Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 5:31
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
31. For this cause, &c.] The Gr. in this verse is practically identical with that of Gen 2:24. We may reverently infer that the Apostle was guided to see in that verse a Divine parable of the Coming Forth of the Lord, the Man of Men, from the Father, and His present and eternal mystical Union with the true Church, His Bride.
“ For this cause: ” the cause of His (covenanted and foreseen) Union with us as Incarnate, Sacrificed, and Risen; in order to realize that Divine Idea.
joined ] A kindred word is used in a kindred passage, full of importance here, 1Co 6:17.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For this cause – Anti toutou. This verse is a quotation from Gen 2:24, and contains the account of the institution of marriage. The meaning of the phrase rendered for this cause is, answerably to this; or corresponding to this – that is, to what Paul had just said of the union of believers and the Redeemer. On the meaning of this verse, see the notes on Mat 19:4. There is no evidence that the marriage connection was originally designed to symbolize or typify this union, but it may be used to illustrate that connection, and to show the strength of the attachment between the Redeemer and his people. The comparison should be confined, however, strictly to the use made of it in the New Testament.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Eph 5:31
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Husbands and wives
Marriage is the most dignified, honourable, and helpful relationship into which we can enter.
1. It is a relationship of mutual sympathy.
2. It is a relationship of mutual sacredness. There is no authority which can constrain into marriage, and there is none which of itself can dissolve the tie.
3. It is a relationship of mutual honour.
4. It is a relationship of mutual responsibility. (W. Braden.)
The mystery of marriage
I. The counsel that God had about Adams marriage with Eve.
1. The Lord made Adam before He thought of a wife for him.
2. Among all the created things God could not find a help meet for Adam.
3. God, in blessing Adam, blessed her afterwards to be made.
II. The creation of the woman out of the man.
III. The marriage itself.
1. God brought the woman to Adam.
2. When brought, he consented and owned her.
IV. The consequence of Adams marriage.
1. A union.
2. A rule for all time–that the wife cleave to her husband. (T. Goodwin, D. D.)
Qualities of a good wife
An old author says, A good wife should be like three things, which three things she should not be like.
1. She should be like a snail, to keep within her own house; but she should not be like the snail, to carry all she has upon her back.
2. She should be like an echo, to speak when spoken to; but she should not be like an echo, always to have the last word.
3. She should be like a town clock, always to keep time and regularity; but she should not be like a town clock, speak so loud that all the town may hear her.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 31. Shall be joined unto his wife] . He shall be glued or cemented to her; and, as a well-glued board will sooner break in the whole wood than in the glued joint, so death alone can part the husband and wife; and nothing but death should dissolve their affection. See Clarke’s notes on Ge 2:21-24.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For this cause; because the woman was formed of the flesh and bones of the man. He refers to Adams words, Gen 2:24.
Shall a man leave his father and mother; as to cohabitation, and domestic conversation; or, let a inan rather leave his father and mother than not cleave to his wife. The apostle doth not cancel the obligations of other relations, but prefers this before them.
They two shall be one flesh; i.e. one body, or one man, viz. by the marriage bond, whereby each hath power over the others body, 1Co 7:4.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
31. ForThe propagation of theChurch from Christ, as that of Eve from Adam, is the foundation ofthe spiritual marriage. The natural marriage, wherein “a manleaves father and mother (the oldest manuscripts omit ‘his’) and isjoined unto his wife,” is not the principal thing meant here,but the spiritual marriage represented by it, and on which itrests, whereby Christ left the Father’s bosom to woo to Himself theChurch out of a lost world: Eph5:32 proves this: His earthly mother as such, also, Heholds in secondary account as compared with His spiritual Bride(Luk 2:48; Luk 2:49;Luk 8:19-21; Luk 11:27;Luk 11:28). He shall again leaveHis Father’s abode to consummate the union (Mat 25:1-10;Rev 19:7).
they two shall be onefleshSo the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, c.,read (Ge 2:24), instead of “theyshall be one flesh.” So Mt19:5. In natural marriage, husband and wife combine the elementsof one perfect human being: the one being incomplete without theother. So Christ, as God-man, is pleased to make the Church, thebody, a necessary adjunct to Himself, the Head. He is the archetypeof the Church, from whom and according to whom, as the pattern, sheis formed. He is her Head, as the husband is of the wife (Rom 6:51Co 11:3; 1Co 15:45).Christ will never allow any power to sever Himself and His bride,indissolubly joined (Mat 19:6;Joh 10:28; Joh 10:29;Joh 13:1).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,…. These words contain the law of marriage, and are cited from Ge 2:24; and declare what ought to be, and are a prophecy of what should be; and are observed against polygamy, and to stir up mutual affection; [See comments on Mt 19:5].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For this cause ( ). “Answering to this” = of Ge 2:24, in the sense of seen in ‘ (Lu 12:3). This whole verse is a practical quotation and application of the language to Paul’s argument here. In Mt 19:5 Jesus quotes Ge 2:24. It seems absurd to make Paul mean Christ here by (man) as some commentators do.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Shall be joined [] . Only here; and Mr 10:7.
