《Eadie’s Commentary on Ephesians (Vol. )》(John Eadie) 04 Chapter Introduction Chapter 4

Verse 18

(Ephesians 5:18.) καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ—“And be not made drunk with wine.” Proverbs 20:1; Proverbs 23:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:7. Again, there is first the negative, and then the positive injunction. By καί transition is made from a general counsel to a particular instance, and the injunction thus becomes climactic. The dative οἴνῳ is like the Latin ablative of instrument. Winer, § 31, 7. There is no proof in the context for the opinion held, and reckoned possible by de Wette, Koppe, and Holzhausen, that the apostle alludes, as in 1 Corinthians 11, to any abuse of the old love-feasts, or of the Lord's Supper. οἶνος (with the digamma-vinum, Wein), as the common drink of the times, is specified by the apostle as the means of intoxication. And he adds-

ἐν ᾧ ἐστὶν ἀσωτία—“in which is dissoluteness,” or profligacy-Luxuria; Vulgate. Tittmann, De Synon. p. 152; Trench, Synon. § 16. Proverbs 28:7; Titus 1:6; 1 Peter 4:4. The antecedent to ᾧ is not οἶνος, but the entire previous clause. The Syriac borrows simply- אוֹסוּטוּתוֹא The term ἄσωτος, from α privative and σώζω, is the picture of a sad and very common result. It is sometimes used by the classics to signify one who is, as we say, “past redemption”- παρὰ τὸ σώζω (Etymolog. Mag.); oftener one qui servare nequit. The adverb ἀσώτως is used of the conduct of the prodigal son in the far country in Luke 15:13. See Titus 1:6; 1 Peter 4:4; Sept. Proverbs 28:7; 2 Maccabees 4:6. Aristotle, in his Ethics, iv., virtually defines the term thus- τὸ φθείρειν τὴν οὐσίαν,-or again, ἀσωτία ἐστιν ὑπερβολὴ περὶ χρήματα-or again, τοὺς ἀκρατεῖς καὶ εἰς ἀκολασίαν δαπανηροὺς ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν. Cicero (De Finibus) says - nolim mihi fingere asotus, ut soletis, qui in mensam vomant, p. 1006, Opera, ed. Nobbe. Theophylact, alluding to the etymology, says- οὐ σώζει ἀλλ᾿ ἀπόλλυσιν οὐ τὸ σῶμα μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ψυχήν; and the drunkard's progress, described by Clement in the first chapter of the second book of his Paedagogue, is a series of tableaux without veil or reserve. Referring to the origin which he assigns to the term, he also says- ᾿ασώτους τε αὐτοὺς οἱ καλέσαντες εὖ μοι δοκοῦσιν αἰνίττεσθαι τὸ τέλος αὑτῶν, ἀσώστους αὐτοὺς, κατὰ ἔκθλιψιν τοῦ σ στοιχείου νενοηκότες.

There is in the vice of intemperance that kind of dissoluteness which brooks no restraint, which defies all efforts to reform it, and which sinks lower and lower into hopeless and helpless ruin. It is erroneous, therefore, on the part of Schoettgen, to restrict the term to lasciviousness, though intemperance be, as Varro called it, Veneris suscitabulum; as Jerome too, venter mero aestuans facile despumat in libidinem. The connection between the two vices is notorious; but libidinous indulgence is only one element of the ἀσωτία. This tremendous sin of intemperance is all the more to be shunned as its hold is so great on its victims, for with periodical remorse there is periodical inebriety; the fatal cup is again coveted and drained; while character, fortune, and life are risked and lost in the gratification of an appetite of all others the most brutal in form and brutifying in result. There are few vices out of which there is less hope of recovery-its haunts are so numerous and its hold is so tremendous. As Ephesus was a commercial town and busy seaport, its wealth led to excessive luxury, and Bacchus was the rival o f Diana. The women of Ephesus, as the priestesses of Bacchus, danced round Mark Antony's chariot on his entrance into the city. Drunkenness was indeed an epidemic in those times and lands. Alexander the Great, who died a sacrifice to Bacchus and not to Mars, offered a prize to him who could drink most wine, and thirty of the rivals died in the act of competition. Plato boasts of the immense quantities of liquor which Socrates could swill uninjured; and the philosopher Xenocrates got a golden crown from Dionysius for swallowing a gallon at a draught. Cato often lost his senses over his choice Falernian. The “excess” or dissoluteness attendant on drunkenness and the other vices referred to in the previous context, is also illustrated by many passages in the Miles Gloriosus of Plautus, the Latin version of an older Greek drama. The “braggart captain,” a citizen of Ephesus, is described in the prologue by his own servant as “a vain, impudent, foul fellow, brimful of lying and lasciviousness.” Another character of the piece thus boasts—“Either the merry banterer likewise, or the agreeable boon companion will I be; no interrupter of another am I at a feast. I bear in mind how properly to keep myself from proving disagreeable to my fellow-guest,” etc. . . . “In fine, at Ephesus was I born, not among the Apulians, not at Animula”-(there being in this last term a difference of reading).

ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι—“but be filled with the Spirit.” The terms οἶνος and πνεῦμα are not contrasted simply, as is pleaded by Harless, but the two clauses are in antithesis. The verb is in the passive voice, and is followed by the instrumental ἐν-an unusual construction. It has after it sometimes the genitive and sometimes the dative or accusative, with different meanings. Winer, § 31, 7. ᾿εν, therefore, may denote the element, as frequently, and not the instrument; the Spirit, as Matthies says, being represented not merely als Mittel und Inhalt. Colossians 2:10; Colossians 4:12. Not only were they to possess the Spirit, but they were to be filled in the Spirit, as vessels filled to overflowing with the Holy Ghost. Men are intoxicated with wine, and they attempt to “fill” themselves with it; but they cannot. The exhilaration which they covet can only be felt periodically, and again and again must they drain the wine cup to relieve themselves of despondency. But Christians are “filled” in or with the Spirit, whose influences are not only powerful, but replete with satisfaction to the heart of man. Psalms 36:8; Acts 2:15-16. It is a sensation of want-a desire to fly from himself, a craving after something which is felt to be out of reach, eager and restless thirst to enjoy, if at all possible, some happiness and enlargement of heart-that usually leads to intemperance. But the Spirit fills Christians, and gives them all the elements of cheerfulness and peace; genuine elevation and mental freedom; superiority to all depressing influences; and refined and permanent enjoyment. Of course, if they are so filled with the Spirit, they feel no appetite for debasing and material stimulants.

Verse 19

(Ephesians 5:19.) λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς—“Speaking to one another.” Under the relaxing influence of wine the tongue is loosened, and the unrestrained conversation too often passes into that species of language, the infamy of which the apostle has already exposed. The participle is connected in syntax with πληροῦσθε, for this “speaking” is the result of spiritual fulness. ῾εαυτοῖς is for ἀλλήλοις, as in Ephesians 4:32, and cannot signify, as Morus and Michaelis would render it—“with yourselves,” or “within you,” but “among yourselves,” or “in concert.” The verb λαλεῖν has the general signification of “using the voice,” and is specifically different from εἰπεῖν and λέγειν, for it is used of the sounds of animals and musical instruments. See the Lexicons, and Tittmann, De Synon. pp. 79, 80. Each was not to repeat a psalm to his neighbour, for in such a case confusion and jargon would be the result; but the meaning of the clause seems to be this—“Giving expression among yourselves, or in concert, to your joyous emotions in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς, different from λέγοντες πρὸς ἑαυτούς, may, perhaps, signify “in responsive chorus,” or dicere secum invicem, as Pliny's letter describes it. We know that ancient sacred song was of this antiphonal nature; nay, Nicephorus Callistus in his History, 13.8, says, that such a practice was handed down from the apostles- τὴν τῶν ἀντιφώνων συνήθειαν ἄνωθεν ἀποστόλων ἡ ἐκκλησία παρέλαβε. Theodoret traces the same custom to the church at Antioch (Hist. Ecclesiastes 2:24), while Socrates ascribes the origin of it to Ignatius. Hist. 6.8. Augustine, however, carries such responsoria no higher than th e episcopate of Ambrose at Milan. But indeed many of the psalms were composed so as to be sung by a chorus and semichorus, as is plainly marked in the 2nd and in the 24th.

The apostle refers certainly to social intercourse, and in all probability also, and at the same time, to meetings for Divine service. The heathen festivals were noted for intemperate revelry and song, but the Christian congregation was to set an example of hallowed exhilaration and rapture. The pages of Clement of Alexandria throw some light on such ancient practices. Paedagog. lib. ii. cap. 4. We cannot say, with Le Clerc and Rückert, that the three following terms are synonymous repetitions, and that the apostle does not characterize different kinds of sacred poetry:-

ψαλμοῖς—“in psalms”-the dative being what Winer calls “the simple dative of direction.” § 31, 4. This term, from ψάλλειν-to strike the lyre, is, according to its derivation, a sacred song chanted to the accompaniment of instrumental music. So Basil rightly defines it- ὁ ψαλμὸς, λόγος ἐστὶ μουσικὸς, ὅταν εὐρύθμως κατὰ τοὺς ἁρμονικοὺς λόγους πρὸς τὸ ὄργανον κρούηται. On Psalms 29. The definition of Gregory of Nyssa is similar- ψαλμός ἐστιν ἡ διὰ τοῦ ὀργάνου τοῦ μουσικοῦ μελῳδία. This specific idea was lost in course of time, and the word retained only the general sense of a sacred poetical composition, and corresponds to the Hebrew מִזַמוֹר, H4660. It denotes sometimes the Book of Psalms (Luke 20:42 ; Acts 1:20; Acts 13:33); and in one place it signifies the improvised effusion of one who possessed some of the charismata, or gifts of the early church. 1 Corinthians 14:26.

