Ephesians 5:31

Eph_5:31

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.

Husbands and wives

Marriage is the most dignified, honourable, and helpful relationship into which we can enter.

1. It is a relationship of mutual sympathy.

2. It is a relationship of mutual sacredness. There is no authority which can constrain into marriage, and there is none which of itself can dissolve the tie.

3. It is a relationship of mutual honour.

4. It is a relationship of mutual responsibility. (W. Braden.)

The mystery of marriage

I. The counsel that God had about Adams marriage with Eve.

1. The Lord made Adam before He thought of a wife for him.

2. Among all the created things God could not find a help meet for Adam.

3. God, in blessing Adam, blessed her afterwards to be made.

II. The creation of the woman out of the man.

III. The marriage itself.

1. God brought the woman to Adam.

2. When brought, he consented and owned her.

IV. The consequence of Adams marriage.

1. A union.

2. A rule for all time--that the wife cleave to her husband. (T. Goodwin, D. D.)

Qualities of a good wife

An old author says, A good wife should be like three things, which three things she should not be like.

1. She should be like a snail, to keep within her own house; but she should not be like the snail, to carry all she has upon her back.

2. She should be like an echo, to speak when spoken to; but she should not be like an echo, always to have the last word.

3. She should be like a town clock, always to keep time and regularity; but she should not be like a town clock, speak so loud that all the town may hear her.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5:31 The unity of husband and wife should motivate the husband to care for his wife.

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

Eph 5:31. Καταλείψει, shall leave) Eph 5:30 presupposes a Protasis, viz. in regard to natural marriage, [to be supplied] out of Moses; it expresses the Apodosis, viz. respecting the spiritual marriage; now, in turn, vice versa, Eph 5:31 here expresses the Protasis, and allows the Apodosis to be supplied: comp. Eph 5:32, in the middle. Christ also, so to speak, left the Father, and was joined to the Church.—προσκολληθήσεται, shall be joined) by matrimonial unity.—εἰς σάρκα μίαν, shall pass into [shall be as] one flesh) not only as formerly, in respect of origin, but in respect of the new relationship.

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

Eph_5:31. Not a citation from Gen_2:24, but (comp. Eph_6:2) Paul makes these words of Scripture, which as such were well known to the readers, his own, while the deviations from the LXX. are unimportant and make no difference to the sense. What, however, is spoken, Gen. l.c., of the union of husband and wife, Paul applies by typical interpretation to the coming (future: καταλείψει κ.τ.λ.) union of Christ with the church (see Eph_5:32), a union which shall take place at the Parousia, up to which time the church is the bride of Christ, and at which it is then nuptially joined with Him (see on Eph_5:27),and so the apostle expresses this antitype of the conjugal union in the hallowed words of Scripture, in which the type, the marriage union in the proper sense, is expressed. We have accordingly to explain it thus: For this reason, because we are Christs members, of His flesh and of His bone, shall a man (i.e. antitypically, Christ, at the Parousia) leave father and mother (i.e., according to the mystic interpretation of the apostle: He will leave His seat at the right hand of God) and be united with his wife (with the church), and (and then) the two (the man and the wife, i.e. Christ who has descended and the church) shall be one flesh (form one ethical person, as married persons by virtue of bodily union become a physical unity). Those expositors who, in keeping with the original sense of Gen. l.c., take the words of actual marriage (so most expositors, including Matthies, Meier, Schenkel, Bleek, Rückert[287]), have against them as well the ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ, which cannot be referred without arbitrariness to anything else than what immediately precedes, as also the future expression, which (as also in Gen. l.c.) must denote something yet to come; and not less the statement of Paul himself, Eph_5:32, according to which ἄνθρωπος must be interpreted of Christ, and τὴν γυναῖκα of the church, not merely perhaps (Reiche) is to be so interpreted. Hofmann likewise, II. 2, p. 139, understands it of real marriage, and sees all difficulties vanish if we more closely connect Eph_5:32 with Eph_5:31, so that τὸ μυστήριον τοῦτο sums up the Old Testament passage itself and makes this the subject, and then the sense is: That, as the passage affirms, the marriage communion is the most intimate of all communions for this reason, because the wife proceeds from the husbandthis mystery, which was foreign to the Gentiles, is great. It is a highly significant mystery of the order laid down by the creation, a most important revelation of the divine counsel in this domain, which the apostle interprets as applying to Christ and the church, because marriage in this respect has its higher counterpart in the domain of redemption, but without excluding its validity also for the married as regards their relation regulated by the creation. This view is incorrect, for the very reason that to make τὸ μυστήριον be said in reference to the Gentiles is quite foreign to, and remote from, the connection; because, further, Paul must have written ἐγὼ δὲ νῦν λέγω; because ΛΈΓΩ does not mean I say of it, but I say it, i.e. I interpret it; because ἀντὶ τούτου would remain entirely out of connection with that which precedes, and thus the passage of Scripture would make its appearance quite abruptly; because, if the reader was to understand the whole passage of Scripture as the subject, summed up in ΤῸ ΜΥΣΤΉΡ. ΤΟῦΤΟ, of what follows, the apostle must have indicated this, in order to be intelligible, by something like ΤῸ ΔῈ ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ Κ.Τ.Λ., ΜΥΣΤΉΡΙΟΝ ΜΈΓΑ ἘΣΤΊΝ; and because, finally, the validity of the fundamental law of marriage, Eph_5:31, for married persons is so entirely self-evident, that a quite unsuitable thought (but without excluding, etc.) is attributed to the ΠΛΉΝ of Eph_5:33.