See on Luk 14:15. The compound verb denotes most intimate union.
Shall be one flesh [ ] . The A. V. overlooks the force of eijv unto. Lit., shall be unto one flesh. Rev., shall become.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother _(anti toutou kataleipsei anthropos [ton] Patera kai [ten] metera) “For this cause or reason shall a man be separated from his father and his mother.” Since Christ loves and cherishes the church, sustaining and protecting her, so should the husband love, cherish, and sustain the wife.
2) “And shall be joined unto his wife” (kai proskollethesetai pros ten gunaika autou)-m-And shall cleave, hold solely to his own wife,” as Divinely ordained from the union of Adam and Eve, Gen 2:24. To be “joined to” or “cleave to” derives from an original Hebrew word “davak” which means “to glue to”, “to stick to” his wife.
3) “And they two shall be one flesh” (kai esontai hoi duo eis sarka mian) “And the two shall be for, as if, or with reference to one flesh;” the purpose of marital design for propagation of the human race through the family unit of society, Gen 3:16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
31. For this cause. This is an exact quotation from the writings of Moses. (Gen 2:24.) And what does it mean? As Eve was formed out of the substance of her husband, and thus was a part of himself; so, if we are the true members of Christ, we share his substance, and by this intercourse unite into one body. In short, Paul describes our union to Christ, a symbol and pledge of which is given to us in the ordinance of the supper. Those who talk about the torture exercised on this passage to make it refer to the Lord’s supper, while no mention is made of the supper, but of marriage, are egregiously mistaken. When they admit that the death of Christ is commemorated in the supper, but not that such intercourse exists as we assert from the words of Christ, we quote this passage against them. Paul says that we are members of his flesh and of his bones. Do we wonder then, that in the Lord’s supper he holds out his body to be enjoyed by us, and to nourish us unto eternal life? Thus we prove that the only union which we maintain to be represented by the Lord’s supper is here declared in its truth and consequences by the apostle.
Two subjects are exhibited together; for the spiritual union between Christ and his church is so treated as to illustrate the common law of marriage, to which the quotation from Moses relates. He immediately adds, that the saying is fulfilled in Christ and the church. Every opportunity which presents itself for proclaiming our obligations to Christ is readily embraced, but he adapts his illustration of them to the present subject. It is uncertain whether Moses introduces Adam as using these words, or gives them as an inference drawn by himself from the creation of man. Nor is it of much consequence which of these views be taken; for, in either case, we must hold it to be an announcement of the will of God, enjoining the duties which men owe to their wives.
He shall leave his father and mother. As if he had said, “Let him rather leave his father and mother than not cleave to his wife.” The marriage bond does not set aside the other duties of mankind, nor are the commandments of God so inconsistent with each other, that a man cannot be a good and faithful husband without ceasing to be a dutiful son. It is altogether a question of degree. Moses draws the comparison, in order to express more strongly the close and sacred union which subsists between husband and wife. A son is bound by an inviolable law of nature to perform his duties towards his father; and when the obligations of a husband towards his wife are declared to be stronger, their force is the better understood. He who resolves to be a good husband will not fail to perform his filial duties, but will regard marriage as more sacred than all other ties.
And they two shall be one flesh. They shall be one man, or, to use a common phrase, they shall constitute one person; which certainly would not hold true with regard to any other kind of relationship. All depends on this, that the wife was formed of the flesh and bones of her husband. Such is the union between us and Christ, who in some sort makes us partakers of his substance. “We are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh,” (Gen 2:23😉 not because, like ourselves, he has a human nature, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he makes us a part of his body, so that from him we derive our life.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(31) For this cause.In spite of much authority, it seems far simpler to consider the words Even as the Lord . . . His bones as parenthetical, and refer back to Eph. 5:28-29. In exactly the same way our Lord quotes the same verse of Genesis (Gen. 2:24) to show the indissoluble character of the marriage tie. Here the similarity of connection with that of the original passage is even stronger. Because a mans wife is as his own body, for this cause shall a man, &c. To connect these words with those going before is indeed possible, but somewhat too mystical even for this passage.