καὶ ὕμνοις—“and hymns.” These are also sacred poetical compositions, the primary purpose of which is to praise, as may be seen in those instances in which the verb occurs, Acts 16:25; Hebrews 2:12. The term corresponds to the Hebrew words שִׁיר, H8877, and תְּהִלָּה, H9335. Deyling, Observat. Sacr. vol. 3.430; Le Moyne, Notae in Varia Sacra, p. 970. The hymn was more elaborate and solemn in its structure than the ode. The idea of Grotius appears to be quite baseless, that hymns were extemporales Dei laudes. The idea of improvisation is not necessarily implied in the word, but belongs rather to the following term. The hymn is thus defined by Phavorinus- ὕμνος, ἡ πρὸς θεὸν ᾠδή ; and by Gregory of Nyssa- ὕμνος, ἡ τῷ θεῷ εὐφημία. The same meaning of the term is found in Arrian- ὕμνοι μὲν ἐς τοὺς θεοὺς ποιοῦνται, etc.—“hymns are composed for the gods, but eulogies for men”- ἔπαινοι δὲ ἐς ἀνθρώπους. Exped. Alex. 4. Augustine on Psalms 82 says-si sit laus, et nisi sit Dei, non est hymnus; si sit laus, et Dei laus, et non cantetur, non est hymnus. Oportet ergo, ut si sit hymnus, habeat haec tria, et laudem, et Dei, et canticum. The Coptic version translates the noun by-—“doxologies.”

καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς—“and spiritual songs.” πνευματικαῖς is put within brackets by Lachmann and Alford, on the authority of B and a few authorities. The ode is a general term, and denotes the natural outburst of an excited bosom-the language of the sudden impulses of an Oriental temperament. Such odes as were allowed to Christians are termed “spiritual,” that is, prompted by the Spirit which filled them. But the psalms and hymns are already marked out as consecrated, and needed no such additional epithet. For the prevailing meaning of the adjective, see under Ephesians 1:3. Odes of this nature are found in Scripture, as that of Hannah at her boy's consecration, that of the Virgin at the Annunciation, and that of Zechariah on the birth of his son. It is plain that the hymn and the ode might pass into one another, but we cannot agree with Harless, in regarding the “songs” as simply a more general designation; or with Meyer, in supposing, whatever the general meaning and the usage elsewhere, that here and in such a connection they are the genus of which psalms and hymns are the species, and that the clause is one of the apostle's common cumulations. As a considerable portion of the church at Ephesus was composed of Jews, these psalms in the idiom of a Jew might be the Psalms of the Old Testament, and not merely sacred poems thus named by them, as is the opinion of Harless; and the hymns might be compositions of praise specially adapted to the Gentile mind, though not inapposite to the Jew. The imagery, allusions, and typical references of the Psalms could not be fully appreciated by the Gentile sections of the churches. And these “spiritual odes,” perhaps of a more glowing and individual nature, taking the shape both of psalms and hymns, might be recited or chanted in their assemblies or churches, as the Spirit gave utterance. Acts 10:46. Tertullian says in his Apology-u t quisquis de Scripturis Sanctis, vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium Deo canere. Many hymns which were originally private and personal, have thus become incorporated with the psalmody of our churches. Stier, who does not coincide with all we have said on this subject, yet gives this definition “biblical, ecclesiastical, and private poems;” and his idea is far better than that of Baumgarten-Crusius, who understands the terms as denoting “songs of thanks, of praise, and lyrics.” Jerome says-Hymni sunt qui fortitudinem et majestatem praedicant Dei, et ejusdem semper vel beneficia vel facta mirantur. Quod omnes psalmi continent, quibus Alleluja vel praepositum, vel subjectum est, Psalmi autem proprie ad ethicum locum pertinent, ut per organum corporis, quid faciendum et quid vitandum sit, noverimus. Qui vero de superioribus disputat et concentum mundi omniumque creaturarum ordinem atque concordiam subtilis disputator edisserit, iste spirituale canticum canit. The service of song enjoyed peculiar prominence in the ancient church. The Fathers often eulogize the Psalms of David. An exuberant encomium of Basil's may be found in his commentary on the first Psalm. Hooker has some beautiful remarks on the same theme in the fifth book of his Ecclesiastical Polity, and the tender and exquisite preface of Bishop Horne must be fresh in the memory of every reader. Eusebius testifies, that besides the Psalms, other compositions were sung in the churches. They were to be-

ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν—“singing and making melody in your heart.” Some MSS., such as A, D, E, F, G, read καρδίαις, but they are counterbalanced by Codices B, K, L, the Syriac version, and the Greek fathers. The previous λαλοῦντες is defined by ᾄδοντες as being co-ordinate with it. The second participle may denote an additional exercise. Their speech was to be song, or they were to be singing as well as speaking. ψάλλειν, originally “to strike the lyre,” came to signify “to strike up a tune,” and it denotes the prime accompaniment of these songs, to wit, the symphony of the soul. This is indeed secret and inaudible melody, but it is indispensable to the acceptance of the service-

“Non vox, sed votum, non chordula musica, sed cor;

Non clamans, sed amans, cantat in aure Dei.”

Rückert, Harless, Baumgarten-Crusius, Olshausen, and Meyer understand the apostle to inculcate a species of silent warbling, totally distinct from the common practice of song, and which was to be felt as the result of this fulness of the Spirit. But it seems to be to the open and audible expression of Christian feeling that the apostle refers in the phrase λαλοῦντες- καὶ ᾄδοντες; while coupled with this, he adds with emphasis—“playing in your hearts.” The words, indeed, denote secret melody, but may not the secret and inner melody form an accompaniment to the uttered song? The phrase, as Harless says, does not mean heartily, or ἐκ καρδίας would have been employed. Compare Romans 1:9 - ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου. Theodoret comes nearer our view when he says—“He sings with his heart who not only moves his tongue, but also excites his mind to the understanding of the sentiments repeated,”- ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν νοῦν εἰς τὴν τῶν λεγομένων κατανόησιν διεγείρων. Now this silent playing in the heart will be that sincere and genuine emotion, which ought to accompany sacred song. The heart pulsates in unison with the melody. Mere music is but an empty sound; for compass of voice, graceful execution, and thrilling notes are a vain offering in themselves. The Fathers complained sometimes that the mere melody of the church service took away attention from the spirit and meaning of the exercise. Thus Jerome says justly on this passage—“Let young men hear this: let those hear it who have the office of singing in the church, that they sing not with their voice, but with their heart, to the Lord; not like tragedians physically preparing their throat and mouth, that they may sing after the fashion of the theatre in the church. He that has but an ill voice, if he has good works, is a sweet singer before God.” . . . “Let the servant of Christ so order his singing, that the words which are read may please more than the voice of the singer; that the spirit which was in Saul may be cast out of them who are possessed with it, and not find admittance in those who have turned the house of God into a stage and theatre of the people.” Cowper, with a delicate stroke of satire, says of some in his day-

“Ten thousand sit

Patiently present at a sacred song

. . . . . . . . Content to hear

(O wonderful effect of music's powers!)

Messiah's eulogies, for Handel's sake.”

τῷ κυρίῳ—“to the Lord,” or as Pliny reported-Christo quasi Deo. To Him who loved the church, and died for it-to Him, the Lord of all, who sends down that Spirit which fills the heart and prompts it to melody-such praise is to be rendered. And the early church, in obedience to the apostle's mandate, acknowledged His Divinity, and sang praise to Him as its God. The hymnology of the primitive church leaves not a doubt of its belief in Christ's supreme Divinity. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony, vol. ii. p. 460, ed. 1859; August., Christl. Archäol. vol. ii. p. 113; Bingham, Antiquities, vol. iv. p. 380. One of these very old and venerable relics, the Morning Hymn preserved in the Liturgy of the Church of England, is subjoined as a specimen, not only in its spirit and theology, but in its antiphonal structure-

“Glory be to God on high, and in earth peace, good will towards men. We praise Thee, we bless Thee, we worship Thee, we glorify Thee, we give thanks to Thee for Thy great glory, O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.

“O Lord, the only-begotten Son Jesu Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us. Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.

“For Thou only art holy; Thou only art the Lord; Thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Amen.”

Verse 20

(Ephesians 5:20.) εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων—“Giving thanks always for all things.” Many collocations as πάντοτε- πάντων are given by Lobeck, Paralip. vol. i. pp. 56, 57. This clause is still connected with πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, and is further descriptive of one of its results and accompaniments. The heart becomes so susceptible in the possession of this fulness of the Spirit, that grateful emotions predominate, for its own unworthiness is contrasted with God's gifts poured down upon it in crowded succession. 1 Thessalonians 5:18. And this thanksgiving, from its very nature and causes, is continuous- πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων. Thanksgiving cannot be always formally rendered, but the adverb has the same popular intensive meaning in 1 Thessalonians 5:18. Some, such as Theodoret, take πάντων in the masculine, which is against the context; for it is of duty toward God the apostle speaks, not duty toward man, nor can we, with Meyer and others, limit the “all things” to blessings. We take it in a more extended and absolute sense, with Chrysostom, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom, indeed, says—“we are to thank God for hell”- ὑπὲρ τῆς γεέννης αὐτῆς. Whether this extreme sentiment be just or not, it is foreign to the context, for the apostle speaks of “all things” now possessed by us, or sent upon us- οὐχ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνον, says Theophylact; etiam in iis quae adversa putantur, says Jerome. It is an easy thing to thank God for blessings enjoyed, but not so easy to bless Him in seasons of suffering; yet when men are filled with the Spirit, their modes of thought are so refined and exalted, and their confidence in the Divine benignity is so unhesitating, that they feel even adversity and affliction to be grounds of thanksgiving, for-

“Behind a frowning providence,

He hides a smiling face.”

