Chapter 5 (continued, part 2)
promise, or the formula of baptism, it must have the article. It should be, with the word. But the article is wanting in the Greek. Secondly, the obscurity of the expression, "washing of water with the word," or, "baptism with the word." Thirdly, that in order to justify the connection in question, the passage should read, τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος τῷ, or, τοῦ ἐν ῥήματι. Had Paul thus written there would, indeed, be no question as to the connection intended, but the exceptions to the rule requiring the connecting article in such cases, are very numerous in Paul's writings. Still its absence is certainly in favour of seeking another construction, if such can be found. Others connect the words ἐν ῥήματι with καθαρίσας, and make them explanatory of the preceding clause, 'Having purified it by the washing of water, i. e. having purified it by the word.' But this is certainly unnatural, first because καθαρίσας has in τῷ λουτρῷ, κτλ., its limitation; and secondly, because the phrase "washing with water," needs no explanation. The third method of explanation is to connect the words with ἁγιάσῃ, 'Christ cleansed his church, by the word, having purified it with the washing of water.' The sense is thus good. In John 17:17, our Lord prays, "Sanctify them by thy truth;" and every where in Scripture the word of God is represented as the great means of sanctification. This interpretation is adopted by many of the best expositors, as Rückert, Meyer, and Winer. The position of the words, however, is so decidedly in favour of the first mentioned explanation, that it has commanded the assent of the great body of interpreters.
V. 27. The ultimate end for which Christ gave himself for the church, and for which he sanctifies it, is to present it to himself, i. e. to gain it for himself as his peculiar possession. There are two questions raised by commentators as to this verse. The first concerns the nature of the metaphor here employed; and the second, the time contemplated in which Christ is thus to present the church to himself. Some, although very few, argue from the character of the epithets, without spot and blameless, here applied to the church, that the figure is derived from law of sacrifices. Christ is to present the church to himself as an offering without defect. But 1. This is entirely out of keeping with the
whole context, which has reference to the conjugal relation, and is intended to illustrate the union between Christ and the church, by a reference to that between the bridegroom and the bride. 2. The comparison of the church to an offering is not only out of keeping with the context, but with the whole current of scriptural representation. Whereas the comparison of it to a bride is appropriate and familiar. 3. The epithets in question, though often used in reference to sacrifices, are not only appropriate, but are actually employed to express personal or corporeal beauty, which is here the symbol of inward purity.
A larger number of commentators take the ground that the end contemplated in this verse is accomplished in the present life. In other words, that the state of the church here described is one attained in this world. Of those who take this view, some, as the ancient Pelagians, interpret the passage as teaching that perfect holiness is not only attainable, but is actually attained by believers before death. Others do not understand the passage as speaking of holiness, but of propitiation, which is effected once for all. In this view it is parallel to Heb. 10:10, where we are said to be "sanctified by the offering of the body of Christ once for all;" and ver. 14, where it is said, "By the one offering up of himself he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified." Both of these passages in Hebrews evidently refer to the perfection of Christ's sacrifice, and they undoubtedly prove, what no one questions, that the words ἁγιάζειν and καθαρίζειν, here used, may express sacrificial purification or expiation. But this is far from proving that these words, and especially the former, are to be so taken here. To sanctify is commonly, in Scripture language, to make spiritually holy, and this sense is far better suited to the context than any other meaning of the word. But if the design of Christ's death as here expressed is to render his church perfectly holy, then there can be no debate as to the time when this end is to be accomplished. For even should it be granted, that here and there one among the multitude of believers does attain perfection in this life, of which neither Scripture nor experience affords any example, still this cannot be affirmed of the
whole body of believers. The great majority of commentators, therefore, from Augustin down to the present time, understand the apostle as stating what is to take place when Christ comes the second time to be admired in all them that believe. It is then, when the dead are raised in the likeness of the Son of God, and when those who shall be alive shall be changed—when this corruption shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality—it is then that the church shall be "as a bride prepared for her husband," Rev. 21:2, and 19:7–9.
