that of God the Father and God the Son,Joh 17:21-22Joh 17:21-22 . For as the Holy Ghost did unite in the Virgin’s womb the Divine and human natures of Christ, and made them one person; by reason whereof Christ is of our flesh and of our bones; so the Spirit unites that person of Christ, his whole person, God-man, with our persons, by reason whereof we are of his flesh and of his bones.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
30 .] For (again a link is omitted; ‘the church, which stands in the relation of marriage to Him: for, &c.’) members we are of His Body [, ( being ) of His flesh, and of His bones (see Gen 2:23 . As the woman owed her natural being to the man, her source and head, so we owe our entire spiritual being to Christ, our source and head: and as the woman was one flesh with the man in this natural relation, so we in our entire spiritual relation, body, soul, and Spirit, are one with Christ, God manifested in our humanity, parts and members of His glorified Body. Bengel well remarks, that we are not, as in Gen., l. c. , .: ‘non ossa et caro nostra, sed nos spiritualiter propagamur ex humanitate Christi, carnem et ossa habente’)]: wherefore (the allusion, or rather free citation, is still carried on: cf. Gen 2:24 : i.e. because we are members of Him in the sense just insisted on. This whole verse is said (see on Eph 5:32 below) not of human marriages, but of Christ and the church. He is the in the Apostle’s view here, the Church is the . But for all this, I would not understand the words, as Meyer, in a prophetical sense of the future coming of Christ: the omission of the article before sufficiently retains the general aphorismatic sense: but would regard the saying as applied to that, past, present, and future, which constitutes Christ’s Union to His Bride the Church: His leaving the Father’s bosom, which is past His gradual preparation of the union, which is present : His full consummation of it, which is future . This seems to me to be necessary, because we are as truly now with Him, as we shall be, when heaven and earth shall ring with the joy of the nuptials; and hence the exclusive future sense is inapplicable. In this allegorical sense (see below), Chrys., Jer., and most of the ancients: Beng., Grot., Mey. (as above), al., interpret: and Eadie would have done well to study more deeply the spirit of the context before he characterized it as ‘strange romance,’ ‘wild and visionary,’ and said, ‘there is no hint that the Apostle intends to allegorize.’ That allegory, on the contrary, is the key to the whole ) shall a man leave father and mother and shall be closely joined to his wife, and they two shall become (see Mat 19:5 , note) one flesh (‘non solum uti antea, respectu ortus: sed respectu nov conjunctionis.’ Beng.).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Eph 5:30 . : for we are members of His body . The , which is the heart of the statement, has the emphatic position. We are not something apart from Christ, nor do we occupy only an accidental relation to Him. We are veritable parts of that body of which He is head, and this is the reason why He nourishes and cherishes the Church; cf. the detailed description in 1Co 12:12-27 . , : being of His flesh and of His bones . This sentence, which is added by the TR, has considerable documentary testimony [679] [680] [681] [682] [683] [684] , most cursives, such Versions as the Syr. and the Arm., and such Fathers as Iren., Jer., etc. If it is retained, as is done by Mey., Ell., Reiche, Alf., etc., it will be an explanation of the affirmation that we are , drawn from the thought of our origin ( ). We are members of Christ’s body, as having the source of our spiritual being in Him. This statement of our spiritual origin is expressed in terms like those used of the origin of our physical life, the allusion being probably to the record of the formation of Eve in Gen 2:23 . As the first woman derived her physical being from Adam in the way there recorded, so we Christians draw our spiritual being from Christ. The evidence, however, is decidedly adverse, the clause not appearing in [685] [686] [687] [688] , 17, 67 2 , Boh., Eth., Method., Euthal., Origen (prob.), etc. The internal evidence may be said to be against it, in so far, e.g. , as a new figure is suddenly introduced, the statement is carried beyond the idea of relationship , and no clear or congruous meaning can be readily attached to the new terms, flesh and bones . Nor is it easy in face of evidence so old and so various to suppose that the words were mistakenly omitted by homoteleuton. The clause, therefore, is deleted from the text by LTTrWHRV; Tr., however, giving it a place on the margin.
[679] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[680] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[681] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[682] 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.
[683] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[684] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .
