Ephesians 5:28

Eph 5:28-32. But to return to the subject from which this pleasing digression has led us: So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies — That is, as themselves, or a part of themselves; the bond of marriage making the husband and his wife one, and establishing an inseparable community of interests between them; so that the husband is to love his wife with the same sincerity and ardency of affection wherewith he loves himself. “The husband,” says Macknight, “whose love leads him, after Christ’s example, not only to protect and cherish his wife, by giving her the necessaries and conveniences of life, but also to cleanse her; that is, to form her mind, and assist her in making progress in virtue, really loves himself, and promotes his own happiness in the best manner. For his wife, being thus loved and cared for, will be strengthened for performing her duty; and her mind being improved, her conversation will give him the greater pleasure. Withal, having a high esteem for her husband, she will submit to the hardships of her inferior station with cheerfulness.” No man — In his senses; ever yet hated his own flesh — Whatever its infirmities or imperfections were; but nourisheth and cherisheth it — Feeds and clothes it; nay, and not only provides for its sustenance, but for its comfortable accommodation; even as the Lord nourishes and cherishes the church — Supplying it with all things that may conduce to its welfare and happiness, sympathizing with it in its infirmities, looking upon it as one with himself. For — He can say of his church what Adam said of Eve, when just taken out of his side, (Gen 2:23,) This is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. In other words, the reason why Christ nourishes and cherishes the church, is that close connection which subsists between him and her, his people being as intimately united to him, as if they were literally flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone. For this cause — Because the woman is of the man’s flesh, and of his bones; shall a man leave his father and mother — To whom he was before united by the closest ties; and shall be joined unto his wife — Inseparably, till death shall part them; and they — Though originally and naturally two persons; shall — For the future; be one flesh — Shall be considered as one person, or as one soul in two bodies. This is a great mystery — A truth long unknown; and now, when in some measure discovered, is a matter worthy of much admiration. In the Vulgate version, this clause is translated, Sacramentum hoc magnum est, This is a great sacrament. And it is the sole foundation on which the Papists have set up marriage as a sacrament. But I speak concerning Christ and the church — That is, In saying this, you will easily perceive I speak not of the union between a man and his wife, but of that between Christ and the church: for that the eternal Son of God should unite himself to a society of degenerate and mortal men, should love them with an affection exceeding that which is to be found among the most intimate human relations, and should even regard them as making a part of himself, because of the intimacy with which they are joined to him in a community of spirit and of interest, can certainly never be sufficiently admired.

This seems to be the sense of the passage. Dr. Macknight, however, following Dr. Alix, Dr. Whitby, and several others, thinks that the apostle calls the formation of Eve from Adam’s body, his marriage with her, and the intimate union established between them by that marriage, a great mystery, because it contained an important emblematical meaning concerning the regeneration of believers, and their union with Christ, which [meaning] hitherto had been kept secret, but which he had discovered by applying Adam’s words concerning Eve, to Christ and his church; insinuating, by this application, “1st, That the formation of Eve, of a rib taken out of Adam’s body, was a figure of the regeneration of believers, by the breaking of Christ’s body, mentioned Eph 5:25. 2d, That Adam’s love to Eve, on account of her being formed of his body, was a figure of Christ’s love to believers, because they are become his body, Eph 5:30. 3d, That Adam’s marriage with Eve was a figure of the eternal union of Christ with believers in heaven, mentioned Eph 5:27. In giving this emblematical representation of these ancient facts, the apostle has not exceeded the bounds of probability. In the first age, neither the art of writing, nor any permanent method of conveying instruction being invented, it was necessary to make such striking actions and events as could not easily be forgotten, emblems of the instruction intended to be perpetuated. On this supposition, Adam, in whom the human race began, was a natural image of Christ, in whom the human race was to be restored; and his deep sleep, the opening of his side, and the formation of Eve of a rib taken out of his side, were fit emblems of Christ’s death, of the opening of his side on the cross, and of the regeneration of believers by his death. The love which Adam expressed toward Eve, and his union with her by marriage, were lively images of Christ’s love to believers, and of his eternal union with them in one society after their resurrection. And Eve herself, who was formed of a rib taken from Adam’s side, was a natural image of believers, who are regenerated, both in their bodies and in their minds, by the breaking of Christ’s side on the cross. Thus the circumstances which accompanied the formation of Eve, being fit emblems of the formation of the church, we may suppose they were brought to pass to prefigure that great event; and by prefiguring it, to show that it was decreed of God from the very beginning!” For a further elucidation of the subject, the reader must be referred to the above- mentioned commentator. We may add here, however, that Origen seems to have had some notion of the relation this passage had to Adam and Eve, when he says, “If any man deride us for using the example of Adam and Eve, when we treat of the knowledge of Christ, let him consider these words, This is a great mystery.” Tertullian also frequently alludes to the same thing, saying, “This is a great sacrament: Carnaliter in Adam, spiritualiter in Christo, propter spirituales nuptias Christi et ecclesiæ: carnally in Adam, spiritually in Christ, by reason of the spiritual marriage between him and his church.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:28-29 Husbands should prize and cherish their wives, for in marriage the two have become one (see 5:31).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Eph 5:28. Ἑαυτὸν, himself) Eph 5:29; Eph 5:31, at the end.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_5:28. Οὕτως] To refer this, with Meier and Baumgarten-Crusius, as also de Wette is disposed to do, to the following ὡς (Estius likewise would have it so understood, unless οὕτως καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες ὀφείλουσιν be read; which, however, is really to be read, see the critical remarks), might, doubtless, be admissible in itself (see on 1Co_4:1), but is here quite out of place; because οὕτως would then have an undue emphasis, and the declaration would stand without any inner connection with that which precedes. It relates to what is said from καθὼς καὶ ὁ Χριστός, Eph_5:25 onwards to Eph_5:27, and is equivalent to: in accordance with this relation, in keeping with this holy love of Christ for the church. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 39; Herm. ad Viger. p. 793. We may add that Zanchius, who is followed by Estius and Harless,[280] is in error in saying, digressus non nihil ad mysterium, nunc ad institutum redit. There was no digression in what precedes, but a delineation of the love of Christ serving as an example for the husbands.

ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα] not: like their own bodies,[281] but: as their own bodies. For Christ loved the church not like His body, but as His body, which the church is and He its head, Eph_5:23. So is also the husband head of the wife, and he is to love the wife as his bodywhich conception, however, does not present the Gnostic notion of the πλῆρωμα. (Baur), but, on the contrary, comp. 1Co_11:3. Schoettgen, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Meier, and others make ὡς τὰ ἑαυτ. σώματα mean nothing more than: like themselves; but this is in itself quite arbitrary and without support from linguistic usage, and also utterly inappropriate to the example of Christ, since we certainly cannot say of Christ that He loved the church like Himself! In the Rabbinical passages, too, as Sanhedr. f. 76, Ephesians 2 : qui uxorem amat ut corpus suum, etc., this ut corpus suum is to be taken literally, and that in accordance with the mode of regarding man and wife as one flesh. We may add that Paul does not by means of ὡς τ. ἑαυτ. σώμ. pass over into another figure, or even to another view of the subject (Rückert), but already, in the preceding description of the love of Christ to the church, his conception has been that Christ loves the church, His bride, as His body, which conception he now first, in the application, definitely indicates, and in Eph_5:29-31 more particularly elucidates.

ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ] From the duty of loving their own wives ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα, resultsinasmuch as in fact according to this the wife belongs essentially to the proper self of the husband as suchthe proposition of conjugal ethics, that the love of ones own wife is love of oneself. This proposition Paul lays down, in order to treat it more in detail, Eph_5:29-32, and finally repeat it in the form of a direct precept in Eph_5:33.

[280] Who thinks that Paul is only resuming the simple injunction of ver. 25, with the expansion ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. Certainly the main point of the precept, ver. 28, lies in those words; hut this whole precept is by means of οὕτως grounded on what is said from καθὼς κ. ὁ Χρ., ver. 25, onward.