Ἵνα παραστήσῃ depends upon what immediately precedes: "having purified it that he might present it", i. e. cause it to stand before or near him as a bride. So the apostle writing to the Corinthians says, he had "espoused them to one husband, παρθενὸν ἁγνὴν παραστῆσαι τῷ Χριστῷ, to present you as a chaste virgin unto Christ." Here the figure is somewhat different. Christ presents the church to himself, αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ,* he and no other, to himself. He does it. He gave himself for it. He sanctifies it. He, before the assembled universe, places by his side the bride purchased with his blood. He presents it to himself a glorious church. That is glorious which excites admiration. The church is to be an object of admiration to all intelligent beings, because of its freedom from all defect, and because of its absolute perfection. It is to be conformed to the glorified humanity of the Son of God, in the presence of which the disciples on the mount became as dead men, and from the clear manifestation of which, when Christ comes the second time, the heavens and the earth are to flee away. God has predestined his people to be conformed to the image of his Son. And when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is, 1 John 3:2. The figure is preserved in the description here given of the glory of the consummated church. It is to be as a faultless bride; perfect in beauty and splendidly adorned. She is to be without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, i. e. without any thing to mar her beauty, free from every indication of age, faultless and immortal. What is thus expressed figuratively is expressed literally in the last clause of the verse, that it should be holy and without blame, ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος. Compare 1:4,
where it is said God hath chosen us, εἶναι ἁγίους καὶ ἀμώμους. It is, therefore, the original purpose of election formed before the foundation of the world, that is to be fulfilled in this consummation of the church.
V. 28. So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies. This does not mean that men ought to love their wives so as they love their own bodies; as though the particles so and as, οὕτως and ὡς, stood related to each other. Οὕτως, so, at the beginning of the verse, refers to the preceding representation. As Christ loves the church and gave himself for it, and as the church is his body, so, in like manner and agreeably to the analogous relation between them, husbands should love their wives as, i. e. as being, or because they are, their own bodies. Christ loves his church because it is his body. Husbands should love their wives because they are their bodies. Ὡς, as, before the latter member of the sentence is not comparative, but argumentative. It does not indicate the measure of the husband's love, as though the meaning were, he should love his wife as much as he loves his own body. But it indicates the nature of the relation which is the ground of his love. He should love his Wife, because she is his body.
How is this to be understood? In what sense does the apostle say that the wife is the body of the husband, or, in the following verse, that they are one flesh? It is plain—1. That this does not refer to any material identification. When Adam said of Eve, "This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," Gen. 2:23, reference was no doubt had to her being formed out of his substance. But as these terms are used to express the relation of all wives to their husbands, they must have some other meaning than sameness of substance. 2. It is also plain that these terms are not to be understood in any sense inconsistent with the separate subsistence of husband and wife as distinct persons. The consciousness of the one is not the consciousness of the other. 3. It is further plain that the marriage relation is not essential to the completeness or perfection of our nature, in all states of its existence. It is to cease at the resurrection. In the future state men
are to be, in this respect, like the angels of God, neither marrying nor given in marriage. 4. On the other hand the marriage union is not merely one of interests and feeling. Husbands and wives are in such a sense one, that the husband is the complement of the wife and the wife of the husband. The marriage relation is necessary to the completeness of our nature and to its full development in the present state. Some indeed, as Paul, may attain a higher degree of perfection in celibacy than in marriage. But this arises from some peculiarity of character or circumstances. There are faculties and virtues, excellencies and feelings, which are latent until developed in the conjugal relation. The Romish doctrine, therefore, which degrades marriage as a state less holy than celibacy, is contrary to nature and the word of God. 5. Besides this oneness between husband and wife arising from the original constitution of their nature, rendering the one necessary as the completion of the other, there is doubtless a oneness of life involved in our Lord's declaration, "They are no more twain, but one flesh," which no one can understand.
Such being the nature of marriage, it follows:—1. That it is a union for life between one man and one woman; and consequently that bigamy, polygamy, and voluntary divorce are all inconsistent with its nature. 2. That it must be entered into freely and cordially by the parties, i. e. with the conviction that the one is suited to the other, so that they may complement each other, and become one in the scriptural sense of those words. All coercion on the part of parents, therefore, is contrary to the nature of the relation; and all marriages of mere convenience are opposed to the design of the institution. 3. The State can neither make nor dissolve the marriage tie. It may enact laws regulating the mode in which it shall be solemnized and authenticated, and determining its civil effects. It may shield a wife from ill-usage from her husband, as it may remove a child from the custody of an incompetent or cruel parent When the union is in fact dissolved by the operation of the divine law, the State may ascertain and declare the fact, and free the parties from the civil obligation of the contract. But it is impossible that the State should have authority to dissolve a union constituted by God, the duties and continuance of
which are determined by his law. 4. According to the Scriptures, as interpreted by Protestant churches, nothing but the death of one of the parties, or adultery, or wilful desertion, can dissolve the marriage contract. When either of the last mentioned causes of dissolution is judicially ascertained and declared, the injured party is free to contract a new marriage.
