peculiar type of physical life from the head of his race, but not one particle of the substance of his body. Husband and wife are in Scripture declared to be one flesh. But here again it is not identity of substance, but community of life that is intended. As, therefore, participation of one’s flesh does not in other connec- tions, mean participation of his substance, it cannot be fairly understood in that sense when spoken of our relation to Christ. And as in all analogous cases it does express derivation’ or community of life, it must be so understood here.
3. It is clearly taught in Scripture that the union with Christ here described is essential to salvation. It is also clearly taught in the word of God, and held by all Protestants, though not by Romanists, that believers under the Old Dispensation were fully saved. Whatever, therefore, is the nature of the union with Christ here taught, it must be such as is common to believers who lived before and to those who live after the advent of Christ. It is possible that the saints under the Old Dispensation should have derived their lite from the body of Christ, as he was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, but it is not possible that they could be partakers of the substance of his body, or of his glorified humanity. The passage before us, therefore, cannot teach any such community of substance.
4. The community of life with Christ and deriva- tion of life from his flesh, which is the doctrine this interpretation supposes the passage before us to teach,
CHAP. v. vs. 30. 31. 3847
is a doctrine elsewhere taught in Scripture. We are not only said to be saved by his body, Rom. 7, 4; by his blood, Eph. 2,13; by his flesh, 2,15; by the body of his flesh, Col. 1, 22; but his flesh is said to be our life, and participation of it is said to be the source of eternal life. ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life.” John 6, 53. 54.
The union, therefore, between Christ and his people is mysterious. It may be illustrated, but cannot be fully explained. It is analogous to the union between husband and wife, who are declared to be one flesh to express their community of life; and especially to the union between Adam and Eve because she derived her life from his flesh. As the relations are thus analogous, what is said of the one may be said of the other. To prove this, and to justify the use of the language which he had employed, the apostle cites the language of God in Gen. 2, 24. Ver. 31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. That is, be- cause the relation between husband and wife is more intimate than any other, even than that between parents and children; therefore a man shall consider all other relations subordinate to that which he sus- tains to his wife, with whom he is connected in the bonds of a common life. As the Scripture speaks in such terms of the conjugal relation, the apostle was justified in using the same terms of the union between