[281] Meier; comp. also Grotius, who here brings in the entirely heterogeneous comparison: Sicuti corpus est instrumentum animi, ita uxor est instrumentum viri ad res domesticas, ad quaerendos liberos.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph 5:28 . οὕτως ὀφείλουσιν [ καὶ ] οἱ ἄνδρες ἀγαπᾷν τὰς ἑαυτῶν γυναῖκας : even so [ also ] ought husbands to love their own wives . The reading and the order vary somewhat. The ὀφείλουσιν precedes οἱ ἄνδρες in most manuscripts, [656] 2 [657] [658] 17, etc.; in others ( [659] [660] [661] [662] , etc.) it follows it. Lachm. prefers the latter; TrWHRV the former. The TR, supported by [663] [664] [665] , etc., omits καί ; which is inserted, however, before οἱ ἄνδρες by [666] [667] [668] [669] [670] 17, and most Versions, etc. It is accepted by TrRV, and is bracketed by WH. The οὕτως is taken by some (De Wette, etc.) to refer to the following ὡς , = “husbands ought to love their wives just as they love their own bodies”. To this there is no serious grammatical objection; for οὕτως does not look always to what precedes, but may refer to what follows ( e.g. , 1Co 3:15 , οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός ; also 1Co 4:1 ). When this is the case, however, whether in classical Greek or in the NT, there appears to be a certain emphasis on the οὕτως , and its more familiar reference is to what precedes. Here, too, the καί favours the relation to the preceding καθὼς καὶ ὁ χριστός , etc. The idea, therefore, is that even as Christ loved the Church so too ought husbands to love their wives. ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα : as their own bodies . This is not to be reduced to “like themselves” (Rosenm., etc.); nor does ὡς here mean simply “like,” as if all that is meant is that the husband’s love for his wife is to be similar to his love for his own body. The ὡς has its qualitative force, = “as it were,” “as being”. Christ and husband are each head , as Paul has already put it, and as the Church is the body in relation to the former, so is the wife in relation to the latter. The husband, the head, therefore, is to love the wife as being his body, even as Christ loved the Church as forming His body. The idea of husband and wife as being one flesh is probably also in view. ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα , ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ : he that loveth his own wife loveth himself . The relation of head and body means that the wife is part of the husband’s self . To love his wife, therefore, in this character as being his body, is to love himself . It is a love, consequently, not merely of duty , but of nature κατὰ φύσιν as well as κατʼ ὀφειλήν (Ell.).

[656] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[657] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.

[658] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

[659] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[660] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[661] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( δ ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.

[662] Codex Porphyrianus (sæc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. Eph 2:13-16 .

[663] Codex Sinaiticus (sæc. iv.), now at St. Petersburg, published in facsimile type by its discoverer, Tischendorf, in 1862.

[664] Codex Mosquensis (sæc. ix.), edited by Matthæi in 1782.

[665] Codex Angelicus (sæc. ix.), at Rome, collated by Tischendorf and others.

[666] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[667] Codex Alexandrinus (sæc. v.), at the British Museum, published in photographic facsimile by Sir E. M. Thompson (1879).

[668] Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[669] Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its Greek text is almost identical with that of G, and it is therefore not cited save where it differs from that MS. Its Latin version, f, presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.

[670] Codex Boernerianus (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( δ ) of the Gospels. The Latin text, g, is based on the O.L. translation.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Eph_5:28

So ought men to love their wives, as their own bodies. This does not mean that men ought to love their wives so as they love their own bodies; as though the particles so and as, οὕτως and ὡς, stood related to each other. Οὕτως, so, at the beginning of the verse, refers to the preceding representation. As Christ loves the church and gave himself for it, and as the church is his body, so, in like manner and agreeably to the analogous relation between them., husbands should love their wives as, i.e. as being, or because they are, their own bodies. Christ loves his church because it is his body. Husbands should love their wives because they are their bodies. Ὡς, as, before the latter member of the sentence is not comparative, but argumentative. It does not indicate the measure of the husbands love, as though the meaning were, he should love his wife as much as he loves his own body. But it indicates the nature of the relation which is the ground of his love He should love his wife, because she is his body.

How is this to be understood? In what sense does the apostle say that the wife is the body of the husband, or, in the following verse, that they are one flesh? It is plain

l. That this does, not refer to any material identification. When Adam said to Eve, This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, Gen_2:23, reference was no doubt had to her being formed out of his substance. But as these terms are used to express the relation of all wives to their husbands, they must have some other meaning than sameness of substance.

2. It is also plain that these terms are not to be understood in any sense inconsistent with the separate subsistence of husband and wife as distinct persons. The consciousness of the one is not the consciousness of the other.

3. It is further plain that the marriage relation is not essential to the completeness or perfection of our nature, in all states of its existence. It is to cease at the resurrection. In the future state men are to be, in this respect, like the angels of God, neither marrying nor given in marriage.

4. On the other hand the marriage union is not merely one of interests and feeling. Husbands and wives are in such a sense one, that the husband is the complement of the wife and the wife of the husband. The marriage relation is necessary to the completeness of our nature and to its full development in the present state. Some indeed, as Paul, may attain a higher degree of perfection in celibacy than in marriage. But this arises from some peculiarity of character or circumstances. There are faculties and virtues, excellencies and feelings, which are latent until developed in the conjugal relation. The Romish doctrine, therefore, which degrades marriage as a state less holy than celibacy, is contrary to nature and the word of God.

5. Besides this oneness between husband and wife arising from the original constitution of their nature, rendering the one necessary as the completion of the other, there is doubtless a oneness of life involved in our Lords declaration, They are no more twain, but one flesh, which no one can understand.

