29<\/strong>. no<\/em> man ever<\/em> ] under normal conditions. True, in a distorted mental state a man may “hate his own flesh.” And in obedience to the will of God a man may so act as to be said<\/em> to hate it; to choose that it should suffer rather than that God’s will should not be done (see, for such a use of “hate”, Luk 14:26<\/span>). But under normal conditions it is not only man’s instinct but his duty to protect and nourish that mysterious work of God, his body, connected by God’s will in a thousand ways with the action of his spirit. “Self-love,” whether in the direction of flesh or of spirit, acts sinfully only when it acts outside God as the supreme and all-embracing Reason and Good.<\/p>\n the Lord<\/em> ] Read, with full documentary evidence, Christ<\/strong>.<\/p>\n For no man ever yet hated his own flesh – <\/B>This is urged as an argument why a man should love his wife and show kindness to her. As no man disregards the happiness of his own body, or himself, so he should show equal care to promote the happiness of his wife. A sentiment similar to this is found in the classic writers. Thus, Curtius (lib. vii.) says, Corporibus nostris quoe utique non odimus – We do not hate those things that pertain to our own bodies. So Seneca (Epis. 14), Fateor insitam nobis esse corporis nostri charitatem – I confess that there is implanted in us the love of our own body. The word nourisheth here means properly to bring up, as e. g., children. The sense here is, that he provides for it, and guards it from exposure and want. The word cherisheth – <\/SPAN><\/span> thalpei – means properly to warm; and may mean here that he defends it from cold by clothing – and the two expressions denote that he provides food and raiment for the body. So he is to do for his wife; and in like manner the Lord Jesus regards the church, and ministers to its spiritual necessities. But this should not be spiritualized too far. The general idea is all that we want – that Christ has a tender concern for the needs of the church, as a man has for his own body, and that the husband should show a similar regard for his wife.<\/P><\/p>\n Verse 29. No man ever yet hated his own flesh<\/B><\/I>] And this is a natural reason why he should love his wife, and nourish and cherish her.<\/P> <\/p>\n No man; <\/B>none in his right senses; or no man hates his flesh absolutely, but the diseases or miseries of it. <\/P> His own flesh; <\/B>his body. <\/P> Nourisheth and cherisheth it; <\/B>feeds and clothes it, and supplies it with things necessary for it. <\/P> Even as the Lord the church, <\/B>which he furnisheth with all things needful to salvation. <\/P> <\/p>\n 29. For<\/B>Supply, and we alllove ourselves: “For no man,” c. <\/P> his own flesh<\/B> (Eph5:31<\/span>, end). <\/P> nourisheth<\/B>Greek,<\/I>“nourisheth it up,” namely, to maturity. “Nourisheth,”refers to food and internal sustenance “cherisheth,” toclothing and external fostering. <\/P> even as<\/B>Translate,”even as also.” <\/P> the Lord<\/B>The oldestmanuscripts read, “Christ.” Ex21:10<\/span> prescribes three duties to the husband. The two former(food and raiment) are here alluded to in a spiritual sense, by”nourisheth and cherisheth”; the third “duty ofmarriage” is not added in consonance with the holy propriety ofScripture language: its antitype is, “know the Lord”(Hos 2:19<\/span>; Hos 2:20<\/span>)[BENGEL].<\/P><\/p>\n For no man ever yet hated his own flesh<\/strong>,…. This is unnatural, contrary to the first principles of nature; see Isa 58:7<\/span>; which the u Jews understand of one that is near akin, and there is none nearer than a wife:<\/p>\n but nourisheth and cherisheth it<\/strong>; feeds and clothes it:<\/p>\n even as the Lord the church<\/strong>; who never hated her, but nourishes and cherishes her: Christ never hated his church and people; for his love is not only a love of benevolence, but of complacency and delight: there is a difference between anger and hatred, Christ may be angry with them, but not hate them; and there is a difference between persons and actions, Christ may hate their actions, but not their persons; and there is a difference between desert and fact, they may be deserving of his wrath and hatred, but are not the objects of it in fact; and there is a difference between what is real, and what is imaginary, they may imagine themselves to be hated by him, when they are not; and there is a difference between hatred, and a non-discovery of love, Christ may not manifest his love, and yet not hate; as he never does his