So many and so salutary are the lessons imparted by chastisement-so much mercy is mingled in all their trials-so many proofs are experienced of God's staying “His rough wind in the day of His east wind,” that the saints will not hang their harps on the willows, but engage in earnest and blessed minstrelsy. And such eucharistic service is to be presented-

ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿ιησοῦ χριστοῦ—“in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” These thanks are rendered not to “the honour of His name,” for the phrase is not εἰς τὸ ὄνομα. To do anything “to the name of,” and to do it “in the name” of another, are widely different. The former implies honour and homage; the latter authority and warrant. Compare εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, Matthew 28:19; Acts 19:5; 1 Corinthians 1:13; 1 Corinthians 1:15; but ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι has a very different meaning, as may be seen in John 14:13; Acts 4:12; Acts 10:48; Colossians 3:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Peter 4:14. His name is the one element in which thanks are to be rendered-that is, by His warrant thanks are offered, and for His sake they are accepted. The phrase occurs in many connections, of which Harless has given only a sample. Thus in His name miracles are done, Luke 10:17, Acts 3:6; Acts 4:10; Acts 16:18, James 5:14; ordinances are dispensed, Acts 10:48, 1 Corinthians 5:4; devotional service is offered and prayer answered, John 14:13; John 16:23; John 16:26, Philippians 2:10; claim of Divine commission is made, Mark 11:9, Luke 19:38; blessing is enjoyed, Acts 4:12, 1 Corinthians 6:11; the spiritual rule of life is enjoined, Colossians 3:17; a solemn charge is made, 2 Thessalonians 3:6; reproach is borne, 1 Peter 4:14; or certain states of mind are possessed, Acts 9:27-28. Whatever the varieties of relation, or act, or state, the same generic idea underlies them all-as Bengel says, ut perinde sit ac si Christus faciat. Giving thanks-

τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί—“to God and the Father.” The article, as in similar places, is not repeated before the second noun, for it is but another epithet of Him who is named under the first term. Winer, § 19, 3, note. See under Ephesians 1:3. As to the relation of πατήρ, Erasmus, Estius, Harless, Meyer, and Baumgarten-Crusius refer it to Christ; but others, as Zanchius, Rückert, and Matthies, refer it to believers. The word, however, appears to have been employed in a general sense, for the paternal character of God has relation as well to His own Son, as to all His adopted human children.

Verse 21

(Ephesians 5:21.) ῾υποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ χριστοῦ—“Submitting yourselves to one another in the fear of Christ.” Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13; 1 Peter 5:5. The authority for θεοῦ is so slight, that it need not be recounted. This additional participial clause, which concludes the paragraph, forms also a link between it and the next. Indeed, it commences a new section in Knapp's edition, and Olshausen inclines to the same opinion, but the participial form ὑποτασσόμενοι forbids such a supposition. Chrysostom joins the clause to the former verses, and his arrangement is followed by Rückert, Meier, Estius, Meyer, Harless. Winer, § 45, 6. Olshausen mistakes the connection when he wonders how an advice to subordination can be introduced as a sequel to spiritual joy. But the participle ὑποτασσόμενοι is joined to πληροῦσθε, and has no necessary or explanatory connection with the other dependent participles preceding it. It introduces a new train of thought, and is so far connected with the previous verb, as to indicate that this reciprocal deference has its root and origin in the fulness of the Spirit. It would perhaps be going too far to say, that as the phrase, “be not drunk with wine,” is related to the clause, “be filled with the Spirit,” so this connected verse stands opposed, at the same time, to that self-willed perversity and that fond and foolish egotism which inebriety so often creates. It is out of all rule, on the part of Calvin, Zanchius, Koppe, Flatt, and Matthies, to take the participle as an imperative. The words ἐν φόβῳ χριστοῦ describe the element of this submission. It is reverential submission to Christ. Acts 9:31; 2 Corinthians 5:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Peter 3:2. φόβος here is not terror or slavish apprehension, but that solemn awe which the authority of Christ inspires. In this the mutual deference and submission commanded by the apostle must have their seat. This Christian virtue is not cringing obsequiousness; and while it stands opposed to rude and dictatorial insolence, and to that selfish preference for our own opinion and position which amounts to a claim of infallibility, it is not inconsistent with that honest independence of disposition and sentiment which every rational and responsible being must exercise. It lays the foundation also, as is seen in the following context, for the discharge of relative duty, as in the three instances of wives, children, and servants, nor is it without room for exhibition in the case of husbands, parents, and masters; in short, it should be seen to develop itself in all the relations of domestic life.

Verse 22

(Ephesians 5:22.) With regard to the following admonition it is to be borne in mind, that in those days wives, when converted and elevated from comparative servitude, might be tempted, in the novel consciousness of freedom, to encroach a little-as if to put to the test the extent of their recent liberty and enlargement. The case was also no uncommon one for Christian wives to have unbelieving husbands, and the wife might imagine that there was for her an opportunity to manifest the superiority of a new and happy creed. 1 Peter 3:1-6. And those Ephesian wives had little of the literary and none of the religious education enjoyed by the daughters of modern Christian households. Even under the Mosaic law, women and wives had few legal rights, and they too, when baptized. needed the injunction of the apostle-

αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν, ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ—“wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord.” The sentence has no verb, and it afforded, therefore, a fair opportunity for the ingenuity of the early copyists. Some MSS., such as D, E, F, G, add ὑποτάσσεσθε after γυναῖκες. Scholz and Hahn place the same word after ἀνδράσιν, while A and some minusculi add ὑποτασσέσθωσαν-a reading followed by Lachmann. There are other variations in the form of attempted supplement. Jerome proves that there was nothing in the Greek Codices to correspond to the subditae sint of the Latin version. The continuity of the apostle's style did not require any verbal supplement, and though the gender differs, every tyro will acquiesce in the reason given by Jerome- ἐκ κοινοῦ resonat. Jelf, § 391. The idea conveyed in the participle of the previous verse guides the sense. Wives, in the spirit of this submission, are to be directed in their duty to their husbands. The noun ἀνήρ often signifies a husband, as “man” does in vernacular Scotch. Matthew 1:16; John 4:16-18; Homer, Od. 24.195; Herod. 1.140. So also אישׁ ö ךִנ Hebrew, Deuteronomy 22:23. The precise meaning of ἰδίοις in this connection has been disputed. There are two extremes; that indicated by Valla, Bullinger, Bengel, Steiger, and Meyer, as if the apostle meant to say, Your own husbands-not other and stranger men; and that maintained by de Wette, Harless, and Olshausen, that ἰδίοις merely stands for the common possessive pronoun. But in all such injunctions in which ἰδίοις is used, as in 1 Corinthians 7:2, Colossians 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1, the word seems to indicate peculiar closeness of possession and relation, though indeed in later Greek its meaning is somewhat relaxed. John 5:18; Romans 7; Romans 1:32; 1 Corinthians 14:35, etc. Winer, § 22, 7; Phrynich. ed. Lobeck, 441. The duty of submission is plainly based on that tenderness, speciality, or exclusiveness of relationship which ἰδίοις implies. But that submission is not servitude, for the wife is not a mere vassal. The sentiment of Paul is not that of the heathen poet-

πᾶσα γὰρ δούλη πέφυκεν ἀνδρὸς ἡ σώφρων γυνή,

ἡ δὲ μὴ σώφρων ἀνοίᾳ τὸν ξυνόνθ᾿ ὑπερφρονεῖ.

The insubordination of wives has always been a fertile source of satire; and yet Christian ladies in early times drew forth this compliment from Libanius, the “last glory of expiring paganism”-proh, quales feminas habent Christiani! The essence of this submission is explained by the important words-

ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ—“as to the Lord.” Pelagius, Thomas Aquinas, and Semler capriciously regard this noun as standing for the plural κυρίοις, and render it “as to your masters,” referring to their husbands. Rückert, Harless, Olshausen, Meyer, and Matthies take it to mean, that ye render this submission to your husbands as if it were rendered to Christ who enjoins it; or, as Chrysostom more lucidly explains it- ὡς εἰδυῖαι ὅτι τῷ κυρίῳ δουλεύετε. The adverb ὡς denotes the character of the obedience enjoined, and such seems to be the grammatical meaning of the clause. The context, however, might suggest another phase of meaning. “Women,” says Olshausen, “are to be in submission, not to their husbands as such, but to the ordinance of God in the institution of marriage.” And so de Wette, preceded by Erasmus, observes that the clause is explained by the following verse. The husband stands to the wife in the same relation as Christ stands to the church, and the meaning then is, not as if she were doing a religious duty, but “in like manner as to the Lord”-the duties of the church to Him being the same in Spirit as those of a wife to her husband. In either case, the submission of a wife is a religious obligation. She may be in many things man's superior-in sympathy, in delicacy of sentiment, warmth of devotion, in moral heroism, and in power and patience of self-denial. Still the obedience inculcated by the apostle sits gracefully upon her, and is in harmony with all that is fair and feminine in her position and temperament:

“For contemplation he and valour formed-

For softness she and sweet attractive grace:

He for God only, she for God and him.”