Shall a man leave his father . . .The relation of parentage is one of common flesh and blood, and stands at the head of those natural relations which we do not make, but into which we are born. The relation of marriage is the most sacred of all the ties into which we are not born, and which we do make for ourselves, in accordance with a true or supposed harmony of nature. It becomes, says Holy Scripture, a relation, not of common flesh and blood, but of one flesh. Itself originally voluntary, it supersedes all natural ties. Our Lord therefore adds, They are no more twain, but one flesh. What God hath joined together let not man put asunder (Mat. 19:6). Hence it strikingly represents that unity with Christvoluntarily initiated by Him, voluntarily accepted by uswhich yet so supersedes all natural ties that it is said to oblige a man to hate his father and mother . . . and his own life also (Luk. 14:26).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
31. For this cause That is, (in Genesis,) on account of the created completion of a sexual pair.
Two one flesh Two, literally; one, conceptually. And this conceptual image of oneness, by which it is pictured that man and woman, being complements of each other, are maritally united into one person, is formed in order to place in the most loving light the unity of affection and the identity of interest by which they are identified with, and vicarious representatives of, each other.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘For this reason will a man leave father and mother and will cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’
This is cited from Gen 2:24, also cited with approval by Jesus (Mat 19:5) who added, ‘so that they are no more two but one flesh. What God therefore has joined together let not man put asunder’. In God’s eyes the man and woman become one. Yet they are still two individuals. The point is that their relationship is such that it is inviolable and the two should act and think as one.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Eph 5:31 . Not a citation from Gen 2:24 , but (comp. Eph 6:2 ) Paul makes these words of Scripture, which as such were well known to the readers, his own, while the deviations from the LXX. are unimportant and make no difference to the sense. What, however, is spoken, Gen. l.c. , of the union of husband and wife, Paul applies by typical interpretation to the coming ( future: . . .) union of Christ with the church (see Eph 5:32 ), a union which shall take place at the Parousia, up to which time the church is the bride of Christ, and at which it is then nuptially joined with Him (see on Eph 5:27 ), and so the apostle expresses this antitype of the conjugal union in the hallowed words of Scripture, in which the type, the marriage union in the proper sense, is expressed. We have accordingly to explain it thus: For this reason , because we are Christ’s members, of His flesh and of His bone, shall a man ( i.e. antitypically, Christ , at the Parousia) leave father and mother ( i.e. , according to the mystic interpretation of the apostle: He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and be united with his wife (with the church), and (and then) the two (the man and the wife, i.e. Christ who has descended and the church) shall be one flesh (form one ethical person, as married persons by virtue of bodily union become a physical unity). Those expositors who, in keeping with the original sense of Gen. l.c. , take the words of actual marriage (so most expositors, including Matthies, Meier, Schenkel, Bleek, Rckert [287] ), have against them as well the , which cannot be referred without arbitrariness to anything else than what immediately precedes, as also the future expression, which (as also in Gen. l.c. ) must denote something yet to come; and not less the statement of Paul himself, Eph 5:32 , according to which must be interpreted of Christ , and of the church , not merely perhaps (Reiche) is to be so interpreted. Hofmann likewise, II. 2, p. 139, understands it of real marriage, and sees all difficulties vanish if we more closely connect Eph 5:32 with Eph 5:31 , so that sums up the Old Testament passage itself and makes this the subject, and then the sense is: “ That, as the passage affirms, the marriage communion is the most intimate of all communions for this reason, because the wife proceeds from the husband this mystery, which was foreign to the Gentiles, is great. It is a highly significant mystery of the order laid down by the creation, a most important revelation of the divine counsel in this domain, which the apostle interprets as applying to Christ and the church, because marriage in this respect has its higher counterpart in the domain of redemption, but without excluding its validity also for the married as regards their relation regulated by the creation .” This view is incorrect, for the very reason that to make be said in reference to the Gentiles is quite foreign to, and remote from, the connection; because, further, Paul must have written ; because does not mean “I say of it,” but “I say it ,” i.e. I interpret it; because would remain entirely out of connection with that which precedes, and thus the passage of Scripture would make its appearance quite abruptly; because, if the reader was to understand the whole passage of Scripture as the subject, summed up in . , of what follows, the apostle must have indicated this, in order to be intelligible, by something like . . ., ; and because, finally, the validity of the fundamental law of marriage, Eph 5:31 , for married persons is so entirely self-evident, that a quite unsuitable thought (“but without excluding,” etc.) is attributed to the of Eph 5:33 .