own people, for his love is everlasting and unchangeable: and he “nourishes” them, as a father his child, as a shepherd his flock, and as an husband his wife; he feeds them with that which is nourishing, and with himself the bread of life, with his covenant and promises, with the Gospel and the doctrines of it, and with his love and grace; and by his Spirit, ministers, word, and ordinances: and he “cherishes” them, he grants them near and intimate communion with himself, than which nothing is more desirable by them, or joyful to them; nor is there anything that more revives and encourages faith, hope, and love; he clothes them suitable to their dignity and character, as his spouse and bride; and with which they are well contented, and in which they look exceeding comely in his sight: these phrases are expressive of the whole care Christ takes of his church, in furnishing her with everything pertaining to life and godliness; for her comfort and happiness in this world, and that to come: instead of the Lord, the Alexandrian copy, and some others, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, Christ; and the Arabic version reads, “as the Lord loves the church”.<\/p>\n u Jarchi in loc. & R. Sol. Urbin. in Ohel Moed, fol. 85. 1.<\/p>\n Nourisheth <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Old compound with perfective sense of <\/SPAN><\/span> (to nourish up to maturity and on). In N.T. only here and 6:4<\/span>.<\/P> Cherisheth <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Late and rare word, once in a marriage contract in a papyrus. In N.T. only here and 1Th 2:7<\/span>. Primarily it means to warm (Latin foveo<\/I>), then to foster with tender care as here.<\/P> Even as Christ also <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Relative (correlative) adverb pointing back to <\/SPAN><\/span> at the beginning of the sentence (verse 28<\/span>) and repeating the statement in verse 25<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n Flesh. Instead of body, with reference to Gen 2:23<\/span>. <\/P> Cherisheth [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Only here and 1Th 2:7<\/span>. Originally, to warm.<\/P> <\/p>\n 1) “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh” <\/strong>(oudeis gar pote ten heauton sarka emisesen) “For not even one man ever hated his own flesh.” It is man’s duty to protect and care for his body, his flesh, in which the spirit and soul abide, 1Co 9:26-27<\/span>; Rom 12:1-2<\/span>; 1Co 6:19-20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “But nourisheth and cherisheth it”<\/strong> (alla ektrephei kai thalpei auten) “But, in contrast, nourishes and cherishes or cares for it,” 2Th 3:6-12<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “Even as the Lord the church”<\/strong> (kathos kai ho christos ten ekklesian) “Even so Christ nourishes and cherishes or cares for the church.” His own assembly, His orderly worship and service agency in the world, a broad statement of Christ’s love for the church, 1Th 2:7<\/span>. Paul explained that as a nurse is tender and compassionate in her work so men should be toward their own wives, Joh 17:14-15<\/span>; Joh 14:16-17<\/span>.<\/p>\n 29. Even as Christ the church. He proceeds to enforce the obligations of marriage by representing to us Christ and his Church; for a more powerful example could not have been adduced. The strong affection which a husband ought to cherish towards his wife is exemplified by Christ, and an instance of that unity which belongs to marriage is declared to exist between himself and the Church. This is a remarkable passage on the mysterious intercourse which we have with Christ. <\/p>\n (29) His own flesh<\/strong>i.e., <\/em>as above (Eph. 5:28<\/span>), his own body.<\/em> There are two parts of the natural care for our own bodies; first, to nourish (properly, to rear them up from childhood, <\/em>as in Eph. 6:4<\/span>), and then to cherish (literally, to keep them warm<\/em>), <\/em>to provide all they need for health, and comfort, and life. In all that corresponds to both, the husband is to show love to the wife, not only as a self, but as a weaker self, for whom he is bound to think and to act. It may be noted in passing that the very comparison accords with the Christian idea of the body as a part of the true self, redeemed to be a temple of God; and is utterly incongruous with the Gnostic conceptions (already beginning at Coloss, probably not unknown in other Asiatic churches) of all matter as the source of evil, and of the body as that for which the spirit should not deign to care.