[685] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[686] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[687] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[688] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
members. See Eph 4:25. Compare Rom 12:4, Rom 12:5; 1Co 6:15; 1Co 12:27.
of His body. Being part of the Bridegroom, the church which is His body is not the “bride”, as is so commonly taught.
of . . . bones. The texts omit.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
30.] For (again a link is omitted; the church, which stands in the relation of marriage to Him: for, &c.) members we are of His Body [,-(being) of His flesh, and of His bones (see Gen 2:23. As the woman owed her natural being to the man, her source and head, so we owe our entire spiritual being to Christ, our source and head: and as the woman was one flesh with the man in this natural relation, so we in our entire spiritual relation, body, soul, and Spirit, are one with Christ, God manifested in our humanity,-parts and members of His glorified Body. Bengel well remarks, that we are not, as in Gen., l. c. , .:-non ossa et caro nostra, sed nos spiritualiter propagamur ex humanitate Christi, carnem et ossa habente)]: wherefore (the allusion, or rather free citation, is still carried on: cf. Gen 2:24 :-i.e. because we are members of Him in the sense just insisted on. This whole verse is said (see on Eph 5:32 below) not of human marriages, but of Christ and the church. He is the in the Apostles view here, the Church is the . But for all this, I would not understand the words, as Meyer, in a prophetical sense of the future coming of Christ:-the omission of the article before sufficiently retains the general aphorismatic sense:-but would regard the saying as applied to that, past, present, and future, which constitutes Christs Union to His Bride the Church: His leaving the Fathers bosom, which is past-His gradual preparation of the union, which is present: His full consummation of it, which is future. This seems to me to be necessary, because we are as truly now with Him, as we shall be, when heaven and earth shall ring with the joy of the nuptials;-and hence the exclusive future sense is inapplicable. In this allegorical sense (see below), Chrys., Jer., and most of the ancients: Beng., Grot., Mey. (as above), al., interpret: and Eadie would have done well to study more deeply the spirit of the context before he characterized it as strange romance, wild and visionary, and said, there is no hint that the Apostle intends to allegorize. That allegory, on the contrary, is the key to the whole) shall a man leave father and mother and shall be closely joined to his wife, and they two shall become (see Mat 19:5, note) one flesh (non solum uti antea, respectu ortus: sed respectu nov conjunctionis. Beng.).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Eph 5:30. , because) The reason why the Lord nourishes and cherishes the Church, is the very close relationship, which is here expressed in the words of Moses regarding Eve, accommodated to the present subject. The Church is propagated from Christ, as Eve was from Adam; and this propagation is the foundation of the spiritual marriage: for this cause, Eph 5:31.- , of His body) The body here does not mean the Church, which is contained in the subject, we are, but the body of Christ Himself.-, of) Gen 2:23-24, in the LXX.- , , . , . , .- , …, of His flesh) Moses mentions bones first, Paul flesh; because it is the bones chiefly that support the natural structure, of which the former (Moses) is speaking; but in the new creation [of which Paul is speaking], the flesh of Christ is more considered. Moreover, Moses speaks more fully; Paul omits what does not so much belong to the subject in hand. It is not our bones and our flesh, but we, that are spiritually propagated from the humanity of Christ, which has flesh and bones.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Eph 5:30
Eph 5:30
because we are members of his body.-We, as members of the church, which is the body of Christ, are members or partakers of his body. Our union with him is close and strong. He is head in the sense that from him all the strength and power comes, all the wisdom descends. He is the center to which all the members are bound, from him all the impulses and guidance flow. The members of the church should be as subject to the mind of Christ as the members of the body are subject to the will of its head. The head through the nervous organization conveys its mandates to the members of the body, and they move at his slightest wish and obey faithfully its mandates. Christ the head of the church bears his mandates to the body through the mind. The will of Christ is contained in the New Testament. That the will may be conveyed to the body, we must take that will into the mind, learn it, study it, and have it so in the heart that it molds the mind and guides the very emotions. In this way only can we have the mind of Christ. When we learn the mind that was in Christ, we must perform it willingly, as the members of our body obey our own mind. This is the only way of receiving the mind of Christ; the only way of receiving his Spirit that we may be guided thereby. Unless we have, and are guided by the mind of Christ, we are none of his. Let it sink deep into every mind that our lack of obedience is a lack of faith or trust in God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Eph 1:23, Gen 2:23, Rom 12:5, 1Co 6:15, 1Co 12:12-27, Col 2:19