Such being the nature of marriage, it follows:

1. That it is a union for life between one man and one woman; and consequently that bigamy, polygamy, and voluntary divorce are all inconsistent with its nature.

2. That it must be entered into freely and cordially by the parties, i.e. with the conviction that the one is suited to the other, so that they may complement each other, and become one in the scriptural sense of those words. All coercion on the part of parents, therefore, is contrary to the nature of the relation; and all marriages of mere convenience are opposed to the design of the institution.

3. The State can neither make nor dissolve the marriage tie. It may enact laws regulating the mode in which it shall be solemnized and authenticated, and determining its civil effects. It may shield a wife from ill-usage from her husband, as it may remove a child from the custody of an incompetent or cruel parent. When the union is in fact dissolved by the operation of the divine law, the State may ascertain and declare the fact, and free the parties from the civil obligation of the contract. But it is impossible that the State should have authority to dissolve a union constituted by God, the duties and continuance of which are determined by his law.

4. According to the Scriptures, as interpreted by Protestant churches, nothing but the death of one of the parties, or adultery, or willful desertion, can dissolve the marriage contract. When either of the last mentioned causes of dissolution is judicially ascertained and declared, the injured party is free to contract a new marriage.

It is of vital importance to the best interests of society that the true doctrine of marriage, as taught in this passage and in other portions of Gods word, should be known and regarded. The highest social duty of a husband is to love his wife; and a duty which he cannot neglect without entailing great injury on his own soul as well as misery on his household. The greatest social crime, next to murder, which anyone can commit, is to seduce the affections of a wife from her husband, or of a husband from his wife. And one of the greatest evils which civil authorities can inflict on society, is the dissolution of the marriage contract (so far as it is a civil contract, for further the civil authority cannot go), on other than scriptural grounds. The same remark may be made in reference to all laws which tend to make those two whom God has pronounced one, by giving to the wife the right to carry on business, contract debts, hold property, sue and be sued, in her own name. This is attempting to correct one class of evils at the cost of incurring others a hundred-fold greater. The word of God is the only sure guide of legislative action as well as of individual conduct.

If, as the Scriptures teach, husband and wife are one, he that loveth his wife loveth himself, for she is himself. This is the language of God, originally recorded in Gen_2:24 and repeated by our Lord, Mat_19:4-6, who after citing the passage in Genesis, adds, Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. Calvin, in his comment on the passage in Matthew, says, Hoc autem axioma sumit Christus, Ab initio Deus marem adjunxit feminae, ut duo efficerent integrum hominem. Ergo qui uxorem repudiat, quasi dimidiam sui partem a seipso avellit. Hoc autem minime patitur natura, ut corpus suum quispiam discerpat. Neither God by the mouth of Moses, nor our Lord says simply that husband and wife ought to be, 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, He that loves his wife loves himself.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Another argument: Every man loveth himself, even of nature: therefore he striveth against nature that loveth not his wife: he proveth the consequent, first by the mystical knitting of Christ and the Church together, and then by the ordinance of God, who saith, that man and wife are as one, that is, not to be divided.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Translate, "So ought husbands also (thus the oldest manuscripts read) to love their own (compare Note, see on Eph 5:22) wives as their own bodies."

He that loveth his wife loveth himself--So there is the same love and the same union of body between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:30, Eph 5:32).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 28. As their own bodies] For the woman is, properly speaking, a part of the man; for God made man male and female, and the woman was taken out of his side; therefore is she flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone; and therefore, he that loveth his wife loveth himself, for they two are one flesh. The apostle, in all these verses, refers to the creation and original state of the first human pair.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

28. He that loveth his wife. An argument is now drawn from nature itself, to prove that men ought to love their wives. Every man, by his very nature, loves himself. But no man can love himself without loving his wife. Therefore, the man who does not love his wife is a monster. The minor proposition is proved in this manner. Marriage was appointed by God on the condition that the two should be one flesh; and that this unity may be the more sacred, he again recommends it to our notice by the consideration of Christ and his church. Such is the amount of his argument, which to a certain extent applies universally to human society. To shew what man owes to man, Isaiah says, “hide not thyself from thine own flesh.” (Isaiah 58:7.) But this refers to our common nature. Between a man and his wife there is a far closer relation; for they not only are united by a resemblance of nature, but by the bond of marriage have become one man. Whoever considers seriously the design of marriage cannot but love his wife.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(28) So ought men to love their wives . . .—From this glorious digression; applying only to the divine Antitype, St. Paul comes back to the one point, in which the type may imitate it—that is, a deep and unfailing love. “So” refers to the previous verse, describing the love of Christ, not to the “as” following; otherwise the want of connection would be strangely abrupt. Moreover, from this idea of the love of Christ as the pattern, the latter part of this verse and the following verses naturally arise. Christ loves the Church as His body, a part of Himself. Hence the idea that the husband is “the head of the wife” gives place to the absolute identification of himself with his wife, as “one flesh.”