It is of vital importance to the best interests of society that the true doctrine of marriage, as taught in this passage and in other portions of God's word, should be known and regarded. The highest social duty of a husband is to love his wife; and a duty which he cannot neglect without entailing great injury on his own soul as well as misery on his household. The greatest social crime, next to murder, which any one can commit, is to seduce the affections of a wife from her husband, or of a husband from his wife. And one of the greatest evils which civil authorities can inflict on society, is the dissolution of the marriage contract (so far as it is a civil contract, for further the civil authority cannot go), on other than scriptural grounds. The same remark may be made in reference to all laws which tend to make those two whom God has pronounced one, by giving to the wife the right to carry on business, contract debts, hold property, sue and be sued, in her own name. This is attempting to correct one class of evils at the cost of incurring others a hundred-fold greater. The word of God is the only sure guide of legislative action as well as of individual conduct.
If, as the Scriptures teach, husband and wife are one, he that loveth his wife loveth himself, for she is himself. This is the language of God, originally recorded in Gen. 2:24, and repeated by our Lord, Matt. 19:4–6, who after citing the passage in Genesis, adds, "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh." Calvin, in his comment on the passage in Matthew, says, Hoc autem axioma sumit Christus, Ab initio Deus marem adjunxit feminae, ut duo efficerent integrum hominem. Ergo qui uxorem repudiat, quasi dimidiam sui partem a seipso avellit. Hoc autem minime patitur natura, ut corpus suum quispiam discerpat. Neither God by the mouth of Moses, nor
our Lord says simply that husband and wife ought to be, but that they are one. It is not a duty, but a fact which they announce. So also it is a fact which the apostle declares when he says, "He that loves his wife loves himself."
V. 29. Conjugal love, therefore, is as much a dictate of nature as selflove; and it is just as unnatural for a man to hate his wife, as it would be for him to hate himself, or his own body. A man may have a body which does not altogether suit him. He may wish it were handsomer, healthier, stronger, or more active. Still it is his body, it is himself; and he nourisheth it and cherishes it as tenderly as though it were the best and loveliest man ever had. So a man may have a wife whom he could wish to be better, or more beautiful, or more agreeable; still she is his wife, and by the constitution, of nature and ordinance of God, a part of himself. In neglecting or ill-using her he violates the laws of nature as well as the law of God. It is thus Paul presents the matter. If the husband and wife are one flesh, the husband must love his wife, "for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it." Ἐκτρέφειν is properly to nourish up, to train up by nurture, as a parent a child; comp. 6:4. Θάλπειν is, to warm, to cherish as a mother does an infant in her bosom. Both terms express tenderness and solicitude, and therefore both are suited to express the care with which every man provides for the wants and comfort of his own body.
Καθὼς καί, even as also, Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Christ the church, i. e. Christ also nourishes and cherishes the church as a man does his own body. The relation between a man and his wife is analogous to that between a man and his own body. And the relation between Christ and his church is analogous to that between a husband and his wife; therefore Christ nourishes and cherishes the church as man does his own body.
V. 30. This verse assigns the reason of the preceding declaration, Christ acts towards his church as a man does towards his body, for we are members of his body. This might mean simply that we stand
to him in the same intimate and vital union, that a man's body sustains to the man himself. But the meaning is rendered more definite by the words which follow, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ;* not members of, but derived from, and partakers of, his flesh and his bones. This is the signification of the words, whatever their meaning may be. Ἐκ expresses derivation and participation. This is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible. The doctrine which it teaches is declared by the apostle, in a following verse, to be a great mystery. Any explanation, therefore, which dispels that mystery, and makes the doctrine taught perfectly intelligible, must be false. All that can properly be attempted is to guard against false interpretations, and leave the matter just where the apostle leaves it, as something to be believed and reverenced but not understood.