Verse 23

(Ephesians 5:23.) ῞οτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς, ὡς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας—“For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is Head of the church.” The preponderance of authority is against the article ὁ before ἀνήρ, which appears in the Received Text. It does not need the article (Winer, § 19), though the article would not alter the meaning. It stands here as a species of monadic noun; or it may be rendered as a general proposition—“as a husband is the head of the wife”-the article before γυναικός pointing out the special relation—“his wife.” ῞οτι introduces the reason why wives should be submissive—“as to the Lord.” In the phrase ὡς καί—“as also”- καί is not superfluous, though it occurs only in the second clause and marks the sameness of relation in κεφαλή. Klotz, Devar. vol. 2.635. The meaning of the sentiment, Christ is the Head of the church, has been already explained under Ephesians 1:22, and again under Ephesians 4:15-16. The reader may turn to these explanations. As Christ is Head of the church, so the husband is head of the wife. Authority and government are lodged in him; the household has its unity and centre in him; from him the wife receives her cherished help; his views and feelings are naturally adopted and acted out by her; and to him she looks up for instruction and defence. Severed from him she becomes a widow, desolate and cheerless; the ivy which clasped itself so lovingly round the oak, pines and withers when its tree has fallen. And there is only one head; dualism would be perpetual antagonism. This marital headship is man's prerogative in virtue of his prior creation, for he was first formed in sole and original dignity. 1 Timothy 2:13. “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man,” so that he is in position the superior. “The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man”-a portion of himself-his other self; taken out from near his heart; and, therefore, though his equal in personality and fellowship, being of him and for him and after him, she is second to him. Nay, more, “Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression;” and to her the Lord God said, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,” though the gospel lightens this portion of the curse which has been so terribly felt in all non-Christian lands. Each sex is indeed imperfect by itself, and the truest unity is conjugal duality. Still, though the woman was originally of the man, yet now “the man is by the woman”—“the mother of all living.” Finally, the apostle illustrates this headship by the striking declaration, that the woman is the “glory of the man,” but “the man is the image and glory of God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3-12; 1 Timothy 2:14.

αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος—“Himself Saviour of the body.” The words καί and ἐστι in the Received Text are found in D², D³, E², K, L, in the majority of MSS., and in the Syriac and Gothic versions. Tittmann and Reiche also hold by the longer reading, but the words are wanting in A, B, D¹, E¹, F, G, while Codex A reads ὁ σωτήρ. αὐτός is emphatic, and can refer only to χριστός. “Christ is Head of the church-Himself, and none other, Saviour of the body.” Winer, § 59, 7, note. Some refer it to ἀνήρ. Chrysostom's exposition would seem to imply such a reference, and Holzhausen formally adopts it. But it is of Christ the apostle is speaking, and the independent and emphatic clause, thrown off without any connecting particle, gives a reason why He is head of the church, to wit—“Himself Saviour of the body.” The reader may turn to the meaning of σῶμα under Ephesians 1:23, Ephesians 4:15-16. The paronomasia is imitated by Clement, ad Corinth. xxxviii.- σωζεσθω οὖν ἡμῶν ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ἐν χριστῷ ᾿ιησοῦ. Christ is the Saviour of His body the church-not only its Redeemer by an act of atonement, but its continued Deliverer, Preserver, and Benefactor, and so is deservedly its Head. This Headship originated in the benefits which His church has enjoyed, and is based on His saving work; while the conscious enjoyment of that salvation brings the church gladly to acknowledge His sole supremacy. Some, indeed, suppose that in this clause there is an implied comparison, and that the husband is a species of σωτήρ to his wife. Bucer, Bullinger, Musculus, Aretius, Zanchius, Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, Schrader, Rückert, Baumgarten-Crusius, Meier, Matthies, de Wette, and Peile are of this mind. But the clause is peculiar, αὐτός separating it from what is said before. There is a comparison in κεφαλή, that is, in the point of position and authority, but none in σωτήρ; for the love and protection which a husband may afford a wife can never be called σωτηρία, and has no resemblance to Christ's salvation. Some even suppose that the wife is here called σῶμα, basing their opinion on the language of Ephesians 5:28. There is no warrant for supposing that in the apostle's mind there was any etymological affinity between σωτήρ and σῶμα, which in Homer signifies a dead body. See Stier, in loc.; Benfey, Wurzellex. i. p. 412; and the two derivations in Plato, Cratylus, § 38, p. 233; Op. vol. iv. ed. Bekker.

Verse 24

(Ephesians 5:24.) ᾿αλλ᾿ ὡς ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑποτάσσεται τῷ χριστῷ—“But as the church is subject to Christ.” The reading ὥσπερ has no decided authority. The commencement of this clause occasions some difficulty. The hypothesis of Harless-not unlike that of Rückert, that ἀλλά is used to resume the main discourse-has been ably refuted by Olshausen. It is true that ἀλλά does often follow a digression, but there is none here; and even if the words were a digression, they form but a single clause, and did not surely necessitate a formal ἀλλά. To give this particle, with Zanchius and others, the meaning of “now” or “wherefore,” cannot be allowed, however such a meaning may seem to suit the reasoning. ᾿αλλά, says Olshausen, simply introduces the proof drawn from what precedes. The husband is head of the wife, as Christ is Head of the church, and the apostle argues—“but as the church is subject to Christ, so ought wives to be to their husbands.” Winer, § 53, 7, a, says that ἀλλά concludes the demonstration. De Wette's view is similar—“the clause exhibits the other aspect of the relation, as if he said-aber daraus folgt auch.” Hofmann understands the antithesis thus—“but where the husband is not to his wife what he should be, in imitation of Christ, still subordination on her part remains a duty.” Schriftb. vol. Ephesians 2:2, p. 116. Robinson says that ἀλλά is used in an antithetic clause to express something additional, and may be rendered “but,” “but now,” “but further.” In the instances adduced by him there is marked antithesis; but though this passage is placed among them, there is in it no expressed contrast. Baumgarten-Crusius smiles at such as find any difficult y in ἀλλά, for it means, he says, dennoch aber-though the husband has his obligation as saviour of the body, the wife, yet the wife has hers too, and should be obedient. This interpretation creates an antithesis by giving the clause “He is Saviour of the body” a meaning it cannot bear. See Bretschneider's Lexicon, sub voce. Meyer and Stier follow an alternative explanation of Calvin, making the antithesis of the following nature—“Christ has this as a special characteristic, that He is Saviour of His church; nevertheless, let wives know, that their husbands are over them after the example of Christ.” Meyer's improved representation of this idea is—“He Himself, and none other, is the Saviour of the body, yet this relation, which belongs to Him exclusively, does not supersede the obligation of obedience on the part of wives towards their husband; but as the church is subject to Christ, so ought wives to submit to their husbands.” The same antithesis is more lucidly phrased by Bengel—“though Christ and not the husband is the Saviour, and though the husband can have no such claim on his wife, yet the wife is to obey him as the church obeys Christ.” Similarly Hodge, Ellicott, and Alford. The sense is good, but sounds like a truism. “Himself is Saviour of the body-that certainly man is not and cannot be, nevertheless as,” etc.-you are to obey your husbands, who can never have claims on you like Christ. The choice is between this and giving ἀλλά an antithetic reference. It is very often used after an implied negative, especially after questions which imply a negative answer. Luke 7:7; John 7:49; Acts 19:2. See also Romans 3:31; Romans 8:37; 1 Corinthians 6:8; 1 Corinthians 9:12. And without a question, such usage, implying a suppressed negative answer, is prevalent. Compare Luke 23:15; 2 Corinthians 8:7; 2 Corinthians 13:4; Galatians 2:3; Philippians 1:18; Philippians 2:17; 1 Timothy 1:15-16; Vigerus, De Idiotismis, cap. viii. § 1. A singularly acute paper on οὐκ ἀλλά will be found in the appendix to the Commentary of Fritzsche on Mark. If we apply such an idiom to the passage before us, the sense will then be this: The man is head of the woman, as Christ is Head of the church-Himself Saviour of the body-do not disallow the marital headship, for it is a Divine institution- ἀλλά-but as the church is subject to Christ-

οὕτως καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί ( ὑποτασσέσθωσαν)—“so let the wives be subject to their husbands in everything.” ᾿ιδίοις, which in the Received Text stands before ἀνδράσιν, is properly rejected from the text. The words ἐν πάντι mean in everything within the proper circuit of conjugal obligation. If the husband trespass beyond this sphere he usurps, and cannot insist upon the obedience implied in the matrimonial contract. Obedience on the part of a wife is not a superinduced obligation. It springs from the affection and softness of her very nature, which is not fitted for robust and masculine independence, but feels the necessity of reliance and protection. It is made to confide, not to govern. In the domestic economy, though government and obedience certainly exist, they are not felt in painful or even formal contrast; and, in fact, they are so blended in affectionate adjustment, that the line which severs them cannot be distinguished. The law of marital government is a νόμος ἄγραφος. Even the heathen poets, as may be seen in the following quotations from Menander, Philemon, and Euripides, acknowledged such a law, though they could not treat the subject with the tenderness, beauty, and propriety of the apostle. Their notions are harder-

᾿αγαθῆς γυναικός ἐστιν, . . . .

΄ὴ κρεῖττον εἶναι τ᾿ ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπήκοον.

Their images are humiliating-

τὰ δευτερεῖα τὴν γυναῖκα δεῖ λέγειν,

and the feminine consciousness both of weakness and degradation occasionally breaks out-

᾿αλλ᾿ ἐννοεῖν χρὴ τοῦτο μὴν, γυναῖχ᾿ ὅτι

῎εφυμεν, ὡς πρὸς ἄνδρας οὐ μαχουμένα.

