wy IW), in the sense of “for that,”
and occasionally as = “ wherefore "’; cf. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν, Luke xii. 3; cf. Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek, p. 125; Win.-Moult., p. 456. Thus ἀντὶ τούτον may refer either to the immediately preceding statement regarding our being members of Christ's body (so Mey.), or to the leading idea of the previous verses, viz., the husband’s duty to love, nourish, and cherish the wife even as Christ loves, nourishes, and cherishesthe Church. Theformer connec- tion leads, as in Meyer's case, to an alle- gorising interpretation. The latter is to be preferred as in harmony with a simpler and more natural view of what follows. Another turn is given to the phrase, ¢.g., by Von Soden, who makes it = “instead of this,” supposing the point to be that in place of hating, as mentioned in ver. 29, the husband ought to love and cleave to his wife. But this is far-fetched. The καταλείψει, especially in view of its application in the OT passage cited or used, must be taken here as the ethical future, the future expressing what should, can, or must be, as, ε.ρ., in Matt. vii. 26; Luke xxii. 49; John vi. 68; Rom. x. 14, etc.; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 348; Donaldson, Greek Gram., p. 407. Meyer insists on its being a pure future, and refers it ta what is to take place at the Parousia, The verse as used here has been strangely handled by many commentators, who have found secondary, mystical meanin
in the words. Nota few of the Fathers (Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Jerome, etc.) interpreted it of the Incarnation ; and later
31—32.
, 9 ε οι μον , , καὶ ἔσονται ot δύο “eis σάρκα μίαν. μέγα ἐστίν, ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω “eis χριστὸν καὶ
Xv. 51 al. Paul; Rev. i. 20 al.