He that loveth his wife loveth himself.—All right “love of our neighbour” is directed to be given to him “as to ourselves.” It is to be of the same kind as the love of self—that is, first, an instinct (as of self-preservation); and next a rational and settled principle (as of reasonable self-love, seeking our own perfection, which is our happiness). Here, however, this love to our neighbour is actually identified with self-love. The wife is the husband’s very self; he can no more fail to love her than to love himself, though (again to follow the example of Christ) he may love her better than himself. We may note that this identification of husband and wife is the basis of all ecclesiastical, and, in great degree, of all civil, law of Christian nations as to marriage.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. So] With a love akin to the love of Christ just described. The Gr. word is one whose reference tends to preceding ideas.

as their own bodies] A clause explanatory of “So” just above. It was thus that Christ loved the Church. In eternal purpose, and in actual redemption and regeneration, she is at once His Bride and His Body. The husband is accordingly to regard his wife as, in a profound and sacred sense, part and parcel of his own living frame.

his wife] Lit., his own wife. The Gr. emphasizes the “self-ness,” so to speak, of the relation: “his own wife … his own self.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For we are members of his body,.... Not of his natural body, for this would make Christ's human nature monstrous; Christ, as man, is of our flesh and of our bones, or a partaker of the same flesh and blood with us; or otherwise, his incarnation would have been of no service to us; and had our human nature been from Christ, it would not have been corrupted; but our bodies, flesh, and bones, are from the first, and not the second Adam, and so corrupt and sinful; Christ indeed, as God, is the former of all human nature, and, as man, was set up in God's thoughts as the pattern of it; but the apostle is here speaking of the saints, not as men, but as Christians, as new creatures in Christ; and of what is peculiar to them; and therefore this must be understood of Christ's mystical body the church; which is his by the Father's gift, and his own purchase; and of which he is the head, and which is united to him; now of this saints are members; see Rom 12:5.

Of his flesh and of his bones: for so the church may be called, his own flesh, his flesh and bones, on account of the marriage relation she stands in to him, and that spiritual union there is between them, which these phrases are expressive of; and which the near relation of man and wife is an emblem of; these words are wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in the Ethiopic version.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

Ver. 28. As their own bodies] No man may hide himself from his own flesh at large, Isa 58:7, that is, from his neighbour of the same stock; much less from a wife, which is such another as himself, Gen 2:18, nay, his very self, as here.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies - Because they are one flesh; Eph 5:31. This is the subject on which Paul had been speaking, and from which he had been diverted by the allusion to the glorified church. The doctrine here is, that a husband should have the same care for the comfort of his wife which he has for himself. He should regard her as one with himself; and as he protects his own body from cold and hunger, and, when sick and suffering, endeavors to restore it to health, so he should regard and treat her.

He that loveth his wife loveth himself -

(1) Because she is one with him, and their interests are identified.

(2) Because, by this, he really promotes his own welfare, as much as he does when he takes care of his own body. A man’s kindness to his wife will be more than repaid by the happiness which she imparts; and all the real solicitude which he shows to make her happy, will come to more than it costs. If a man wishes to promote his own happiness in the most effectual way, he had better begin by showing kindness to his wife.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. St. Paul would have this a love like that which a man hath for himself, or for his own flesh, when they are now joined in wedlock, and are become as it were one flesh and one person, as a civil life and society. See Matthew xix. 5. The wife is to be considered as a part of the husband, as a member of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. The words are to be taken with an allusion to what Adam said, (Genesis ii. 23.) This is now bone of my bones, &c. And so, according to the apostle, speaking figuratively, the Church, which is the spouse of Christ, is framed as it were of his bones and of his flesh sacrificed on the cross. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies; with the same kind of love wherewith they love their own bodies. The woman at first was taken out of the man, and on that account the wife may be said to be a part of her husband.