<\/p>\n (29, 30) Even as the Lord the church: for we . . .<\/strong>Again St. Paul escapes from the type to rest on the Antitype (see Eph. 5:32<\/span>). The idea of the natural rearing and cherishing the body suggests the thought of the tender care of Christ, in which He rears up His Church from weak infancy to full maturity in heaven, and all the while cherishes it (comp. 1Th. 2:7<\/span>, spoken of His servants) as a nurse cherisheth her children, carrying it in His bosom (Isa. 40:11<\/span>), comforting and cheering its childlike weakness. Hence he goes back again to speak with great and special emphasis of our unity with Him.<\/p>\n Of his flesh, and of his bones.<\/strong>Literally, made out of His flesh and bones<\/em>parts, that is, of His glorified body, having flesh and bones (Luk. 24:39<\/span>). The expression is unique, suggested, of course, by Gen. 2:23<\/span>, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh, but designed to bring out in a startling emphasis the true meaning of the familiar phrase, the members of His body. We are grafted into Him. What we grow to be is, so to speak, the product of His divine substance, proceeding from the indwelling life which gradually forms the organised limbs.<\/p>\n 29<\/strong>. <\/strong> No man<\/strong> It is hardly necessary to except madmen, who do harm their own bodies, for such act from no normal motive. Nourisheth <\/strong> with aliment, and cherisheth <\/strong> with warmth and clothing.<\/p>\n ‘For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ also the church, because we are members of His body.’<\/p>\n A man takes great care of his own body, and nourishes and cherishes it, and he will therefore do the same for his wife who has been made one with him. So Christ does the same for His people for they have been made one with Him and are members of His body. The analogy is that just as husband and wife have been made one by the act of union, so Christ and His church have been made one, and because this is so He will nourish and care for it too.<\/p>\n Eph 5:29<\/span> . ] assigns the reason of what immediately precedes<\/em> , and that so, that this statement of the reason is intended to impel<\/em> to the exercise of the self-love involved in the love to the wife. The connection of the thoughts, namely, is this: “He who loves his own wife, loves himself; for, if he did not love her, he would hate his own flesh<\/em> , which is so repugnant to nature that no one has ever yet done it, but rather every one does the opposite, as also Christ<\/em> and that gives to this natural relation the highest consecration acts with regard to the church, because this constitutes the members of His body.”<\/p>\n ] ever<\/em> , not, as Mayerhoff would take it ( Koloss<\/em> . p. 144): formerly<\/em> , in the heathen state, the contrast to which is supposed to be: but possibly now<\/em> , under the influence of an asceticism directed against marriage a view, which the present tenses<\/em> that follow ought to have precluded.<\/p>\n ] is here indifferent (comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N.T.<\/em> I. p. 425) without the conception of what is sinful. [282] Paul might have written instead (Curtius, vii. Ephesians 1 : “corporibus nostris, quae utique non odimus;” Seneca, Ep<\/em> . 14: “fateor insitam nobis esse corporis nostri caritatem”), but chose , because the idea of the , which is realized in the married state, is already (see Eph 5:21<\/span> ) present to his mind.<\/p>\n ] sc<\/em> . . See Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep.<\/em> p. 366 D; ad Symp.<\/em> p. 192 E.<\/p>\n ] enutrit.<\/em> The compound form denotes the development that is brought about by the nourishing; comp. Eph 6:4<\/span> . See the passages in Wetstein.<\/p>\n ] makes it warm, fovet<\/em> (Vulgate); Goth: “ varmeith.<\/em> ” It is thus to be taken in its proper<\/em> signification. Hom. Odyss<\/em> . xxi. 179, 184, 246; Xen. Cyr.<\/em> v. 1. 11; Soph. Phil<\/em> . 38; also Theocr. xiv. 38; Deu 22:6<\/span> ; Job 39:14<\/span> ; 1Th 2:8<\/span> . Bengel aptly says: “id spectat amictum.” The usual<\/em> interpretation is: “ he fosters it<\/em> ,” Luther. Without support from linguistic usage.<\/p>\n It is, we may add, self-evident that expresses a proposition of experience, the correctness of which holds as a general rule, and is not set aside by exceptional cases. The crucifying of the flesh<\/em> , however, in Gal 5:24<\/span> , has regard to the sinful<\/em> .