Verse 25

(Ephesians 5:25.) οἱ ἄνδρες, ἀγαπᾶτε τὰς γυναῖκας ἑαυτῶν—“Husbands, love your own wives.” The apostle now turns to the duties of husbands. There is some doubt as to the word ἑαυτῶν. Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it; A and B want it; but D, E, K, L, have it. Some MSS., such as F and G, read ὑμῶν instead. But there is not sufficient ground to reject it. As wives are summoned to obedience, so husbands are commanded to cherish love. The apostle dwells upon it. In Eastern countries, where polygamy was so frequent, conjugal love was easily dissipated; and among the Jews, the seclusion of unmarried young women often made it possible that the bridegroom was a stranger not only to the temper and manners of his bride, but even to the features of her face. Disappointment, followed by quarrel and divorce, must have been a frequent result. Therefore the apostle wished Christian husbands to be patterns of domestic virtue, and to love their wives. If love leads to conjugal union, and to the selection of a woman to be a wife, surely the affection which originated such an alliance ought to sustain and cheer it. Surliness, outbursts of temper, passionate remonstrances for mere trifles, are condemned. Husbands are not to be domestic tyrants; but their dominion is to be a reign of love. As the example of the church in her relation to Christ is set before wives, so the example of Christ, in His relation to the church, is set before husbands-

καθὼς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς ἠγάπησεν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν—“as also Christ loved the church.” For καθώς, see Ephesians 1:4, and καθὼς καί, Ephesians 4:32 and Ephesians 5:2; and for ἐκκλησια, see Ephesians 1:22. That church was originally impure and sinful-an infant exposed on the day of its birth, “to the loathing of its person;” but the Divine Lover passed by and said to it, “Live,” for its “time was the time of love.” The exposed foundling was His foster-child before it became His bride. Ezekiel 16. Similar phraseology as to love embodied in atonement has been employed in the 2nd verse of this chapter. What infinite pity and ineffable condescension are found in Christ's love to His church! Every blessing enjoyed by her must be traced upward and backward to the attachment of the Saviour. The church did not crave His love: He bestowed it. It was not excited by any loveliness of aspect on the part of the church, for she was guilty and impure-unworthy of His affection. But His love for her was a fondness tender beyond all conception, and ardent beyond all parallel-

καὶ ἑαυτὸν παρέδωκεν ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς—“and gave Himself for her.” This phraseology has also occurred in the 2nd verse of this chapter, and been there considered. Christ's sacrificial death in the room of His church, is the proof and expression of His love. What love to present such a gift! None could be nobler than Himself-the God-man-and so cheerfully conferred! That gift involved a death of inexpressible anguish, rendered still more awful by the endurance of the terrible penalty; and yet He shrank not from it. Who can doubt a love which has proved its strength and glory in such suffering and death? Now the love of the husband towards his wife is to be an image or reflection of Christ's love to the church; like it, ardent and devoted; like it, tender and self-abandoning; and like it, anxious above all things and by any sacrifice to secure the happiness of its object. He gave Himself-

Verse 26

(Ephesians 5:26.) ῞ινα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ, καθαρίσας τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος ἐν ῥήματι—“In order that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the laver of the water in the word.” This verse contains the nearer purpose, and the following verse unfolds the ulterior design of the Saviour's love and death, both being introduced by the telic ἵνα. The account given of the term ἅγιος under Ephesians 1:1, will serve so far to explain the meaning of the allied verb which occurs in this clause. It denotes to consecrate or to set apart, and then to make holy as the result of this consecration. Matthew 23:17; 1 Corinthians 7:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; Hebrews 2:11. Calvin, Beza, Harless, and Meier take the verb in the former sense. Others, such as Piscator, Rückert, Meyer, de Wette, Baumgarten - Crusius, Matthies, and Stier, give the meaning of moral or spiritual purification. The first appears to us to be the prominent idea, but not, certainly, to the exclusion of the last signification. That He might consecrate her, or set her apart to Himself as His own redeemed and peculiar possession-that she should be His and His alone-His by a special tie of tender devotedness-was the object of His death. Rückert objects to this exegesis, that the dative ἑαυτῷ or τῷ θεῷ is wanting, but the supplement is implied in the verb itself. Wholly out of the question is the interpretation of Koppe, Flatt, and Matthies, that the verb means to make expiation for-to absolve from guilt. It is true that ἁγιάζω is used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew- כִּפֵּר (Exodus 29:33; Exodus 29:36), and Stuart (Commentary on Hebrews 2:10) maintains that the verb has such a meaning in the Epistle to the Hebrews, but the examples which he has adduced admit of the meaning we have assigned to the word in the passage before us. Hebrews 10:10, etc., Hebrews 13:11-12. See Delitzsch in loc., Comment. zum B. an die Hebräer, p. 71, and Bleek in loc., Der B. an die Hebräer, who hold our view. Moreover, if καθαρίσας refer, as it does, to spiritual purification, then it can scarcely be thought that the apostle expresses the same idea in the previous verb ἁγιάσῃ. The meaning is, that having purified her He might consecrate her to Himself; this idea being suspended till it is brought out with special emphasis in the following verse. Meyer distinguishes ἁγιάσῃ from καθαρίσας, as if the last were the negative and the first the positive aspect of the idea. The distinction is baseless, for the purifying is as positive as is the sanctification. Harless errs in denying that here, whatever may be the fact elsewhere, the action of the participle precedes that of the verb, and in supposing that they coincide in time- καθαρίσας being a further definition of ἁγιάσῃ. Hofmann, loc. cit., connects καθαρίσας immediately with ἵνα παραστήσῃ, but very needlessly. This exegesis is as baseless as is the Syriac version and our English translation—“that He might sanctify and cleanse it.” The nominative to the verb is contained in the participle. Rückert, Matthies, and Olshausen render it “after that He has purified”-nachdem. De Wette, on the other hand, prefers indem—“since that.” The meaning is not different, if the participle be thus supposed to contain a pre-existent cause.

The idea expressed by καθαρίσας is that of purification, and its nature is to be learned from the following terms expressive of instrumentality. That the phrase τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος refers to the rite of baptism, is the general and correct opinion, the genitive being that of material, and the dative that of instrument, while the two articles express the recognized prominence as well of the water as of the laver. But as the entire paragraph presents a nuptial image, we see no reason on the part of Harless, Olshausen, and others, for denying all allusion to the peculiar and customary antenuptial lustrations. The church is the bride, “the Lamb's wife;” and described under this appellation, her baptism may be viewed as being at the same time- λουτρὸν νυμφικόν. Bos (Exercitat. p. 186), Elsner, Wetstein, Flatt, Bengel, Rückert, Matthies, Holzhausen, and Stier concur in the same representation. The washing of water in baptism was the sacrament expressive of purification. Acts 2:38; Acts 22:16; Hebrews 10:22. Baptism is called λουτρὸν παλιγγενεσίας—“the laver of regeneration,” a phrase farther explained by the following words- ἀνακαινώσεως πνεύματος ἁγίου—“the renewing of the Holy Ghost.” Titus 3:5.

But the additional words, ἐν ῥήματι, are not so easily understood. Quite foreign to the thought is the opinion of Hofmann, that as a man declares his will to make a woman his wife by a word or declaration, and so takes her from the unhonour of her maiden condition, so has Christ done to the church. Schriftb. vol. 2:2, 173. Some of the conflicting opinions may be noted:-

I. The Greek fathers, followed by Ambrosiaster, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Calovius, Flatt, and de Wette, easily understand the phrase of the baptismal formula. Chrysostom says- ἐν ῥήματι φησί; then he puts the question, ποίῳ? “in what word?” and his ready answer is, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” But it is not at all probable that ῥῆμα should stand for ὄνομα; and if it did, we should expect, as Harless intimates, to have it emphasized with an article prefixed. Nor has the word such a signification in any other portion of the New Testament.

II. Semler would strike out the words altogether; Michaelis would regard ῥῆμα as a Pauline Cilicism for ῥεῦμα; while Ernesti and Koppe, imitated by Stolz, join the words ἐν ῥήματι ἵνα together, and suppose that they stand for the Hebrew formula- עַל דּבַר אֲשֶׁר - “in order that.” The Seventy, however, never so render the Hebrew idiom, but translate it by ἕνεκεν. Genesis 20:6; Genesis 20:11; Numbers 16:49; Psalms 44:4.

III. Some join ἐν ῥήματι to the verb ἁγιάσῃ—“that He might sanctify by the word,” the intervening clause, “having cleansed by the washing of water,” being a parenthesis. This exegesis yields a good meaning, and is contended for by Jerome, Flacius, Baumgarten, Morus, Bisping, Rückert, Meyer, and Winer, § 20, 2 (b.). But the position of ἐν ῥήματι at the very end of the verse, forbids such an exegesis. It is a forced expedient, and the only reason for adopting it is the confessed difficulty of explaining the words in their obvious and natural connection.

IV. By other critics the phrase ἐν ῥήματι is joined to τῷ λουτρῷ τοῦ ὕδατος, as a qualificative or descriptive epithet. Such is the view of Augustine, Sedulius, Luther, Estius, Calvin, Erasmus, Flatt, Storr, Homberg, Holzhausen, and Stier. But though these scholars agree as to the general connection, their opinions vary much as to the special signification. The common argument against this and similar constructions, to wit, that the article should have been repeated before ἐν ῥήματι, has many exceptions, though in such a proposed construction its insertion would appear to be necessary:-

1. Augustine (Tractatus lxxx. in Johannem), Estius, Bodius, Röell, Crellius, Slichtingius, Flatt, Holzhausen, and the critics generally who are enumerated under No. IV., take ῥῆμα as signifying the gospel. Augustine says-accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. Sacramento simul et fidei, says Estius; or again, aquae baptismo per verbum evangelii creditum ac fide susceptum mundat. Bodius writes-verbum ut diploma, sacramentum ut sigillum. These meanings give ἐν an unwonted sense of “along with, or by means of.” Had the apostle meant to say that the efficacy of baptism lies in faith in the word, surely other language would have been employed. The view of Knapp (Vorlesungen über die Christ. Glaubenslehre, ii. § 140) is of the same nature, and is liable to similar objections. “The Word,” he says, “is the evangelical system in its fullest extent - its precepts and promises.” “In baptism,” he adds, “the latter are made over, and we pledge ourselves to obey the former. Baptism may be thus called verbum Dei visibile.”