He that loveth his wife loveth himself; either this explains the former, and himself here is the same as

their own bodies before; or it adds to it, and is as much as, his own person, the wife being another self, one flesh, the same person (in a civil sense) with her husband.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

28. So… as—Are not correlatives. So refers to as, in Eph_5:25, and brings the present verse into parallelism with Eph_5:25-27. As his own body—Not as a man would love his own body, but as if being his own body. And as being his own body, so, in a sense, his own other self; so that in loving his wife he loveth himself.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. A new illustration is introduced here to throw light on the bearing of the husband to his wife, and the outwv seems to refer, not to what goes before, but to what follows (comp. in ver. 33). He that loveth his own wife loveth himself. His wife is part of himself, so that not to love her as himself is not only a sin against law, but a sin against nature.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As their own bodies - That is, as themselves. He that loveth his wife loveth himself - Which is not a sin, but an indisputable duty.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Further application of the comparison:

v. 28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

v. 29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church;

v. 30. for we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.

v. 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.

v. 32. This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

v. 33. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself, and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

The apostle here returns to his comparison: Even so ought husbands to love their own wives as their own bodies. It is not a matter of choice, but of obligation, of duty. It is true indeed that mere human beings cannot love their spouses with the same measure of love which Christ showed in His solicitude for the Church. But every Christian husband can and should have the lave of Christ for the Church as an example before His eyes always; he should be willing to make sacrifices for the sake of his wife; he should always be ready to strengthen his wife, as the weaker vessel, in all good things. But Paul here expressly states that men have the duty of loving their wires, because a man’s wife is his flesh by virtue of the marital relationship. It is thus a self-evident duty which Paul is trying to inculcate: He that loves his wife loves himself. It follows, therefore: For no one ever hated his own flesh, but every one nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also the Church. What Paul implies is that there surely is no need of reminding a man of the duty which he owes to his own flesh and blood, to his very own body. He takes the very best care of it, he covers and protects it. So the Christian husband will comport himself toward his wife in providing for her needs, both as to food and shelter, physical and moral. And here again the apostle brings out the example of Christ, whose nourishing and cherishing love toward the believers is so abundantly substantiated in Scripture and in personal experience. By way of explanation Paul here adds: For we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones. We Christians owe our existence, especially in spiritual matters, to Christ; by and through our conversion we became His members, we have His Spirit, His life, within us, we are connected with Him by the most intimate bonds of fellowship. As the wife in marriage becomes one flesh with her husband, so we, the members of the Church, the Bride of Christ, are united with our Bridegroom, deriving from Him our spiritual life and power at all times.

Returning now to the thought of v. 28, Paul refers to the order of God in creating the estate of holy matrimony: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. See Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5. Here the fact that the wife is one flesh with her husband is supported by Scriptural proof. That is the plan, the design, of God. Marriage having been entered upon, former relations and considerations are altered, are placed secondary to this new relation between husband and wife. The wife is thereafter the man’s own body, and upon him devolves the duty which the apostle has set forth in such a convincing manner.

The apostle is now ready to draw double conclusion from the discussion. So far as the example of Christ and the Church is concerned which he has adduced, he writes: This mystery is great;—I speak, however, with reference to Christ and the Church. That marriage is here not called a sacrament, as the Romish Church teaches, is shown by the very words of Paul, who declares that He is speaking of Christ and the Church, and not of the estate of holy matrimony. But that is a mystery, a secret of faith, that Paul should use the relation obtaining between Christ and the Church as a type of the relation as it should obtain in holy wedlock, as he has set it forth in the preceding verses. No one but an inspired writer could have made the comparison in that way and attached to the comparison such solemn admonitions. But Paul has now said enough of that, so he concludes: Nevertheless (not to say more of that higher union), see that you, every one of you for his own person, so love his own wife as himself; the wife, on the other hand, reverence the man. There is no evading the issue here, and no excuses are acceptable. Each and every husband is under the express obligation to love his wife, no matter whether he encounter the difficulty of a temper or of some other unpleasantness. And so far as the wife is concerned, her position requires her to be obedient to the husband in reverent fear, which, on her side, also proceeds from love and is willing to overlook human frailties. It is mutual love, mutual understanding which will solve. all the problems of married life, if both husband and wife are actuated and governed by the fear of the Lord.

Summary

The apostle warns the Ephesians against walking in the impure lusts of the Gentiles, their calling obligating them to walk as the children of light, with all circumspection; he admonishes both husbands and wives to be diligent in their duties toward each other by holding before them the comparison of Christ’s love toward the Church, His Bride.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Our apostle here propounds a farther argument to enforce this duty of love from husband to wife, taken from that near conjunction between them, showing that they are one flesh and one body, not in a natural, but in a relative sense; and accordingly a man should so love his wife even as himself. Doth a man love himself superlatively, cordially, tenderly, industriously, perseveringly? So ought he to love his wife. Will a man be out of love with himself, much less hate himself, though he be deformed, or by some accident maimed? In like manner ought not any natural defect, or accidental mischance, to cause a remission, much less a cessation, of the man’s love unto his own wife; as it is an unnatural thing for a man to hate his own flesh personal, so his own flesh relational.