<\/p>\n . .] sc<\/em> . , which is here, of course, to be interpreted metaphorically of the loving operation of Christ for the salvation of His church, whose collective prosperity<\/em> He carefully promotes. To bring out by interpretation specially two elements (Grotius: “ nutrit<\/em> eam verbo et Spiritu, vestit<\/em> virtutibus”) is arbitrary. According to Kahnis ( Abendm<\/em> . p. 143 f.), Christ nourishes the church as His body by the communication of His body in the Supper<\/em> . But apart from the fact that does not suit this, there is no mention at all<\/em> of the Lord’s Supper in the whole connection. Comp. on ., Eph 5:27<\/span> , and see on Eph 5:30<\/span> ff. The . . is the sacred refrain of the whole Christian ethics of marriage; comp. Eph 5:23<\/span> ; Eph 5:25<\/span> .<\/p>\n [282] See also Ernesti, Urspr. d. Snde<\/em> , I. p. 54.<\/p>\n 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 29. For no man ever hated<\/strong> ] No man but a monk, who whips himself, or a mad man, Mar 5:5<\/span> , who cuts himself. It was the saying of the Emperor Aurelius, a wife is to be often admonished, sometimes reproved, but never beaten. And yet of the Russian women it is reported, that they love that husband best that beats them most, and that they think themselves else not regarded, unless two or three times a day well favouredly swadled. Chrysostom saith, It is the greatest reproach in the world for a man to beat his wife.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But nourisheth it, and cherisheth it<\/strong> ] . As the hen doth her chickens, or as the cock pigeon doth the eggs. a<\/em> Contrariwise the magpie hunts away from his mate about autumn, lest he should be forced to keep her all the winter; and so becometh the hieroglyphic of an unkind husband.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Even as the Lord, the Church<\/strong> ] Lo, this is the pattern of all true love, whether to ourselves or others.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Columbarum masculus ipse ovis incubat.<\/em> <\/p>\n Eph 5:29<\/span> . : for no one ever hated his own flesh<\/em> . The gives a reason for the preceding statement, looking to the thought<\/em> , however, rather than to the form<\/em> of the statement. The thought<\/em> is the oneness of husband and wife, the position of the wife as part of the husband’s self; and the connection is this “he should love her even as Christ loved the Church, for the wife, I say, is as the body in that natural relationship in which the husband is the head, so that in loving her he loves himself<\/em> ; and this is the reason in nature<\/em> why he should love her, for according to this to hate his wife is to hate his own flesh, which is contrary to nature and a thing never seen”. has here its non-ethical sense, practically = (as in Mat 19:5<\/span> ; Mar 10:8<\/span> ; 1Co 6:16<\/span> , etc.). : but nourisheth and cherisheth it<\/em> . The form is preferred again by LTTr WRV. The – in the comp. may point to the careful, continued nourishing from one stage to another, nourishing up to maturity<\/em> . Ell. takes it to express “the evolution and development produced by the ” (so, too, Mey., etc.). As means primarily to warm<\/em> , some give it the literal sense here, supposing it to look to the covering<\/em> and protection<\/em> of the body as looks to its nourishment<\/em> “fovet” spectat amictum<\/em> , says Bengel, ut “nutrit” victum; and so Mey. But the secondary sense seems more appropriate here, especially in view of the following affirmation regarding Christ, and as it is in 1Th 2:7<\/span> . [ ] : even as the Lord<\/em> [ Christ<\/em> ] also the Church<\/em> . For the of the TR (with [671] 3 [672] [673] , etc.) read with the best critics , which is given in [674] [675] [676] [677] 1 [678] , 17, and most Versions and Fathers. That is, “even as Christ also nourisheth and cherisheth<\/em> the Church” a broad statement of Christ’s loving care for His Church, into which no reference to the Lord’s Supper<\/em> (which is nowhere in view here) as the means by which the nourishing<\/em> is effected can be dragged (as, e.g.<\/em> , by Kahnis, etc.).<\/p>\n [671] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.<\/p>\n [672] Codex Mosquensis (sc. ix.), edited by Matthi in 1782.<\/p>\n [673] Codex Angelicus (sc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.<\/p>\n [674] Codex Vaticanus (sc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.<\/p>\n [675] Codex Sinaiticus (sc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.