The lowest explanation of the passage before us is that which departs entirely from the signification of the words, and supposes that the apostle intended to teach nothing at all as to the nature of our union with Christ, but simply to affirm the fact. Husbands and wives are intimately united, and so are Christ and his church. This is no explanation at all. It is simply saying that the apostle meant nothing, or nothing specific, by what he says. The Scriptures teach in general terms that Christ and his people are one. When our Lord says they are one as the vine and its branches are one, he teaches something more than the mere fact of union between himself and his people. So, too, when the apostle says the union in question is analogous to that between Adam and his posterity, he teaches not only the fact but also one aspect of its nature. In like manner, when he illustrates it by a reference to the conjugal relation, and says that the point of analogy is that as Eve was formed out of the flesh and bone of Adam, so we are partakers of the flesh and bones of Christ, it is impossible that nothing more should be meant than that we are united to him.
A second interpretation takes the words figuratively, and supposes the apostle meant that as Eve derived her physical existence from Adam, so we derive our spiritual existence from Christ. This
interpretation has many advocates from Chrysostom downwards, but it is liable to the same objection as the preceding. It refuses to admit what the apostle asserts. He says not merely that we derive our life from Christ, which is true; but also that we derive our life from his flesh, and are partakers of it. This must mean something more specific than simply that Christ is the author of our life, and that he lives in us.*
A third view of the passage assumes that the reference is to the incarnation. We are partakers of the flesh of Christ because we have the same human nature which he assumed. In Heb. 2:10, it is said, "Both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one," i. e. of one nature; and in ver. 14, "Forasmuch then as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same." These and similar passages do indeed prove that one of the essential elements of the union with Christ is this community of nature. And it is also true that the more specific union indicated in the text presupposes and rests upon the fact of the incarnation. But the incarnation cannot be what Paul here refers to. The incarnation consists in the eternal Son of God taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul; but the union here spoken of arises from our participation of Christ's body; that is, of his flesh and of his bones. It is not his taking our flesh and blood, but our partaking of his, after he had assumed them, that is here asserted. Besides, so far as the mere assumption of human nature is concerned, it is a bond of union between Christ and the whole human race; whereas the apostle is here speaking of a union with Christ peculiar to his people.
Fourth; Romanists, Lutherans, and the elder Calvinists, as Calvin himself and Beza, seek a solution of this passage in the Lord's Supper. As in that ordinance we are said to partake of the body and blood of Christ, it is assumed that the union here spoken of is that which is thereby effected. We are "one flesh" with him, because we partake of his flesh. This of course is differently understood according to the different views entertained of that sacrament. Romanists, believing that by the act of consecration the whole
substance of the bread is transmuted into the substance of Christ's body, which is received by the communicant, of course believe that in the most literal sense of the words, we are flesh of his flesh. Lutherans, although they believe that the bread remains bread in the Eucharist after consecration, yet as they hold that the true body of Christ is locally present in, with and under the bread, and is received by the mouth, come to the same conclusion as to the nature of the union thereby effected. Partaking literally of Christ's flesh, Christians are literally of one flesh with him. Calvin did not hold that Christ's body was locally present in the Lord's Supper, nor that it was received by the mouth, nor that it was received in any sense by unbelievers. He did hold, however, that the substance of Christ's glorified body, as enthroned in heaven, was in some miraculous way communicated to believers together with the bread in that ordinance. He, therefore, understands the apostle as here referring to that fact, and asserting that we are members of Christ's body because the substance of his body is in the Eucharist communicated to us.* There are two objections to these interpretations;—1. That, according to the common belief of the Reformed churches, the Bible teaches no such doctrine concerning the Lord's Supper, as either of these several views of the passage supposes. 2. That there is not only no allusion to the Lord's Supper in the whole context, but the terms here employed are never used in Scripture when treating of that ordinance. "Body and blood" are the sacramental words always used, and never "flesh and bones." The reference is to the creation of woman and to the marriage relation, and not to the Eucharist.