Reciprocal: Gen 29:14 – art my Jdg 9:2 – your bone 2Sa 5:1 – we 2Sa 19:12 – my bones 1Ch 11:1 – Behold Mat 25:40 – ye have done it unto me Joh 2:1 – a marriage Joh 17:26 – that Act 9:4 – why 1Co 6:17 – General 1Co 12:27 – General Gal 3:16 – which Eph 3:6 – the same Eph 4:4 – one body Eph 4:25 – for Rev 21:2 – as
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Eph 5:30.) , , -For members we are of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. The last two clauses beginning with are not found in A, B, and other Codices of less note, such as 17 and 672; but they are found in D, E, F, G, K, L, almost all mss., in Chrysostom and Theodoret, and in the Syriac and Vulgate versions. We cannot, therefore, exclude them with Lachmann and Davidson, Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 378. Tischendorf adopts them in his seventh edition. They have been omitted at first, as de Wette suggests, by a ; . . . , or because they seem to express gross and material ideas. This verse adduces a reason why Christ nourishes and cherishes the church, for it stands in the nearest and dearest relation to Him. We are members of His body, as being members of His church, and, as members of that body, we are nourished and cherished by the Head- in both the last clauses pointing to origin. Winer, 47. See under Eph 4:15-16. Bengel, Harless, Olshausen, and Stier understand by the actual personal body of Jesus-the body of His glorified humanity. But in what sense are or can we be members–of that body? It has its own organs and members, which it took in the Virgin’s womb. But the apostle has his thoughts occupied with conjugal duties, and he has, in subordination to this, introduced Christ and His church as bridegroom and bride; therefore his mind reverts naturally to the imagery and language of the original matrimonial institute, and so he adds-we are members of His flesh and of His bones. Gen 2:23. The argument of Harless against this view, which appears so natural, is lame and inconclusive, and he holds the opinion, that the two clauses are simply a further explanation of the statement-we are members of His body. What is really meant by the striking phraseology has been a subject of no little dispute.
1. Cajetan, Vatablus, Calovius, Bullinger, Vorstius, Grotius, Zanchius, and Zachariae refer the words to the origin of the church from the flesh and bones of Christ, nailed to the cross, and there presented to God. Such an idea is neither prominent in the words nor latent in the context.
2. Not more satisfactory is the view which is held in part by Theodoret, by Calvin, Beza, and Grotius, who find in the phrase a reference to the Lord’s Supper. Kahnis, Abendmahl, p. 143. These critics differ in the way in which they understand such a reference, and no wonder; for the communion there enjoyed is only a result of the union which this verse describes. Strange, if there be any allusion to the eucharist, that there is a reference to the bones, but none to the blood of Christ.
3. Not so remote from the real sense is the opinion of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrosiaster, OEcumenius, Bengel, and Matthies, who suppose an allusion in the phraseology to that new birth which is effected by Christ, as if it had been shadowed out by Eve’s extraction from Adam’s side. OEcumenius says- . It is indeed as renewed men that believers have any fellowship with Christ. But the idea of birth is not naturally nor necessarily implied in the apostle’s language, and it is founded upon an incorrect interpretation of our Lord’s expression about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. Joh 6:53.
4. As plausible is the theory which explains the clauses by a reference to that identity of nature which Christ and His people possess. They are partakers of one humanity. Chrysostom and Theophylact also give this view; Irenaeus, Augustine, and Jerome maintain it; and it has been held by Thomas Aquinas, Aretius, Cocceius, and Michaelis. The reply, that in that case the language must have been, He took upon Him our flesh and bone, has been met by Estius, who says, the language is just, because in His incarnate state He is the Head and we are only members. But our principal objection is, that this simple community of nature with Christ is common to all men; whereas it is only of believers, and of a union peculiar to them, that the apostle speaks.