Again, a man is so far from hating his own flesh, that he nourisheth and cherisheth it with the utmost care and tenderness: in like manner ought to be kind to, and tender over, his civil-self, the wife of his bosom; in imitation likewise of Christ’s example, who nourishes and cherishes his church, as being flesh of his own flesh, and bone of his own bone; that is, as near to one another by a mystical and spiritual union, as Adam and Eve were by a matrimonial union.

O stupendous privilege, for believers and Christ to be as one flesh! Husband and wife are not so near, as Christ and believers are to each other.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. Here we have the love of Christ for his Church, which constrained him to shed his blood to sanctify her, held up as the example for every husband to emulate in his love for his wife, thus confirming the sanctity of Christian wedlock beyond the possibility of cavil.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28–30. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. The church is the Bride of the Lamb, but it is also Christ's body. As he loved his body, so every husband ought to love her who by the mystery of the marriage tie has become “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” (Gen. 2:23).

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

as their own bodies

That people love their own bodies may be stated explicitly. AT: "as husbands love their own bodies" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

but nourishes

"but feeds"

we are members of his body

Here Paul speaks of the close union of believers with Christ as if they were part of his own body, for which he would naturally care. (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

love

Christ

church

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

28. οὕτως. ‘Following this example.’ The sentence reads awkwardly because ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα introduces what seems to us an alien illustration of the claims of the wife on the husband, based on the unity involved in the marriage bond when seen in the light of its original institution in Genesis 2 (cf. Mat 19:5 and Hort Chr. Ec. p. 150). It is true that this claim also is accepted and responded to by Christ in His relation to the Church. But it belongs to the period of wedded life and not to the time of espousal. So if καὶ before οἱ ἄνδρες were not genuine it would be simpler to connect οὕτως closely with ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα and let the sentence start quite abruptly. We must not, however, forget that the comparison started from the idea of the husband as ‘Head,’ implying that the wife may be regarded as his ‘Body ‘apart from the idea underlying Genesis 2. Just as the Church has already twice (Eph 1:23, Eph 4:15 f.) been described as ‘the Body’ of Christ her Head.

ὀφείλουσιν. Cf. Rom 13:8; 1Jn 2:6; 1Jn 3:16.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28.] Thus (two ways of understanding this οὕτως are open to us: 1) as referring back to Christ’s love for the church,—‘Thus,’ ‘in like manner,’ &c., as (being) ‘their own bodies:’ and 2) as referring forward to the ὡς below, as very frequently (though Eadie calls it contrary to grammatical law) in St. Paul (cf. 1Co 3:15; 1Co 4:1; 1Co 9:26, al., and ver. 33 below, where Eadie himself renders, ‘so … as himself’),—‘Thus,’ ‘so,’ &c., ‘as (they love) their own bodies.’ After weighing maturely what has been said on one side and the other, I cannot but decide for the latter, as most in accordance with the usage of St. Paul and with ver. 33: also as more simple. The sense (against Ellic.) remains substantially the same, and answers much better to the comment furnished by the succeeding clauses:—husbands ought to love their own wives as they love their own bodies (= themselves: for their wives are in fact part of their own bodies, ver. 31): this being illustrated by and referred to the great mystery of Christ and His church, in which the same love, and the same incorporation, has place) ought the husbands also (as well as Christ in the archetypal example just given) to love their own (emphatic: see above on ver. 22) wives, as (with the same affection as) their own bodies. He that loveth his own (see above) wife, loveth himself (is but complying with that universal law of nature by which we all love ourselves. The best words to supply before the following γάρ will be, “And this we all do”): for (see above) no man ever hated his own flesh (= ἑαυτόν, but put in this form to prepare for εἰς σάρκα μίαν in the Scripture proof below. Wetst. quotes from Seneca, Ep. 14, ‘fateor, insitam nobis esse corporis nostri caritatem’), but nourishes it up (through all its stages, to maturity: so Aristoph. Ran. 1189, of Œdipus, ἵνα μὴ ʼκτραφεὶς γένοιτο τοῦ πατρὸς φονεύς: and ib. 1427, οὐ χρὴ λέοντος σκύμνον ἐν πόλει τρέφειν (at all): ἢν δʼ ἐκτραφῇ τις (have been brought up), τοῖς τρόποις ὑπηρετεῖν) and cherishes (ref. 1 Thess. It is certainly not necessary to confine the meaning to ‘warming,’ as Beng. (‘id spectat amictum’), Mey., al.: for it is very forced to apply the feeding and clothing to the other member of the comparison (as Grot.: ‘nutrit eam verbo et spiritu, vestit eam virtutibus’), as must then be done (against Mey.)) it, as also (does) Christ (nourish and cherish) the church.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. οὕτως is connected by Estius and Alford with ὡς following: “So … as.” This is not forbidden by grammatical considerations; for in spite of Hermann’s rule, that the force of οὕτως is “ut eo confirmentur praecedentia,” it is used with reference to what follows, introduced by ὡς or ὥσπερ, both in classical writers and in N.T. Compare τοὺς οὕτως ἐπισταμένονς εἰπεῖν ὡς οὐδεὶς ἂν ἄλλος δύναιτο (Isocr. ap. Rost and Palm. ἔστιν γὰρ οὕτως ὥσπερ οὗτος ἐννέπει, Soph. Trach. 475, is not a good instance, for οὕτως may very well be referred to what precedes). And in N.T. 1Co 3:15, οὕτω δὲ ὡς διὰ πυρός: cf. 4:1. But in such cases οὕτως has some emphasis on it, and apart from that it yields a better sense here to take οὕτως as referring to the preceding statement of Christ’s love for the Church. “Even so ought husbands …” If καί is read before of οἱ ἄνδρες, as Treg., WH. and RV., the latter view is alone possible.