2. Others look on ῥῆμα as denotive of Divine agency in baptism. This was Luther's view, as expressed in his Smaller Catechism-verbum Dei quod in et cum aqua est (Die Symbolischen Bücher der Evang. Luth. Kirche, p. 362, ed. Müller). Calvin's view is somewhat similar-verbo sublato perit tota vis sacramentorum. . . . Porro verbum hic promissionem significat, qua vis et usus signi explicatur. . . In verbo tantum valet atque per verbum. This notion is imitated also by Rollock. The preposition ἐν may bear such a signification. Still, had the apostle meant to say that baptism derived its efficacy from the word, surely something more than the simple addition ἐν ῥήματι might have been expected. Olshausen looks upon ἐν ῥήματι as equivalent to ἐν πνεύματι—“as signifying a bath in the word, that is, a bath in which one is born of water and of the Spirit.” This strange opinion cuts the knot, but does not untie it. Similar is the view of Stier, and Homberg who paraphrases-aqua verbalis et spiritualis. The proposition of Grotius is no less violent, inserting the particle ὡς before τῷ λουτρῷ-washing them by the word “as” in a bath of water.

3. A third party, such as Storr-Opuscula Academica, 1.194-and Peile, give ῥῆμα the sense of mandate-praescriptum. “The apostle,” says Peile, “declares water - baptism to be the divinely-instituted sign or sacrament whereby men are regenerated.” This notion gives ἐν the strange sense of “in conformity to.”

V. and lastly. Others, such as Bengel, Matthies, and Harless, join the words ἐν ῥήματι with καθαρίσας. To this opinion we incline; but we cannot agree with Harless in giving the phrase the meaning of ausspruchsweise, verheissungsweise. The idea in such an explanation is, that the cleansing is given in the form of a declaration or promise made in the ordinance. But there is no need to depart from the ordinary meaning of ῥῆμα in the New Testament. The Syriac reads—“that he might sanctify and purify her in the laver of water and by the word;” and the Vulgate has-in verbo vitae. But we regard ἐν as denoting the instrument in its internal operation, and so far different from διά; and by ῥῆμα we understand the gospel, the usual meaning of the Greek term. Acts 10:44; Acts 11:14; Romans 10:8; Romans 10:17; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 6:5. It wants the article as if it were used, as Meyer suggests, like a proper name. It is a mere refinement on the part of Baumgarten-Crusius to understand by it “a preached gospel.” The church is cleansed “by the laver of the water” - cleansed by “the word.” The washing of water symbolizes the pardon of sin and the regeneration of the heart. While this cleansing has its sacramental symbol in the washing of water, it has its special instrument in the word; or τῷ λουτρῷ in the simple dative may denote the instrument (Bernhardy, p. 100), and ἐν ῥήματι the “conditional element,” as Alford calls it. The word is the Spirit's element in effecting a blessed and radical change, and in guiding, ruling, and prompting the heart into which the new life has been infused. Men are thus cleansed by baptism in the word. Psalms 119:9; 1 Peter 1:23. Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, § 66, Erlangen, 1859. Christ accomplishes these results through His death, and what is properly done by His Spirit may be ascribed to Himself, who for this other purpose loved the church and gave Himself for it-

Verse 27

(Ephesians 5:27.) ῞ινα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἔνδοξον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν—“in order that He might present, Himself to Himself, the church glorious.” αὐτός, supported by the authority of A, B, D¹, F, G, L, and many versions and Fathers, is decidedly to be preferred to the αὐτήν of the Textus Receptus. This verse declares the ultimate purpose of the love and death of Him who is “both Ransom and Redeemer voluntary.” Harless errs in regarding the two clauses beginning with ἵνα as co-ordinate. The allusion is still to a nuptial ceremony, and to the presentation of the bride to her husband- αὐτὸς- ἑαυτῷ. The august Bridegroom does not present His spouse to Himself till He can look upon her with complacency. Harless affirms that the presentation described is that of a sacrifice on the altar, because the epithets employed by the apostle are occasionally applied to victims and offerings; but such a view is in conflict with the entire language and imagery on to the end of the chapter. Nay, there is a peculiar beauty in applying sacrificial terms to the fair and immaculate bride, as she is fit, even according to legal prescription, to be presented to her Lord. So Meyer remarks ἑαυτῷ would be out of place in the theory of Harless-Jesus presenting an oblation to Himself! The word παραστήσῃ occurs with a similar meaning in 2 Corinthians 11:2—“that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” αὐτὸς- ἑαυτῷ-He and none other presents the bride, and HE and none other receives her to HIMSELF. No inferior agency is permitted; a proof in itself, as well as His death, of His love to the church. ῎ενδοξον—“glorious;” the epithet being a tertiary predicate and emphatic in position. Donaldson, § 489. The same idea occurs in Revelation 19:7-8. The term refers original ly to external appearance-the combined effect of person and dress. The illustrious epithet is explained by the succeeding clauses-first negative-

μὴ ἔχουσαν σπίλον, ἢ ῥυτίδα, ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων—“having neither spot, or wrinkle, or any one of such things.” σπῖλος, which ought to be spelled with a simple accent- σπίλος ( ἄσπιλος forming a dactyle), is a stain or blemish, and is one of the words of the later Greeks. 2 Peter 2:13. λέγε δὲ κηλίς, as the older Attic term, says Phrynicus (p. 28). ῾πυτίς is a wrinkle or fold on the face, indicative of age or disease. Dioscorides, 1:39; Passow, sub voce. Not only are spots and wrinkles excluded, but every similar blemish. The terms are taken from physical beauty, health, and symmetry, to denote spiritual perfection. Song of Solomon 4:7. The attempts made by some critics, such as Anselm, Estius, and Grotius, to distinguish nicely and formally between the virtues or graces described in these terms respectively, are needless. Thus Augustine takes the first term to mean deformitas operis, and the second duplicitas intentionis, and the last inclusive phrase to comprehend reliquiae peccatorum ut pravae inclinationis, motus involuntarii et multiplicis ignorantiae. Not only negatively but positively-

ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος—“but that she should be holy and without blemish.” One might have expected ἀλλ᾿ οὖσαν, but it is as if ἵνα μὴ ἔχῃ σπίλον had stood in the previous clause. The syntax is thus changed, no uncommon occurrence in Greek composition, as may be seen in John 8:53; Romans 12:1-2. On the oratio variata, compare Winer, § 63, 2, 1. The syntactic change here, with the repetition of ἵνα, gives special prominence to the idea which has been expressed, first negatively, but now in this clause with positive affirmation. The meaning of ἁγία has been given already under Ephesians 1:1; Ephesians 1:4; and of ἄμωμος under Ephesians 1:4, and needs not be repeated here. Such, then, is to be the ultimate perfection and destiny of the church. In her spotless purity the love of Christ finds its extreme and glorious design realized. That love which led Him to die, in order to bestow pardon and to secure holiness, is not contented till its object be robed in unsullied and unchanging purity.

But when is this perfection to be for the first time possessed, and when does this presentation take place? We have already said that the presentation is not contemporary with the consecration, but is posterior to it, and does not finally and formally take place on earth. The “church” we understand in its full significance, as the whole company of the redeemed, personified and represented as a spiritual Spouse. The presentation belongs therefore to the period of the second coming, when the human species shall have completed its cycle of existence on earth; and every one whom the Saviour's all-seeing eye beheld as belonging to His church, and whom, therefore, He loved and died for, and cleansed, has shared in the final redemption. (The reader may turn to what is said upon the phrase—“redemption of the purchased possession,” Ephesians 1:14.) Augustine and Jerome among the Fathers, Primasius, Bernard, and Thomas Aquinas among scholastic divines, along with Estius, Calvin, and Beza, hold to this view as to the epoch of the presentation, in antagonism with Cajetan, Bucer, Wolf, Bengel, and Harless, who regard the glorification of the church as a species of present operation. The loose language of the Greek commentators seems to intimate that they held the same hypothesis. Augustine flagellates the Donatists and Pelagians, who believed in the present sinlessness of the church; for truly such a state can only be such a comparative perfection as John Wesley describes when he says, “Christian perfection does not imply an exemption from ignorance or mistakes, infirmities or temptations.” The church as it now is, and as it has always been, has many spots and wrinkles upon it. But perfection is secured by a process of continuous and successful operation, and shall be ultimately enjoyed. “The bride, the Lamb's wife,” hath for centuries been making herself ready, and at length Christ, as He looks upon His church, will pr onounce her perfect without tinge of sin or trace of any corruption; she will appear “holy and without blemish” in His view whose “eyes are a flame of fire.” As He originally loved her in her impurity, how deep and ardent must be His attachment now to her when He sees in her the realization of His own gracious and eternal purpose! The nuptial union is at length consummated amidst the pealing halleluiahs of triumph and congratulation. So fervent, self-sacrificing, and successful is Christ's love to His church; and now He rejoices over her with joy, and His toil and death being amply compensated, “He will rest in His love.”

