Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Ephesians 5:31 - 5:31
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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: καταλείψει κ . τ . λ .) 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, Rückert[287]), have against them as well the ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ , 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 ἄνθρωπος must be interpreted of Christ, and τὴν γυναῖκα 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 τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο 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 τὸ μυστήριον be said in reference to the Gentiles is quite foreign to, and remote from, the connection; because, further, Paul must have written ἐγὼ δὲ νῦν λέγω ; because ΛΈΓΩ does not mean “I say of it,” but “I say it,” i.e. I interpret it; because ἀντὶ τούτου 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 ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡ . ΤΟῦΤΟ , of what follows, the apostle must have indicated this, in order to be intelligible, by something like ΤῸ ΔῈ ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ Κ . Τ . Λ ., ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ΜΈΓΑ ἘΣΤΊΝ ; 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 ΠΛΉΝ 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 αἰών as that which is meant; inasmuch as in the ΚΑΤΑΛΕΊΨΕΙ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤ . Κ . Τ . ΜΗΤ . 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 καταλείψει τὸν πατέρα κ . τ . λ . without more precise explanation, as unessential to the connection and aim, and regard only ΚΑῚ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ΟἹ Δ . ΕἸς Σ . Μ . 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 μέλη ἐσμὲν κ . τ . λ ., but now upon this present relation is based the setting in of a future one ( ΚΑΤΑΛΕΊΨΕΙ Κ . Τ . Λ .; observe the future forms), and that by ἀντὶ τούτου , quite as in Gen_2:24 by means of ἝΝΕΚΕΝ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ 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 αἰὼν οὗτος 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 καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατ . κ . τ . λ ., on the part of Harless and Olshausen, is a purely arbitrary proceeding.
ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ ] See Winer, p. 326 [E. T. 456]. It is distinguished from the ἝΝΕΚΕΝ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ 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. ἀνθʼ ὧν , and see Matthiae, p. 1327; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 170. The reference of ἀντὶ τούτου , 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.
ἄνθρωπος ] a human being, i.e. according to the context, a man (without on that account ἄνθρωπος standing for ἈΝΉΡ , see Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 593), by which, however, according to the mystical interpretation of the apostle, Christ is antitypically to be understood.
καὶ τὴν μητέρα ] 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 καταλείψει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ 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 σύνθρονος 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 καταλείψει , which must—and that indeed according to Genesis 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 καταλείψει , 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 προσκολληθήσεται κ . τ . λ ., the συνδοξασθῆναι of the believers will then be accomplished. Comp. Col_3:4.