Those, further, who explain it of Christ and the church , as Hunnius, Balduin, Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, are mistaken in believing the connection with Christ already existing in the present as that which is meant; inasmuch as in the . . . . they think of the incarnation (“etiam Christus patrem quasi reliquit,” Bengel), or generally of the fact that “Christus nihil tam carum habuit, quod non nostri causa abdicaverit” (Grotius), or even of the separation of Christ from His nation (Michaelis) or from the synagogue (Bisping); while Harless and Olshausen pass over . . . without more precise explanation, as unessential to the connection and aim, and regard only . . . as the main point, explaining it of the Lord’s Supper . [288] But the whole reference to the already present connection with Christ is incorrect, because this connection was just before expressed in the present form by . . ., but now upon this present relation is based the setting in of a future one ( . . . ; observe the future forms), and that by , quite as in Gen 2:24 by means of the future relation of marriage is deduced from the then existing relation of Adam and Eve. These expositors, besides, overlook the fact that in the Christ is not yet husband , but until the Parousia still bridegroom of the church (Eph 5:27 ), which He only at the Parousia presents to Himself as a purified and sanctified bride for nuptial union. Moreover, the setting aside of the whole portion . . . ., on the part of Harless and Olshausen, is a purely arbitrary proceeding.
] See Winer, p. 326 [E. T. 456]. It is distinguished from the in the LXX. only by its placing the cause and the fact thereby conditioned in comparison with each other according to the conception of requital ( for this ). Comp. , and see Matthiae, p. 1327; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 170. The reference of , with regard to which many are entirely silent, can be found only in Eph 5:30 : because our relation to Christ is this . See above. Other references, as those of Estius: “quia mulier formata est ex ossibus et came viri,” and Holzhausen: “because the man, in loving his wife, loves himself” (comp. Meier and Matthies), are forced just because of their taking Eph 5:31 not according to its mystic reference, but of real marriage.
] a human being , i.e. according to the context, a man (without on that account standing for , see Fritzsche, ad Matt . p. 593), by which, however, according to the mystical interpretation of the apostle, Christ is antitypically to be understood.
] is doubtless taken up along with the rest as a constituent part of the words of Adam, but is not destined for a special exposition in the typical reference of the passage to Christ, since can, in accordance with that typical reference, only apply to the descending of Christ from the right hand of God , which will ensue at the Parousia. Then the of the Father comes down to earth, to wed Himself (Mat 25:1 ) to the church, the bride, 2Co 11:2 .
[287] Who, however, here too despairs of more precise explanation, as the passage stands forth in an abrupt form merely as a hint thrown out for the more initiated.
[288] What in marriage the fleshly union is, that in the connection of the church with Christ the substantial union by means of the Supper is alleged to be! “ As man and wife are indeed always one in love, but in the elements of conjugal union, in which the specific nature of marriage consists, become in a special sense one flesh; so is also the church as a whole, and each congregation, like each soul in it, always one spirit with Christ, the Head of the body; but in the elements of the sacred Supper the believing soul celebrates in a very special sense the union with its Saviour, in that it takes up into itself His flesh and blood, and therewith the germ of the immortal body .” This fanciful view of Olshausen is without any warrant in the context, and at variance with the future , which must and that indeed according to Gen 2 express something not yet accomplished , but only to be expected in the future . Moreover, the “ leaving ,” etc., does not at all suit the conception of the communion of Christ with believers in the Supper, and least of all the orthodox Lutheran conception of ubiquity. Nevertheless Kahnis ( Abendm . p. 144) has entirely acceded to the view of Olshausen. He objects to the explanation of the union of Christ with the church at the Parousia , that this union cannot possibly be thought of as “a sacrificial renunciation, on the part of Christ, of His heavenly glory.” But the matter is neither so thought of nor so represented. That which is meant by , the coming again of Christ from heaven, will and this was well known to the believing consciousness of every reader take place not without His heavenly glory, but with that glory; and by the union, which is expressed in the typical representation . . ., the of the believers will then be accomplished. Comp. Col 3:4 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
Ver. 31. For this cause, &c. ] See Trapp on “ Mat 19:5 “ See Trapp on “ Gen 2:24 “