<\/p>\n [676] Codex Alexandrinus (sc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).<\/p>\n [677] Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.<\/p>\n [678] 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.<\/p>\n no man = no one. Greek. oudeis. <\/p>\n yet. Omit. <\/p>\n nourisheth. Greek. ektrepho. Only here and Eph 6:4. <\/p>\n cherisheth. Greek. thalpo. Only here and 1Th 2:7. <\/p>\n the Lord. The texts read “Christ also”. <\/p>\n Eph 5:29. ) no man, unless indeed he revolts from nature and from himself.- , his own flesh) Eph 5:31, at the end.-) very much nourishes it, within.-) cherishes it, without. The same word occurs in Deu 22:6; Job 39:14; 1Ki 1:2; 1Ki 1:4. This has respect to clothing, as nourishes has to food.- , the Church) Nourishes and cherishes to be supplied.<\/p>\n Eph 5:29<\/p>\n Eph 5:29<\/p>\n for no man ever hated his own flesh;-As no man ever hated his own flesh, he ought not to hate or be bitter against his wife.<\/p>\n but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church;-[The husbands love for his wife should be that of the highest character, a love that shrinks at no sacrifice in order to bless and ennoble the wife of his bosom. It must be of the same kind as that which prompted Christ to give himself for the salvation of the world. The aim of the true husband should be to make the character of his wife a glorious character, without spot or blemish.]<\/p>\n hated: Eph 5:31, Pro 11:17, Ecc 4:5, Rom 1:31 <\/p>\n nourisheth: Isa 40:11, Eze 34:14, Eze 34:15, Eze 34:27, Mat 23:37, Joh 6:50-58 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 22:13 – General Deu 24:5 – a man Ecc 3:8 – time to love Gal 3:16 – which Eph 5:33 – let Col 2:19 – nourishment Col 2:23 – neglecting Col 3:19 – love<\/p>\n (Eph 5:29.) -For nobody ever hated his own flesh (fools and fanatics excepted). This is a general law of nature. Ecc 6:7. is argumentative, and is used by the apostle rather than , because of its occurrence in the words of the first institution of marriage-they twain shall be one flesh. It has here also its simple original meaning, and not such a sense as it has in Eph 2:3. It is as if the apostle had said, It is as unnatural a thing not to love one’s wife, as it is not to love oneself. Every one loves his own flesh, and in harmony with the same law of nature he will love his other self-his wife. The commentators have adduced similar phraseology from the classics, such as Curtius, Seneca, and Plutarch. <\/p>\n -but nourisheth and cherisheth it. is understood before the two verbs. Stallbaum, Plato, De Rep. ii. p. 366. A man’s care over his body, is that of a nursing-mother over a child. The verbs may be distinguished thus, that the former means to supply nutriment–referring to result; and the latter literally to supply warmth, but really and generally to cherish-more than Bengel’s-id spectat amictum. Deu 22:6; Job 39:14; 1Th 2:7. More, certainly, than food and clothing is meant by the two verbs. This being a man’s instinct towards his own flesh, it would, if freely developed, dictate his duty toward her who is with him one flesh-the complement of his being. <\/p>\n -as also Christ the church. On the authority of A, B, D,1 E, F, G, the Syriac, and Vulgate, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, is the preferable reading to , and is adopted by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Christ nourishes the church, feeds it with His word, fosters it by His Spirit, gives it the means of growth in the plenitude and variety of His gifts, revives and quickens it by His presence, and guards it by His own almighty power from harm and destruction. It is a quaint and formal interpretation of Grotius-that Jesus nourishes the church by his Spirit, and clothes it with virtues. Something more, therefore, than food and clothing is demanded from the husband to the wife; he is to give her love and loyalty, honour and support. As Christ nourishes and cherishes His church, and as every man nourishes and cherishes his own flesh; so the bidding of nature and the claim of religious duty should lead the husband to nourish and cherish his wife. <\/p>\n Eph 5:29. Self-interest will cause a man to be concerned about his own body, and if he is neglectful of his wife’s welfare, it indicates that he does not realize she is a part of him. Christ never forgets the relationship between Himself and the church, hence he has always been mindful of its needs.<\/p>\n Eph 5:29. For. We may supply: if a man does not love his wife he acts against nature, for, etc.