Fifth; The advocates of that philosophical form of theology of which Schleiermacher was the founder, understand the passage before us to teach that we are partakers of the theanthropic life of Christ. The leading idea of that system, so far as the person of Christ is concerned, is the denial of all dualism. He has but one life. That life is not human, and not divine, but divine and human, or human made divine. Neither is there any dualism as to soul and body. These are the same life under different manifestations. To partake of Christ, is to partake of his life. To partake of his life, is to partake of his
theanthropic nature. To partake of his theanthropic nature, is to partake of his human, as well as of his divine nature; and to partake of his human nature is to partake of his body as well as of his soul and divinity. We partake of the theanthropic nature of Christ, as we partake of the corrupt human nature of Adam. The life of Adam is the general life of his race, manifested in the individuals composing that race. The theanthropic life of Christ is the general life of the church, manifested in its members. The church is the development of Christ, as the human race is the development of Adam; or as the oak or forest is the development of an acorn. As, therefore, we are said to be flesh of Adam's flesh and bone of his bones, in the same sense and with the same propriety, are we said to be flesh of Christ's flesh and bone of his bones.* The correctness of this explanation depends on the, correctness of the system on which it is founded. As a theology, that system is a revival of the Sabellian and Eutychian heresies; and as a philosophy, it is in the last resort pantheistic. It makes the life of God and the life of man identical. God lives only in his creatures.
Sixth; We must content ourselves with briefly stating what the apostle affirms, guarding against a perversion of his language, and making some approximation to its meaning without pretending to dissipate the mystery which he teaches us rests upon the subject.
The text asserts—1. That we are members of Christ's body. 2. That we are partakers of his flesh and of his bones, in such a sense that our relation to Christ is analogous to Eve's relation to Adam.
The three general interpretations of the passage are, First, That as Eve derived her physical life from Adam, so we derive our spiritual life from Christ. This says too little, as it leaves out of view the specific affirmation of the text. Second, That as Eve was formed out of the substance of Adam's body, so we are partakers of the substance of Christ's body. This is Calvin's interpretation, which includes the views given by Romanists, by Lutherans, and Transcendentalists. This goes beyond the declaration of the text, and imposes a meaning upon it inconsistent with the analogy of
Scripture. The third interpretation takes a middle ground, and understands the apostle to teach, that as Eve derived her life from the body of Adam, so we derive our life from the body of Christ, and as she was partaker of Adam's life, so we are partakers of the life of Christ. The doctrine taught, therefore, is not community of substance between Christ and his people, but community of life, and that the source of life to his people is Christ's flesh.
In support of this interpretation it may be urged: 1. That it leaves the passage in its integrity. It neither explains it away, nor does it make it assert more than the words necessarily imply. The doctrine taught remains a great mystery, as the apostle declares it to be. 2. It takes the terms employed in their ordinary and natural sense. To partake of one's flesh and blood, does not, in ordinary life nor according to scriptural usage, mean to partake of his substance, but it does mean to partake of his life. The substance of which the body of any adult is composed is derived exclusively from his food and from the atmosphere. A few years after the formation of Eve not a particle of Adam's body entered into the composition of her frame; and yet she was then as truly as at the beginning, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, because derived from him and partaker of his life. For the same reasons and in the same sense we are said to be flesh of Adam's flesh and bone of his bones, although in no sense partakers of the substance of his body. In like manner nothing is more common than to speak of the blood of a father flowing in the veins of his descendants, and of their being his flesh. This means, and can only mean, that they are partakers of his life. There is no community of substance possible in the case. "What life is no man knows. But we know that it is not matter; and, therefore, there may be community of life, where there is no community of substance. There is a form of life peculiar to nations, tribes, families, and individuals; and this peculiar type is transmitted from generation to generation, modifying the personal appearance, the physical constitution, and the character of those who inherit it. When we speak of the blood of the Hapsburghs, or of the Bourbons, it is this family type that is intended and nothing material. The present Emperor of Austria
derives his peculiar type of physical life from the head of his race, but not one particle of the substance of his body. Husband and wife are in Scripture declared to be one flesh. But here again it is not identity of substance, but community of life that is intended. As, therefore, participation of one's flesh does not in other connections, mean participation of his substance, it cannot be fairly understood in that sense when spoken of our relation to Christ. And as in all analogous cases it does express derivation or community of life, it must be so understood here.