Verse 28

(Ephesians 5:28.) οὕτως καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ὀφείλουσιν ἀγαπᾶν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας, ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα—“So also ought husbands to love their own wives, as being their own bodies.” The reading adopted has A, D, E, F, G, and the Vulgate, Gothic, and Coptic versions in its favour. The adverb οὕτως carries us back to καθώς, and indicates the bringing home of the argument. It is contrary to the plain current of thought on the part of Estius, Meier, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Alford, to make it refer to ὡς in the following clause, as if the apostle said, Ye are to love your wives in the way in which ye love your own bodies. The οὕτως takes up the comparison between the husband and Christ, the wife and the church. “Thus,” that is, in imitation of Christ's love, “husbands ought to love their own wives.” The instances adduced by Alford and Ellicott against the statement in our first edition are not all of them quite parallel, in the position and use of οὕτως, in reference to praecedentia. There is no parenthesis in the two preceding verses, as Zanchius and Harless suppose. It is putting a special pressure upon the words to insist, after the example of Macknight and Barnes, that the husband's love to his wife shall be an imitation of Christ's love, in all those enumerated features of it. When Christ's love is mentioned, the full heart of the apostle dilates upon it, and in its fervour, tenderness, devotedness, and nobility of aim, a husband's love should resemble it. In the phrase “as their own bodies,” Harless and Stier, in imitation of Theophylact, Zanchius, and Calovius, suppose that ὡς is used argumentatively, and that the verse contains two comparisons—“As Christ loved the church, so husbands are to love their wives”—“As they love their own bodies, so are they to love their wives.” But the introduction of a double comparison only cumbers the argument. The idea is well expressed by Meyer—“So ought husbands to love their wives, as being indeed their own bodies.” The language is based on the previous imagery. The apostle calls Christ the Head, and the church the body, that body of which He is Saviour. Christ loved the church as being His body. Now the husband is the head of the wife, and as her head he ought to love her as being his body. And therefore-

ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ—“he that loveth his own wife loveth himself.” But the phrase, “loveth himself,” is not identical with the formula of the preceding clause—“as their own bodies;” it is rather an inference from it. If the husband, as the head of the wife, loves his wife as being his own body, it is a plain inference that he is only loving himself. His love is not misspent: it is not wasted on some foreign object; it is a hallowed phasis of self-love.

Verse 29

(Ephesians 5:29.) οὐδεὶς γάρ ποτε τὴν ἑαυτοῦ σάρκα ἐμίσησεν—“For nobody ever hated his own flesh” (fools and fanatics excepted). This is a general law of nature. Ecclesiastes 6:7. γάρ is argumentative, and σάρξ is used by the apostle rather than σῶμα, 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 Ephesians 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.

ἀλλὰ ἐκτρέφει καὶ θάλπει αὐτήν—“but nourisheth and cherisheth it.” ῞εκαστος 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- ἐκ-referring to result; and the latter literally to supply warmth, but really and generally to cherish-more than Bengel's-id spectat amictum. Deuteronomy 22:6; Job 39:14; 1 Thessalonians 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.

καθὼς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν—“as also Christ the church.” On the authority of A, B, D,¹ E, F, G, the Syriac, and Vulgate, with Chrysostom and Theodoret, χριστός is the preferable reading to κύριος, 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.

Verse 30

(Ephesians 5:30.) ῞οτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ—“For members we are of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” The last two clauses beginning with ἐκ are not found in A, B, and other Codices of less note, such as 17 and 67²; but they are found in D, E, F, G, K, L, almost all mss., in Chrysostom and Theodoret, and in the Syriac and Vulgate versions. We cannot, therefore, exclude them with Lachmann and Davidson, Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 378. Tischendorf adopts them in his seventh edition. They have been omitted at first, as de Wette suggests, by a ὁμοιοτέλευτον; αὐτοῦ . . . αὐτοῦ, or because they seem to express gross and material ideas. This verse adduces a reason why Christ nourishes and cherishes the church, for it stands in the nearest and dearest relation to Him. We are members of His body, as being members of His church, and, as members of that body, we are nourished and cherished by the Head- ἐκ in both the last clauses pointing to origin. Winer, § 47. See under Ephesians 4:15-16. Bengel, Harless, Olshausen, and Stier understand by σῶμα the actual personal body of Jesus-the body of His glorified humanity. But in what sense are or can we be members- μέλη-of that body? It has its own organs and members, which it took in the Virgin's womb. But the apostle has his thoughts occupied with conjugal duties, and he has, in subordination to this, introduced Christ and His church as bridegroom and bride; therefore his mind reverts naturally to the imagery and language of the original matrimonial institute, and so he adds—“we are members of His flesh and of His bones.” Genesis 2:23. The argument of Harless against this view, which appears so natural, is lame and inconclusive, and he holds the opinion, that the two clauses are simply a further explanation of the statement—“we are members of His body.” What is really meant by the striking phraseology has been a subject of no little dispute.

1. Cajetan, Vatablus, Calovius, Bullinger, Vorstius, Grotius, Zanchius, and Zachariae refer the words to the origin of the church from the flesh and bones of Christ, nailed to the cross, and there presented to God. Such an idea is neither prominent in the words nor latent in the context.

2. Not more satisfactory is the view which is held in part by Theodoret, by Calvin, Beza, and Grotius, who find in the phrase a reference to the Lord's Supper. Kahnis, Abendmahl, p. 143. These critics differ in the way in which they understand such a reference, and no wonder; for the communion there enjoyed is only a result of the union which this verse describes. Strange, if there be any allusion to the eucharist, that there is a reference to the bones, but none to the blood of Christ.

3. Not so remote from the real sense is the opinion of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ambrosiaster, OEcumenius, Bengel, and Matthies, who suppose an allusion in the phraseology to that new birth which is effected by Christ, as if it had been shadowed out by Eve's extraction from Adam's side. OEcumenius says- ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ καθὸ ἀπαρχὴ ἡμῶν ἐστι τῆς δευτέρας πλάσεως ὥσπερ ἐκ τοῦ ᾿αδὰμ διὰ τὴν πρώτην. It is indeed as renewed men that believers have any fellowship with Christ. But the idea of birth is not naturally nor necessarily implied in the apostle's language, and it is founded upon an incorrect interpretation of our Lord's expression about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. John 6:53.

4. As plausible is the theory which explains the clauses by a reference to that identity of nature which Christ and His people possess. They are partakers of one humanity. Chrysostom and Theophylact also give this view; Irenaeus, Augustine, and Jerome maintain it; and it has been held by Thomas Aquinas, Aretius, Cocceius, and Michaelis. The reply, “that in that case the language must have been, He took upon Him our flesh and bone,” has been met by Estius, who says, “the language is just, because in His incarnate state He is the Head and we are only members.” But our principal objection is, that this simple community of nature with Christ is common to all men; whereas it is only of believers, and of a union peculiar to them, that the apostle speaks.

5. We confess our inability to understand the meaning of Bisping, Olshausen, and others. “The words refer,” they say, “to Christ's imparting of His glorified humanity to believers through the communion of His flesh and blood. . . . It is by the self-communication of His divine-human (theanthropic) nature that Christ makes us His flesh and bone. He gives to His followers His flesh to eat and His blood to drink.” Bisping, a Romanist, says, “In the regeneration through baptism, the glorified body of Christ is communicated to us.” That is, as he explains, “the germ of the resurrection of the body is implanted in us at baptism, and this germ is only an outflow from Christ's glorified body.” Such an idea could only be consistently based on the Lutheran view of consubstantiation, or some species of pantheism, or what Turner calls Panchristism. But-

6. The apostle has the idea of marriage and its relations before him, and he employs the imagery of the original institute, which first depicted the unity of man and wife, to describe the origin and union of the church and Christ. As the woman was literally, by being taken out of Adam, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh; as this duality sprung from unity, and was speedily resolved into it: so the church is originated out of Christ, and, united to Him as its Head or Husband, is one with Him. The language is, therefore, a metaphorical expression of this union, borrowed from the graphic diction of Genesis; and this image evidently presented itself to the apostle's mind from its connection with the origin and nature of those conjugal duties which he is inculcating in the paragraph before us. The error of Meyer's exegesis is his restriction of the imagery to the one example of Adam and Eve, whereas it has its verification in every nuptial union, and hence the apostle's use of it. As Eve derived her life and being out of Adam, and was physically of his body, his flesh, and his bones, so believers are really of Christ-of His body, His flesh, and His bones, for they are one with Christ in nature and derive their life from His humanity, nay, are connected with Him, not simply and generally by a spiritual union, but in some close and derivative way which the apostle calls a mystery, with His body; so that they live as its members, and become with it “one flesh.” Besides, in the next verse, the apostle takes his readers to the source of his imagery-

Verse 31

(Ephesians 5:31.) ᾿αντὶ τούτου, καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα, καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν ψυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν. “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 τόν and τήν, as well as αὐτοῦ, 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 πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα found in B, D³, E, K, L, τῇ γυναικί is read in D¹, E¹, F, G, and is introduced by Lachmann. The words are a free quotation from Genesis 2:24, though the formula of quotation is wanting. This want of such a formula was not unfrequent. Surenhusius, Bib. Katal. p. 21. ῎ανθρωπος is without the article (not used for ἀνήρ), 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 ἕνεκεν τούτου changed by the apostle into ἀντὶ τούτου, “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 μητέρα 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 Genesis 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 ἀπόλειψις or ἀπόπεμψις 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.