<\/p>\n Ho one, no human being, ever hated his own flesh. Flesh as here used is nearly equivalent to body, but was probably chosen by the Apostle, because he already had in mind the quotation (Eph 5:31), which refers to the institution of marriage before the fall (Braune); this of course excludes any ethical reference.<\/p>\n But nourisheth and cherisheth it. The latter word means to warm, but here probably includes the notion of protecting and preserving.<\/p>\n Even as Christ (the Lord is supported only by the less weighty authorities) also doth the church. Christs love toward His Church is manifested in His nourishing and cherishing it. This clause is the sacred refrain of the entire Christian conjugal ethics; comp. Eph 5:23; Eph 5:25 (Meyer). It is altogether unnecessary to distinguish between the expressions, nourisheth and cherisheth, as applied to Christ; and to find a reference to His feeding His Church in the Lords Supper seems unwarranted.<\/p>\n 29. This verse not only recognizes the mysterious problem of conjugal unity; but either is to esteem the other the better half, confirming their mutual fidelity by martyrdom, if necessary.<\/p>\n For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: <\/p>\n I think this verse adds weight to my suggestion. A man naturally seeks to nourish himself, and seeks to take care of himself, so they should nourish and care for the wife. The illustration of the Lord continues; He has done everything possible to take care of his bride, the church – the prime example of how the husband should love his wife. <\/p>\n Speaking in these terms makes it very hard to understand how a Christian man could seek to divorce his wife. How can you possibly misconstrue the truth of divorce into something good and profitable for the wife? Divorce tears her up completely – this IS NOT the love, the care, or the cherishing that this passage speaks of – no man can read this passage and suggest that divorce is ever acceptable. Nor, does this passage allow for the myriad of other things husbands put their wives through in our day. Having a mistress, gambling, drinking, going out with the boys and all that is not a proper loving of the wife. <\/p>\n 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his {p} own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:<\/p>\n (p) His own body.<\/p>\n The truth that no normal person hates his own body is clear because everyone who is of sound mind maintains his physical body. The idea that we all need to learn to love ourselves, which some psychologists stress, is foreign to the apostles’ thought here. Christ also feeds and cares for His body, the church. The implication is that husbands should likewise care for their wives since the wife is a "member" of his body.<\/p>\n Nourishing involves providing security. Cherishing involves protecting by watching out for and caring for. Here are some basic needs that most wives feel. They need to feel wanted, to have their husbands acknowledge their equality, to feel secure, and to feel fulfilled. They also need to enjoy sex without feeling like an object, to bear and love children with their husbands, and to enjoy companionship with their husbands. [Note: See Willard F. Harley Jr., His Needs, Her Needs: Building an Affair-proof Marriage.] <\/span><\/p>\n "No admonition to husbands could have been more countercultural to the Roman, Greek or Jewish man. Instead of being the ruler of the household, he is to be its servant. The husband’s obligation goes far beyond being sexually faithful to his wife. And in no teaching anywhere in Roman, Greek, or Jewish writings is such a solution to the problem of disunity within marriage put forth. Rather than focusing on the rights of the husbands and wives, rather than providing financial incentives for the promotion of marriage, Paul drove right to the heart of marital unity by presenting the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the model for the relationship of the husband to the wife." [Note: Jack J. Gibson, "<\/span>Eph 5:21-33 and the Lack of Marital Unity in the Roman Empire," Bibliotheca Sacra 168:670 (April-June 2011):176-77.] <\/span><\/p>\n For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 29. no man ever ] under normal conditions. True, in a distorted mental state a man may “hate his own flesh.” And in obedience to the will of God a man may so act as … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Ephesians 5:29”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"