5. We confess our inability to understand the meaning of Bisping, Olshausen, and others. The words refer, they say, to Christ’s imparting of His glorified humanity to believers through the communion of His flesh and blood. . . . It is by the self-communication of His divine-human (theanthropic) nature that Christ makes us His flesh and bone. He gives to His followers His flesh to eat and His blood to drink. Bisping, a Romanist, says, In the regeneration through baptism, the glorified body of Christ is communicated to us. That is, as he explains, the germ of the resurrection of the body is implanted in us at baptism, and this germ is only an outflow from Christ’s glorified body. Such an idea could only be consistently based on the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, or some species of pantheism, or what Turner calls Panchristism. But-
6. The apostle has the idea of marriage and its relations before him, and he employs the imagery of the original institute, which first depicted the unity of man and wife, to describe the origin and union of the church and Christ. As the woman was literally, by being taken out of Adam, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh; as this duality sprung from unity, and was speedily resolved into it: so the church is originated out of Christ, and, united to Him as its Head or Husband, is one with Him. The language is, therefore, a metaphorical expression of this union, borrowed from the graphic diction of Genesis; and this image evidently presented itself to the apostle’s mind from its connection with the origin and nature of those conjugal duties which he is inculcating in the paragraph before us. The error of Meyer’s exegesis is his restriction of the imagery to the one example of Adam and Eve, whereas it has its verification in every nuptial union, and hence the apostle’s use of it. As Eve derived her life and being out of Adam, and was physically of his body, his flesh, and his bones, so believers are really of Christ-of His body, His flesh, and His bones, for they are one with Christ in nature and derive their life from His humanity, nay, are connected with Him, not simply and generally by a spiritual union, but in some close and derivative way which the apostle calls a mystery, with His body; so that they live as its members, and become with it one flesh. Besides, in the next verse, the apostle takes his readers to the source of his imagery-
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Eph 5:30. The terms of this verse are literal as they pertain to the members of the fleshly body. That is why the blood of Christ is not mentioned, for He did not have any blood even after coming from the grave (Joh 19:34; Luk 24:39). However, the application is to our relationship with Christ and with each other (Rom 12:4-5; 1Co 12:27).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Eph 5:30. Because we are members of his body. The thought is quite familiar (see marginal references); here it gives a reason for Christs nourishing and cherishing His Church; it is His mystical body, made up of members, integral parts, of one organic whole. This organic whole is not the church which is included in the term we, but Christ mystical, the Head and the members, Christ and His Church. This holds good, even if we omit the latter half of the verse, which seems necessary, now that the weight of the Sinaitic manuscript (first hand) has been added to that of the two next in age (and of other authorities). It was probably inserted from Gen 2:23 (where however the order is reversed). As however the omission can be accounted for, many good editors retain it. If retained it should be referred to the mystical relation between Christ and His people, which is analogous to the physical derivation of Eve from Adam (comp. Gen 2:23, of which the clause is a reminiscence) and the union between them. The idea of vital union with Christ is included as well as that of the derivation of our spiritual life from Him. But the sacramentarian interpretation, which refers it to our partaking of the substance of Christs body, fosters materialistic conceptions of the union, and seeks to explain one mystery by propounding another. Moreover as this passage does not speak of body and blood, but of flesh and bones, the reference to the Lords Supper is quite doubtful.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
30. Because we are members of His body, as I freely use all of my members conservatively of my body, so Christ has a perfect right to use every saint in perfect harmony with his sovereign will and infinite wisdom conservatively of his glory.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
As the Lord cherishes and cares for the church, which we men are an integrated part of, we should care for our wives so that they are as healthy as we within the body of Christ. Seems to complete that thought that the man is to see to the spiritual upbringing and nourishment of his own wife.
This may have some relation to what Adam said in Gen 2:23 “And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
The relationship is as one – divorce has no place in the Christian man’s mind.
Barnes goes on to describe the relationship between the believer and Christ – a relationship I am not sure most modern Christians could agree with. “The Scriptures make use of language which is stronger than that employed to describe any other connexion; and there is no union of affection so powerful as that which binds the Christian to the Saviour. So strong is it, that he is willing for it to forsake father, mother, and home; to leave his country, and to abandon his possessions; to go to distant lands, and dwell among barbarians, to make the Redeemer known; or to go to the cross or the stake from simple love to the Saviour. Account for it as men may, there has been manifested on earth nowhere else so strong an attachment as that which binds the Christian to the cross. It is stronger love than that which a man has for his own flesh and bones; for it makes him willing that his flesh should be consumed by fire, or his bones broken on the wheel, rather than deny him. Can the infidel account for this strength of attachment on any other principle than that it has a Divine origin?”
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
5:30 For we are members of his body, {q} of his flesh, and of his bones.
(q) He alludes to the making of the woman, which signifies our union with Christ, which is accomplished by faith, but is signified in the ordinance of the Lord’s supper.