Verse 32

(Ephesians 5:32.) τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο μέγα ἐστίν, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς χριστὸν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν—“This mystery is a great one, but I speak concerning Christ and concerning the church.” ΄υστήριον is rendered in the Vulgate sacramentum, and the Popish church regards marriage as one of its sacraments. Cajetan and Estius, however, disavow the Latin translation, on which their own church rests its proof. The Cardinal honestly says, non habes ex hoc loco, prudens lector, a Paulo conjugium esse sacramentum. Non enim dixit, esse sacramentum, sed mysterium. Bisping more guardedly says that the sacramental character of marriage cannot be proved directly and immediately. Erasmus is yet more cautious. Neque nego matrimonium esse sacramentum, sed an ex hoc loco doceri possit proprie dici sacramentum quemadmodum baptismus dicitur, excuti volo. The phrase סוֹדגָּדוֹל, “a great mystery,” is found among the rabbinical formulae. Those who hold that the previous verse refers to Christ leaving His Father and Mother, and coming down to our earth to woo and win His spiritual bride, find no difficulty in the explanation of the verse before us. Such a representation, couched in such language, might well be named a great mystery, in connection with Christ and the church. But the language of this verse does not prove it, or afford any explanation of it.

The question to be determined is, What is the real or implied antecedent to τοῦτο? 1. Is the meaning this: Marriage as described in the preceding verse is a great mystery, but I speak of it in its mystical or typical connection with Christ and the church? Those who, like Harless, Olshausen, and others, take the last clause, “they two shall be one flesh,” as referring to Christ and His church, say that the sense is—“the mystery thus described is a great one, but it refers to Christ and the church.” But were the meaning of that clause so plain as Harless supposes, then this exegetical note, “I speak concerning Christ and the church,” might be dispensed with. 2. Others, such as Baumgarten-Crusius, look upon the word μυστήριον as equivalent to allegory, and suppose the apostle to refer to a well-known Jewish view as to the typical nature of the marriage of Adam and Eve. Schoettgen, Hor. Heb. p. 783. The allegory, however, of Philo on the place is of quite a different kind. ῞ενεκα τῆς αἰσθήσεως ὁ νοῦς, ὅταν αὐτῇ δουλωθῇ, καταλίπῃ καὶ τὸν πατέρα, τὸν ὅλων θεὸν, καὶ τὴν μητέρα τῶν συμπάντων, τὴν ἀρετὴν καὶ σοφίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ προσκολλᾶται καὶ ἑνοῦται τῇ αἰσθήσει, καὶ ἀναλύεται εἰς αἴσθησιν, ἵνα γίνωνται μία σάρξ, καὶ ἓν πάθος, οἱ δύο. “On account of the external sensation, the mind, when it has become enslaved to it, shall leave both its father, the God of the universe, and the mother of all things, namely, the virtue and wisdom of God, and cleaves to and becomes united to the external sensations, and is dissolved into external sensation, so that the two become one flesh and one passion.” Allix, in his Judgment of the Jewish Church, says the first match between Adam and Eve was a type of that between Christ and His church. A note on this subject may be seen in Whitby's Commentary. Suc h an opinion gives the word μυστήριον the meaning of something spoken, having in it a deep or occult sense; a meaning which Koppe, Morus, de Wette, Meier, and Grotius, and Stier to some extent, without any biblical foundation, attach to the term in this place. 3. The exegesis of Peile is wholly out of the question—“this mystery is of great depth of meaning, and for my part I interpret it as having reference to Christ;” a paraphrase as untenable as that of Grotius - verba ista explicavi vobis non κατὰ πόδας, sed sensu μυστικωτέρῳ. But Scripture affords us no warrant for such notions; nor is such allegorization any portion of the apostle's hermeneutics. 4. Hofmann, loc. cit., quite apart from the reasoning and context, understands the apostle to say that the sacred unity of marriage-one flesh-is a great mystery to the heathen. 5. We understand the apostle to refer to the general sentiment of the preceding section, summed up in the last verse, and in the clause, “they two shall be one flesh;” or rather to the special image which that clause illustrates, viz., that Christ and the church stand in the relation of husband and wife. The allowed application of conjugal terms to Christ and the church is “a great mystery;” and lest any one should think that the apostle refers to the “one flesh” of an earthly relationship, he is cautious to add, “I speak concerning Christ and the church.” This great truth is a great mystery, understood only by the initiated; for the blessedness of such a union with Christ is known only to those who enjoy it. Somewhat differently from Ellicott, we would say that Ephesians 5:25-28 introduce the spiritual nuptial relation, that Ephesians 5:29 affirms its reality, that Ephesians 5:30 gives the deep spiritual ground or origin of it, while the quotation in Ephesians 5:31 shows the authorized source of the image, and Ephesians 5:32 its ultimate appl ication guarding against mistake. The meaning of μυστήριον the reader will find under Ephesians 1:9. The word is used in the same sense as here in Ephesians 6:19; 1 Timothy 3:16.

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω εἰς χριστὸν, καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν—“but I am speaking in reference to Christ, and in reference to the church.” The pronoun is not without subjective significance. Winer, § 22, 6. The δέ is not simply explicative, but has also an adversative meaning, as if the writer supposed in his mind that the phraseology employed by him might be interpreted in another and different way. λέγω, introducing an explanation, is followed by the εἰς of reference (von der Richtung, Winer, § 49, a, ( δ)), as in Acts 2:25; and ἐλάλησεν has a similar complement in Hebrews 7:14. The interpretation of Zanchius, Bodius, and Cameron, imitated by Macknight, supposes the marriage of Eve with Adam to be a type or a designed emblem of the union of Christ and His church. Macknight dwells at length and with more than usual unction on the theme. But the apostle simply compares Christ and His church to husband and wife, and the comparison helps him to illustrate and enforce conjugal duty. Nay, so close and tender is the union between Christ and His church, that the language of Adam concerning Eve may be applied to it. The nuptial union of our first parents was not a formal type of this spiritual matrimony, nor does the apostle allegorize the record of it, or say that the words contain a deep or mystic sense. But these primitive espousals afforded imagery and language which might aptly and truly be applied to Christ and the church, which is of His “flesh and His bones;” and the application of such imagery and language is indeed a mystery-a truth, the secret glory and felicity of which are known but to those who are wedded to the Lord in a “perpetual covenant.” The apostle might have in his eye such passages as Psalms 45; Hosea 2:19-23; the Song of Solomon; Isaiah 54:5; Isaiah 61:10; Ezekiel 16:8. The same imagery is found in 2 Corinthians 11:2, and in the conclusion of the Apocalypse.

Verse 33

(Ephesians 5:33.) πλὴν καὶ ὑμεῖς οἱ καθ᾿ ἕνα, ἕκαστος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα οὕτως ἀγαπάτω ὡς ἑαυτόν—“Nevertheless also as to every one of you, let each love his wife as himself.” The word πλήν does not indicate, as Bengel, Harless, and Olshausen wrongly suppose, any return from a digression. The preceding verses are no digression, but an interlinked and extended illustration. As Meyer insists, πλήν means, “yet apart from this;” that is, apart from this illustration of the conjugal relationship of Christ to His church. The term, therefore, does not indicate a return from a formal digression, but rather a return to the starting thought. The καί contains an allusion to the leading idea of the preceding illustration-the love of Christ to His spiritual spouse. As He loves His spouse, do you also, every one of you, love his wife. οἱ καθ᾿ ἕνα. 1 Corinthians 14:27-31; Jelf, § 629; Winer, § 49, d. The verb ἀγαπάτω is singular, agreeing with ἕκαστος and not ὑμεῖς-a mode of construction which individualizes and intensifies the injunction.

ὡς ἑαυτόν—“as being himself” one flesh with him. (Ephesians 5:31; Ephesians 5:28.) Not that he is to idolize her, as if, among all his other bones, Adam's “extracted rib alone had been of ivory.”

ἡ δὲ γυνὴ ἵνα φοβῆται τὸν ἄνδρα—“and the wife that she reverence her husband.” The construction of this clause is idiomatic, as in Galatians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 8:7; Mark 5:23; Winer, § 63, II.1. In such an idiom γυνή, in effect, is the nominative absolute, though in the resolution of the idiom a verb must be supplied; or as Ellicott, who objects to our statement, admits-it is not so definitely unsyntactic as Acts 7:40, and that is all we meant to say. δέ may be slightly adversative, the conjugal duties being in contrast. The verb to be supplied, and on which, in the mind of the writer, ἵνα depends, is furnished by the context (Meyer on 2 Corinthians 8:7, and Osiander on the same place), as, “I command,” or “let her see.” In such a case ὅπως is used by the classical writers. Raphelius, Annotat. 488. The wife is to reverence her husband-numquam enim erit voluntaria subjectio nisi proecedat reverentia. Calvin. One peculiarity in this injunction has been usually overlooked. What is instinctive on either side is not enforced, but what is necessary to direct and hallow such an instinct is inculcated. The woman loves, but to teach her how this fondness should know and fill its appropriate sphere, she is commanded to obey- μὴ δουλοπρεπῶς. OEcumenius. The man, on the other hand, feels that his position is to govern; but to show him what should be the essence and means of his government, he is enjoined to love. “He rules her by authority, and she rules him by love: she ought by all means to please him, and he must by no means displease her.” Sermon on the Marriage Ring, by Jeremy Taylor; Works, vol. xv. When this balance of power is unsettled, happiness is lost, and mutual recriminations ensue. “A masterly wife,” as Gataker says, “is as much despised and derided for taking rule over her husband as he for yielding to it.”

In fine, the apostle, by the language he has employed in reference to Christ and His church, has given marriage its highest honour. No ascetic condemnation of it occurs in the New Testament. “Single life makes men in one instance to be like angels, but marriage in very many things makes the chaste pair to be like Christ.” Sermon on the Marriage Ring, by Jeremy Taylor; Works, vol. xv.