3. It is clearly taught in Scripture that the union with Christ here described is essential to salvation. It is also clearly taught in the word of God, and held by all Protestants, though not by Romanists, that believers under the Old Dispensation were fully saved. Whatever, therefore, is the nature of the union with Christ here taught, it must be such as is common to believers who lived before and to those who live after the advent of Christ. It is possible that the saints under the Old Dispensation should have derived their life from the body of Christ, as he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, but it is not possible that they could be partakers of the substance of his body, or of his glorified humanity. The passage before us, therefore, cannot teach any such community of substance.
4. The community of life with Christ and derivation of life from his flesh, which is the doctrine this interpretation supposes the passage before us to teach, is a doctrine elsewhere taught in Scripture. We are not only said to be saved by his body, Rom. 7:4; by his blood, Eph. 2:13; by his flesh, 2:15; by the body of his flesh, Col. 1:22; but his flesh is said to be our life, and participation of it is said to be the source of eternal life. "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life." John 6:53, 54.
The union, therefore, between Christ and his people is mysterious. It may be illustrated, but cannot be fully explained. It is analogous to the union between husband and wife, who are declared to be one
flesh to express their community of life; and especially to the union between Adam and Eve because she derived her life from his flesh. As the relations are thus analogous, what is said of the one may be said of the other. To prove this, and to justify the use of the language which he had employed, the apostle cites the language of God in Gen. 2:24. Ver. 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. That is, because the relation between husband and wife is more intimate than any other, even than that between parents and children; therefore a man shall consider all other relations subordinate to that which he sustains to his wife, with whom he is connected in the bonds of a common life. As the Scripture speaks in such terms of the conjugal relation, the apostle was justified in using the same terms of the union between Christ and his people. They also are one flesh because they have a common life, and because his people derive their life from his flesh as Eve derived hers from the flesh of Adam.
The principal difficulty here relates to the connection. The passage stands thus: 'We are members of Christ's body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.' There is an apparent incongruity between the premises and the conclusion. How does our being members of Christ's body, prove that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife? There are three methods of getting over this difficulty. First, some assume that there is no connection between the two verses, but that the 31st refers back to the 28th. The sense would then be, 'A man should love his wife, because she is his body. For this cause, a man should leave his father and cleave to his wife,' &c. This method of solution is inconsistent both with what precedes and with what follows. It does not agree with what precedes, because the words, of his flesh, &c., in ver. 30, referring to Christ, form part of the passage in Genesis, the continuation of which is given in ver. 31. If the one refers to Christ, the other must. It contradicts what follows; for in ver. 32, the main
idea contained in ver. 31 (they shall he one flesh), is expressly said to be affirmed in reference to Christ and the church.
The second method of explanation assumes an immediate connection between the two verses 30 and 31, and understands the whole of the latter to refer to the relation between Christ and his church. It then may be explained either in reference to the present, or the future. If to the present, the sense would be, 'We are members of Christ's body, and, therefore, he left his Father and all dear to him in heaven that he might be united to his people.' But how is it possible that the words, "a man shall leave his father and mother," can mean Christ left God and heaven? If the passage be understood in reference to the future, the meaning will be, 'We are members of Christ's body, and therefore hereafter when he comes the second time, he will leave his Father's throne, and take his church as his bride.'* But this view not only does the same violence to the meaning of the words, but is in direct contradiction to the whole context. Paul does not say that hereafter the church shall be united to Christ as his bride, but that his people are now members of his body, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones.
The third explanation assumes that the first part of the verse has no reference to Christ and the church, and that the passage is quoted from Genesis solely for the sake of the last words, they shall be one flesh. The meaning and the connection then are, 'As Eve was formed out of the body of Adam, and therefore, it is said, a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. So, since we are members of Christ's body, therefore, Christ and his church are one flesh.' This view is, 1. In entire accordance with the context. 2. It avoids the forced and unnatural interpretations which are unavoidable if the former part of the 31st verse be understood in reference to Christ. 3. It satisfies the demands of the 32d verse, which asserts that the words one flesh do refer to Christ and the church. And 4. It is in accordance with the usage of the apostles in quoting the language of the Old Testament. They often recite a passage of Scripture as it stands in the Old Testament,
for the sake of some one clause or expression in it, without intending to apply to the case before them, any other portion of the passage quoted. In Heb. 2:13, the whole stress and argument rest on the single word children; see also Gal. 3:16. Very frequently the particles indicating the grammatical or logical connection of the passage in its position in the Old Testament, are included in the quotation, although entirely unsuited to the connection in which the passage is introduced. This is so frequently done as to be almost the rule. It is, therefore, not an arbitrary proceeding to make the last words of this verse refer to Christ, while the former part of it is made to refer to the context of the passage as it stands in Genesis.