The position of Ὀφειλουσιν varies in the MSS. אb K L 17 and most have it before οἱ ἄνδρες, A D G P after. The latter group add καί before οἱ ἄνδρες, and of the former group B 17. As the position of the verb would hardly be a reason for inserting καί, it may be presumed to be genuine.

ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. The sense just ascertained for οὕτως determines this to mean “as being their own bodies”; and this agrees perfectly with what follows: “he that loveth his own wife loveth himself.” Moreover, although we speak of a man’s love for himself, we do not speak of him as loving his body or having an “affection” for it (Alford); and to compare a man’s love for his wife to his love (?) for his “body,” would be to suggest a degrading view of the wife, as, indeed, Grotius does, saying: “sicut corpus instrumentum animi, ita uxor instrumentum viri ad res domesticos, ad quaerendos liberos.” Plutarch comes nearer to the apostle’s view: κρατεῖν δεῖ τὸν ἄνδρα τῆς γυναικός, οὐχ ὡς δεσπότην κτήματος, ἀλλʼ ὡς ψυχὴν σώματος, συμπαθοῦντα καὶ συμπεφυκότα τῇ εὐνοίᾳ. ὥσπερ οὖν σώματός ἐστι κήδεσθαι μὴ δουλεύοντα ταῖς ἡδοναῖς αὐτοῦ καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις· οὕτω γυναικὸς ἄρχειν εὐφραίνοντα καὶ χαριζόμενον (Conj. Praec. p. 422, quoted by Harless). The meaning is, Even as Christ loved the Church as that which is His body, so also should husbands regard their wives as their own bodies, and love them as Christ did the Church.

ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα ἑαυτὸν ἀγαπᾷ. This is neither identical with the preceding nor an inference from it, but rather an explanation of ὡς τὰ ἑαυτῶν σώματα. If the latter words meant, “as they do their own bodies,” they would fall immeasurably short of this. It is, however, going beyond the bounds of psychological truth to say that a man’s love for his wife is but complying with the universal law of nature by which we all love ourselves,” or that it “is in fact self-love,” whether “a hallowed phasis“ of it or not. If it were so, there would be no need to enforce it by precept. Although the husband’s love for his wife may be compared to what is called his love for himself, inasmuch as it leads him to regard her welfare as his own, and to feel all that concerns her as if it concerned himself, the two mental facts are entirely different in their essence. There is no emotion in self-love; it is the product of reason, not of feeling; and it is a “law” of man’s nature, not in the sense of obligation (although there is a certain obligation belonging to it), but in the sense that it necessarily belongs to a rational nature. The basis of conjugal love is wholly different, and is to be found, not in the rational part of man’s nature, but in the affections. The love is reinforced by reflection, and made firm by the sense of duty; but it can never become a merely rational regard for another’s happiness, as “self-love” is for one’s own.

To refer to the stirring remarks of Chrysostom above cited, when a man gives his life for his wife, is that an exercise of “self-love”? Surely no more than when a mother gives her life for her child. There is none of this false philosophy in the language of St. Paul.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

So. As Christ loved the Church.

As their own bodies [ως] . As being : since they are.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.