Shall be one flesh ] By virtue of that covenant of God between married couples,Pro 2:17Pro 2:17 , for he keepeth the bonds of wedlock.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Eph 5:31 . [ ] [ ] [ ] : for this cause shall a man leave [ his ] father and mother . Lachm. and Tregelles omit and ; which are bracketed by WH. The is omitted by LTTrWHRV, as not supported by [689] [690] [691] [692] * [693] , 17, Vulg., Arm., etc. It is found in [694] 3 [695] [696] 3 [697] [698] [699] , Syr.-P., Boh., etc. These words, whether Paul gives them professedly as a quotation in a free form, or uses them directly, making them his own (Mey.), are substantially those which in Gen 2:24 follow the statement regarding Eve as bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh. corresponds to the of Gen 2:24 ; , the prep. of exchange and succession , being used also, like the Hebrew , in the sense of “for that,” and occasionally as = “wherefore”; cf. , Luk 12:3 ; cf. Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek , p. 125; Win.-Moult., p. 456. Thus may refer either to the immediately preceding statement regarding our being members of Christ’s body (so Mey.), or to the leading idea of the previous verses, viz. , the husband’s duty to love, nourish, and cherish the wife even as Christ loves, nourishes, and cherishes the Church. The former connection leads, as in Meyer’s case, to an allegorising interpretation. The latter is to be preferred as in harmony with a simpler and more natural view of what follows. Another turn is given to the phrase, e.g. , by Von Soden, who makes it = “instead of this,” supposing the point to be that in place of hating , as mentioned in Eph 5:29 , the husband ought to love and cleave to his wife. But this is far-fetched. The , especially in view of its application in the OT passage cited or used, must be taken here as the ethical future, the future expressing what should, can , or must be, as, e.g. , in Mat 7:26 ; Luk 22:49 ; Joh 6:68 ; Rom 10:14 , etc.; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 348; Donaldson, Greek Gram. , p. 407. Meyer insists on its being a pure future, and refers it to what is to take place at the Parousia . The verse as used here has been strangely handled by many commentators, who have found secondary, mystical meanings in the words. Not a few of the Fathers (Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Jerome, etc.) interpreted it of the Incarnation; and late exegetes expounded it as referring in one way or other to Christ’s present connection with the Church (Grot., Beng., etc.); some understanding Christ’s separation from His nation (Mich.), or from the synagogue , to be indicated by the phrase “leave His Father,” and others even explaining it of the Lord’s Supper (Harl., Olsh.). Alford applies it mystically 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 ”. Even Meyer puts a forced, allegorical sense upon it, taking it to be used typically of the perfect union which takes place between Christ and the Church only at His Second Coming, before which time He is not Husband, but Bridegroom. So the becomes Christ , at the Parousia; the leaving father and mother becomes mystically Christ’s leaving His seat at the right hand of God; the two becoming one flesh is the descending, returning Christ making one ethical person with the Church, etc. But all this is in the highest degree unnatural. When Paul allegorises he gives intimation of the fact ( , Gal 4:24 ), and certainly there is no such allegory as this would be anywhere else in the Pauline writings. Its incongruities condemn it. What is to be made, e.g. , of the leaving of the mother , which Jerome, e.g. , is driven to say means the leaving of the heavenly Jerusalem? We take the verse, therefore, in its simple and obvious sense, as referring to the direct and ruling idea of the paragraph, viz. , the natural marriage relation and the duty of husbands to wives; and we read it as an enforcement of that duty based upon the natural identity of the wife with the husband, as stated in the narrative of Creation and illustrated in its highest ideal in the Church’s relation to Christ. : and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh . “Cleave to” represents very well the force of the verb , the Sept. representative of , to glue to, stick to . For , the reading of TR, with [700] [701] 3 [702] 3 [703] [704] [705] , Orig., etc., is given in [706] [707] [708] [709] * [710] , etc., and is preferred by LTTr, while WH place it in the margin. The is omitted by T with [711] 1 , etc. For there is also the variant in [712] 3 [713] 1 [714] , etc.
[689] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[690] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[691] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[692] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[693] 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.
[694] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[695] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[696] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[697] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[698] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[699] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .
[700] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.
[701] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[702] Codex Ephraemi (sc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.
[703] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[704] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.
[705] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.
[706] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[707] Autograph of the original scribe of .
[708] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).
[709] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[710] 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.
[711] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[712] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.
[713] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[714] 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.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
For, &c. From Gen 2:24. See App-107.
cause. Omit.
man. App-123.
shall be = shall.
joined = cleave. Greek. proskoollaomai. Occurs elsewhere, Mat 19:5. Mar 10:7. Act 5:36.
they = the.
shall be one flesh. Men and their wives being “one flesh”, a man ought to love his wife, inasmuch as she is himself, as Christ loves His own body, the church. The apostle does not once hint that Christ is the husband, or that the church is the wife, but uses the “great mystery” of Eph 5:32 in regard to the reciprocal obligations of husband and wife.
one = for (Greek. eis. App-104.) one. Does this suggest one, in the offspring?
