but that they are one. It is not a duty, but a fact which they announce. So also it is a fact which the apostle declares when he says, “Ηρ that loves his wife loves himself.”
VY. 29. Conjugal love, therefore, is as much a dic- tate of nature as self-love ; and it is just as unnatural for a man to hate his wife, as it would be for him to hate himself, or his own body. A man may have a body which does not altogether suit him. He may wish it were handsomer, healthier, stronger, or more active. Still it is Aes body, it is himself; and he nourisheth it and cherishes it as tenderly as though it were the best and loveliest man ever had. So a man may have a wife whom he could wish to be better, or more beauti- ful, or more agreeable ; still she is his wife, and by the constitution of nature and ordinance of God, a part of himself. In neglecting or ill-using her he violates the laws of nature as well as the law of God. It is thus Paul presents the matter. If the husband and wife are one flesh, the husband must love his wife, “for no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cher- isheth it.” ’Extpépew is properly to nourish up, to train up by nurture, as a parent a child; comp. 6, 4. Θάλπειν is, to warm, to cherish as a mother does an infant in her bosom. Both terms express tenderness and solicitude, and therefore both are suited to express the care with which every man provides for the wants and comfort of his own body.
Καθὼς καί, even as also, Χριστὸς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Christ the church, i. e. Christ also nourishes and
CHAP. V. vs. 29. 30. oot
cherishes the church as a man does his own body. The relation between a man and his wife is analogous to that between a man and his own body. And the relation between Christ and his church is analogous to that between a husband and his wife; therefore Christ nourishes and cherishes the church as man does his own body.
V. 30. This verse assigns the reason of the preced- ing declaration. Christ acts towards his church as a man does towards his body, for we are members of his body. This might mean simply that we stand to him in the same intimate and vital union, that a man’s body sustains to the man himself. But the meaning is ren- dered more definite by the words which follow, ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ Kal ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ ;* not members of, but derived from, and partakers of, his flesh and his bones. This is the signification of the words, whatever their meaning may be. ᾿Εκ expresses derivation and participation. This is one of the most difficult passages in the Bible. The doctrine which it teaches is declared by the apostle, in a following verse, to be a great mys- tery. Any explanation, therefore, which dispels that mystery, and makes the doctrine taught perfectly in- telligible, must be false. All that can properly be
* These words are omitted in MSS. AB 17, and in the Coptic and Ethiopic versions, and are left out of the text by Lachmann and Tischen- dorf. The other Uncial MSS., the Syriac version, the Fathers, are in their favour. They are required by the context, and their omission is easily accounted for. Even Mill and Griesbach retain them, as do 8}} other
editors, and the commentators almost without exception.
22