V. 32. Τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μεγα ἐστίν, this mystery is great. The word mystery does not refer to the passage in Gen. 2:24, as though the apostle intended to say that that passage had a mystical sense which he had just unfolded by applying it to the relation between Christ and his church. It is the union between Christ and his people, the fact that they are one flesh, he declares to be a great mystery. The word μυστήριον is used here, as it is every where else, for something hidden, something beyond the reach of human knowledge. Whether its being thus hidden arises from its lying in the future, or because of being imperfectly revealed, or because it is in its own nature incomprehensible, must be determined by the connection. In this place the last is probably the idea intended. The thing itself is beyond our comprehension. The Vulgate renders this passage, sacramentum hoc magnum est. The Latin word sacramentum, besides its usual classical sense, 'a sacred deposit,' was often used to signify any thing sacred, or which had a hidden import. In this latter sense it agrees in meaning with the word μυστήριον, which also is used to designate something the meaning of which is hidden. Hence in the Vulgate it is often translated as it is here. In the Latin church the word sacramentum, however, gradually changed its meaning. Instead of being applied to every thing having a sacred or secret meaning, it was confined to those rites or acts which were assumed to have the power of conferring grace. This is the Romish idea of a sacrament. The Papal theologians taking the word in this sense here, and
understanding the apostle to refer to marriage, quote this passage in proof that matrimony is a sacrament. The answer to this argument is obvious. In the first place, it is not marriage, but the union between Christ and his church, that Paul declares to be a μυστήριον, and the Vulgate a sacramentum. And in the second place, neither the Greek nor Latin term means a sacrament in the Romish sense of the word. The Vulgate translates 1 Tim. 3:16, magnum est pietatis sacramentum, which no Romanist understands as teaching that the manifestation of God in the flesh is a sacrament in the ecclesiastical meaning of the term.
V. 33. The relation of this verse to what precedes, as indicated by πλήν, admits of two explanations. That particle is used at the beginning of a clause, after an interruption, to introduce the resumption of the main subject. It may be so here. The principal object of the whole paragraph from v. 21, is to unfold the true nature of the conjugal relation and its duties. With this was connected an exposition of the analogous relation between Christ and the church. This latter point in verses 30, 31, is the only one brought into view. Here the apostle reverts to the main subject. But, to resume my subject, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself. This explanation is the one commonly adopted. Πλήν, however, may mean, nevertheless, as it is rendered in our version, and this verse be connected with the 32d. 'The relation between Christ and the church is a great mystery; nevertheless, do you also love your wives.' That is, although there is something in the relation between Christ and the church which infinitely transcends the conjugal relation, nevertheless there is sufficient analogy between the cases, to render it obligatory on husbands to love their wives as Christ loves his church. This view of the connection is to be preferred, especially because of the words καὶ ὑμεῖς, you also, which evidently suppose the reference is to what immediately precedes.
Ὑμεῖς οἱ καθʼ ἕνα, you severally, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυ τοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν, let each one so love his wife as himself. The construction varies; the verb ἁγαπάτω being made to agree with
ἕκαστος, instead of ὑμεῖς the real subject. The meaning is the same as in ver. 28. The husband is to love his wife as being himself. In the next clause (ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα), ἡ δὲ γυνή is the nominative absolute, and ἵνα depends on a verb understood. But as to the woman, let her see, that she reverence her husband. The word φοβέω may express the emotion of fear in all its modifications and in all its degrees from simple respect, through reverence, up to adoration, according to its object. It is, however, in all its degrees an acknowledgment of superiority. The sentiments, therefore, which lie at the foundation of the marriage relation, which arise out of the constitution of nature, which are required by the command of God, and are essential to the happiness and well-being of the parties, are, on the part of the husband, that form of love which leads him to cherish and protect his wife as being himself, and on the part of the woman, that sense of his superiority out of which trust and obedience involuntarily flow.