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Eph 5:31. , shall leave) Eph 5:30 presupposes a Protasis, viz. in regard to natural marriage, [to be supplied] out of Moses; it expresses the Apodosis, viz. respecting the spiritual marriage; now, in turn, vice versa, Eph 5:31 here expresses the Protasis, and allows the Apodosis to be supplied: comp. Eph 5:32, in the middle. Christ also, so to speak, left the Father, and was joined to the Church.-, shall be joined) by matrimonial unity.- , shall pass into [shall be as] one flesh) not only as formerly, in respect of origin, but in respect of the new relationship.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Eph 5:31
Eph 5:31
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife;-Because of this intimate relation and oneness between husband and wife, as between Christ and the church, as ordained in the beginning: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Gen 2:24). The wife is the other part of himself. [The relation of parentage is one of common flesh and blood, and stands at the head of those natural relations which we do not make, but into which we are bom. The relation of marriage is the most sacred of all the ties into which we are not born, and which we do make for ourselves, in accordance with a true or supposed harmony of nature. It becomes, says the Lord, a relation not of common flesh and blood but of one flesh. Itself originally voluntary, it supersedes all natural ties. The Lord therefore says, They are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. (Mat 19:6). Hence marriage is strikingly that unity with Christ-voluntarily initiated by the Lord, voluntarily accepted by us-which yet so supersedes all natural ties that it is said: If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luk 14:26).]
and the two shall become one flesh.-When a man selects a woman to be his wife, she becomes the complement of himself-that which is needed to make the complete man, so the two are one. It takes both to make one being as originally created. This union must be indissoluble in the sight of God.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Gen 2:24, Mat 19:5, Mar 10:7, Mar 10:8, 1Co 6:16
Reciprocal: Jdg 8:30 – many wives Luk 20:34 – marry Eph 5:28 – as Eph 5:29 – hated
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
(Eph 5:31.) , , , . For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. There are some variations of reading. Some MSS. of superior weight omit the articles and , as well as , but the longer reading has A, D3, E, K, L in its favour, with many Codices, and the Syriac and Coptic versions. It is, however, rejected by Lachmann and Tischendorf as a conformation to the Seventy. The critical note of Origen seems to confirm the suspicion. Instead of found in B, D3, E, K, L, is read in D1, E1, F, G, and is introduced by Lachmann. The words are a free quotation from Gen 2:24, though the formula of quotation is wanting. This want of such a formula was not unfrequent. Surenhusius, Bib. Katal. p. 21. is without the article (not used for ), but having its general aphorismatic sense-an argument in itself against Alford’s interpretation. These future verbs indicate prophetically the future impulse and acting of the race which was to spring from Adam and Eve. Winer, 40, 6. The Septuagint has changed by the apostle into , on this account (Winer, 47, a; Donaldson, 474, a, dd), and these words are in this place no introduction to the quotation, but simply a portion of it; and therefore Estius, Holzhausen, Meier, and Matthies labour to no purpose in endeavouring to affix a special meaning to them. The quotation is introduced to show the apostle’s meaning, and exhibit the source of his imagery. His language was remarkable; but this verse points out its true signification, by showing whence it was taken, and how it was originally employed. From early times, however, the language has been directly applied to Christ. Jerome’s interpretation is the following:-primus homo et primus vates Adam hoc de Christo et ecclesia prophetavit; quod reliquerit Dominus noster atque Salvator patrem suum Deum et matrem suam coelestem Jerusalem, et venerit ad terras propter suum corpus ecclesiam, et de suo eam latere fabricatus sit et propter illam Verbum caro factum sit. Such is the view of Heinsius, Balduin, Bengel, Bisping, who explains by die Synagoge, and even of Grotius. Some of the critics who held this view refer the words so mystically understood to Christ’s second coming, when He shall present the bride to Himself in formal wedlock. Such, also, is Meyer’s view. His words are, This, therefore, is the interpretation, Wherefore, that is, because we are members of Christ, of His flesh and bones, shall a man leave (that is, Christ as the second Adam) his Father and his Mother (that is, according to the mystical sense of Paul, He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and shall be joined to His wife (that is, to the church), and they two shall be one flesh, etc. Such an exegesis, which may be found also in Jeremy Taylor’s sermon of The Marriage Ring, has nothing to justify it, for there is no hint in this verse that the apostle intends to allegorize. In spite of what Ellicott and Alford have said, we cannot adopt that view, or see the propriety of the language as applied formally to Christ. The allegory is not in this verse, but in the application of nuptial figure and language to Christ and His Church; this verse showing the source and authority. True, as Alford says, the allegory is the key to the whole, but the apostle does not in this citation allegorize Gen 2:24, by applying its language directly to Christ. Nor is it deep thought or research that finds allegories in the interpretation of this place or other places. The process is often of a contrary nature.
Others, again, suppose a reference to Christ and the church only in the last clause, for the sake of which the preceding words of the verse have been introduced. This is the exegesis of Harless and Olshausen, who conceive in the phrase a reference to the Lord’s Supper, and Olshausen illustrates his meaning with an approach to indelicacy. But there is no ground for deeming all the preceding part of the verse superfluous, nor is there any reason for departing from the plain, ordinary, and original meaning of the terms. The words of the quotation, then, are to be understood simply of human marriage, as if to show why language borrowed from it was applied in the preceding verse to depict the union of Christ and His church. The verse in Genesis appears to be not the language of Adam, as if, as in Jerome’s description of him, he had been primus vates, but is at once a legislative and prophetic comment upon the language of Adam-This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. The love which a son bears to a father and a mother, is at length surmounted by a more powerful attachment. He leaves them in whose love and society he has spent his previous life; so that, while love cements families, love also scatters them. He is joined to his wife in a union nearer and more intimate than that which united him to his parents; for his wife and he become one flesh-not one in spirit, or in affection, or in pursuit, but in personality, filled with coequal and homogeneal fire-
The only bliss
Of Paradise that has survived the fall.
They are one flesh, and a junction so characterized supplied the apostle with language to describe the union of Christ and His Church-we are of His flesh and of His bones. This doctrine of marriage must have excited surprise when divorce was of scandalous frequency by an action of or in Grecian states, and with less formality under the emperors in the West, by diffarreatio and remancipatio. See Harless, Ethik, 52, and his Die Ehescheidungsfrage. Eine erneute Versuch der Neut. Schriftstellen, 1860.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Eph 5:31. For this cause. Since the union of a man and woman makes them one flesh, the man should leave his father and mother–consider himself no longer under their authority as a specific part of their group–and should give undivided faithfulness to the new union he has formed with his wife.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Eph 5:31. For this cause, etc. The Apostle cites Gen 2:24, somewhat freely from the LXX. The Apostle recalls a passage based upon the fact of Eves having been taken out of Adam. Whether the language is that of Adam or an inspired comment (comp. Mat 19:5) is immaterial in this connection. The phrase in Genesis equivalent to for this cause points directly to the creation of Eve, and the variation here does not of itself indicate a different reference.
Shall a man, the man, not the woman, leave his father and his mother, or, father and mother. Some authorities insert the articles, here equivalent to possessive pronouns; others omit in both cases.
Shall be joined; closely joined, or, shall cleave, as in other passages.
To his wife. This is Gods precept
And the two shall be one flesh. So close and peculiar is the relation. Comp. Mat 19:5; Mar 10:7-8, where our Lord cites the same passage in regard to earthly marriage.
In the Apostles use of the Old Testament language a secondary application to Christ and His Church may well be admitted, since the Apostle throughout has both in mind; but the mystical interpretation, which connects for this cause with Eph 5:30, and refers this verse exclusively to a future union of Christ and His Church, is unsafe. The omission of the last clause of Eph 5:30, which resembles Gen 2:23, makes the latter view the less necessary. Others refer the last clause alone to Christ and the Church; others apply the whole to the first coming of Christ and His present union with the Church. Alford more correctly regards 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.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here the apostle uses a farther argument to excite the husband’s love to his espoused wife, taken from the law of marriage, which maketh them two one flesh in a civil sense; therefore the man should leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife: not that their obligations cease to their parents, or as if they were to cast off natural affection to them; but he shows, that there is a nearer union betwixt husband and wife, than betwixt parents and child, and that the bonds of matrimonial love are stronger than those of nature.
Their being said to be one flesh, implies a most strict union, and most intimate communion, and whereby they have one interest. Common goods, common friends, yea and all things common, as if they were but one person; but the apostle further intimates to us, at the 31st verse, that this matrimonial union betwixt man and wife, was designed by God, to shadow forth and represent that mystical union which is betwixt Christ and his Church. Doth the conjugal union give the wife an interest in the estate and honour of the husband, be she never so meanly descended in herself? in like manner, from the saints’ union with Christ, does there immediately result a sweet and blessed communion or fellowship with Christ in grace and spiritual privileges; all that Christ is, and has, is theirs by communication to them, or improvement for them; well might the apostle therefore say, This is a great mystery, & c.
In the 33rd verse, the apostle shuts up his discourse upon this argument, with a repeated exhortation to the husband to love his wife, and to the wife to reverence her husband. Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself: “so love,” that is, with an extensive love, reaching the whole person, soul and body; with an intensive love, above all persons and relatives whatsoever; with an hearty love, without dissimulation; with an holy love, without alteration; and with great love, beyond comparsion.
And let the wife see that she reverences her husband. The great duty which the wife owes to her husband is reverence. This is made up of three ingredients; namely, estimation, love, and fear: the wife that reverences her husband, esteems him and dares not think meanly of him; her esteem of him provokes her love unto him; and her love of him is accompanied with an ingenuous fear to offend and grieve him; and the wife expresses this reverence in her gestures, by a respectful demeanour towards him; in her speeches to him when with her, and of him when absent from her, always mentioning him with respect and honour; in her actions, by complying with his desires, by following his directions, by hearkening to his reproofs, and by her cheerful and respectful behaviour towards him at all times and in all places, as well at home as abroad before the world. And that the wife may thus reverence her husband, let her be earnest with God in prayer, for wisdom and understanding, for prudence and patience, for humility and meekness: a proud spirit would not agree with an angel, but the humble will agree with any person.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
31-33. No one can read these verses, and call in question the Bible doctrine of conjugal unity. It is not only repeatedly affirmed, but even enforced by the example of Christ and his bride. As we receive his nature, and become one with him in spirit, mind, life, purpose, and enterprise for time and eternity, so husband and wife are no longer twain, but one flesh. In harmony with this truth, we must receive the doctrine of literal and actual conjugal unity in the Divine institution of Christian matrimony. Hence, we should watch and pray, lest we infringe upon the rights and privileges of this God-given blessing to the world. It was instituted in Eden, and survived the fall, to bless mankind to the end of time. The social purity problem is not to be construed interconjugally so as to antagonize conjugal unity. Husband and wife are to walk in the clear light of Gods Word, Spirit, and providence, lest they deflect into fanaticism, and mar the beauty, chill the bliss, and darken the brightness of the Christian home.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
If, indeed, the man loves his wife properly, they are one flesh – they are both cared for, they are both healthy parts of the church.
We won’t go into all the implications of one flesh, but let it suffice, if the two become one, they can’t become two. If you graft two trees together, you cannot ungraft them without doing serious damage. Divorce does not fit into this statement of Scripture. The two become one – period.
I recently saw a medical program that spoke of a convict that had donated his body to science. When he was dead, his body was frozen. Now, if you are squeamish or don’t like a little gore, please skip the rest of this paragraph. After being frozen, his body was cut crosswise into thin slices. These slices were then scanned into a computer and computer people then reconstructed his body in digital format so that the different systems of the body, the bones, the muscles, the flesh etc. could be examined separately or with other systems in place. Any given level of the body could be studied in great detail.
The result of the show was that the human body is one of nature’s greatest machines. We won’t go into the discussion whether it was evolved from muck or created by God. I will home that this item of thought has been settled in your mind – settled in such a way that you know humankind came from a direct creative act of God. The television show recognized the super complexity of this thing we call a body, and the complex interactions between the different systems.
This verse points out that the wife is to be an integrated system with the man, not just an added appendage to do his bidding.
Many are the men that fail to understand this concept. They are the men that command the wife, they are the men that set forth duties, jobs, and responsibilities – usually those things they don’t want to do.
This integration seems to dismiss the concept that some have of marriage where the man speaks and the wife acts. It seems more of an integrated system where both are working toward the same goal with the man as the head. Both are working toward the correct raising of the family with the husband guiding the entire process. Both are working toward the good home for protection, with both assisting in all aspects with the husband as the guidance of the activities.
I might add that in the human body the head directs things, but the hands and other limbs give signals and input back to the head so that the head can make proper judgments and commands for activity. For example if the head tells the hand to pick up an item, the hand as it nears the item may sense heat and warn the brain that there may be danger, thus the brain will issue command to test for danger. You might say that the hand, at times, will slap the head to get its attention – no wives, don’t try it, this is only a symbolic way of speaking 🙂 but husbands consider the input that your wife gives, it may be very good information that you need for a proper decision.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall {r} be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
(r) See Geneva “Mat 19:5”
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Adam acknowledged that Eve was part of himself: "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" (Gen 2:23). When a man and a woman unite in marriage, they become part of one another in as close a unity as the one that existed before God separated Eve physically from Adam. The Scriptures regard this tie as more fundamental than any other tie that unites any other two human beings, including parent and child. [Note: Hoehner, "Ephesians," p. 641.] It is partially because of this high view of marriage that Christianity has traditionally taken a strong stand for the indissolubility of the marriage bond and against polygamy, adultery, and divorce.
"This statement from the creation story is the most profound and fundamental statement in the whole of Scripture concerning God’s plan for marriage." [Note: Foulkes, p. 161.]