Those, further, who explain it of Christ and the church, as Hunnius, Balduin, Grotius, Bengel, Michaelis, and others, are mistaken in believing the connection with Christ already existing in the present αἰών as that which is meant; inasmuch as in the ΚΑΤΑΛΕΊΨΕΙ ΤῸΝ ΠΑΤ. Κ. Τ. ΜΗΤ. they think of the incarnation (etiam Christus patrem quasi reliquit, Bengel), or generally of the fact that Christus nihil tam carum habuit, quod non nostri causa abdicaverit (Grotius), or even of the separation of Christ from His nation (Michaelis) or from the synagogue (Bisping); while Harless and Olshausen pass over καταλείψει τὸν πατέρα κ.τ.λ. without more precise explanation, as unessential to the connection and aim, and regard only ΚΑῚ ἜΣΟΝΤΑΙ ΟἹ Δ. ΕἸς Σ. Μ. as the main point, explaining it of the Lords Supper.[288] But the whole reference to the already present connection with Christ is incorrect, because this connection was just before expressed in the present form by μέλη ἐσμὲν κ.τ.λ., but now upon this present relation is based the setting in of a future one (ΚΑΤΑΛΕΊΨΕΙ Κ.Τ.Λ.; observe the future forms), and that by ἀντὶ τούτου, quite as in Gen_2:24 by means of ἝΝΕΚΕΝ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ the future relation of marriage is deduced from the then existing relation of Adam and Eve. These expositors, besides, overlook the fact that in the αἰὼν οὗτος Christ is not yet husband, but until the Parousia still bridegroom of the church (Eph_5:27), which He only at the Parousia presents to Himself as a purified and sanctified bride for nuptial union. Moreover, the setting aside of the whole portion καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατ. κ.τ.λ., on the part of Harless and Olshausen, is a purely arbitrary proceeding.

ἈΝΤῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ] See Winer, p. 326 [E. T. 456]. It is distinguished from the ἝΝΕΚΕΝ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ in the LXX. only by its placing the cause and the fact thereby conditioned in comparison with each other according to the conception of requital (for this). Comp. ἀνθʼ ὧν, and see Matthiae, p. 1327; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 170. The reference of ἀντὶ τούτου, with regard to which many are entirely silent, can be found only in Eph_5:30 : because our relation to Christ is this. See above. Other references, as those of Estius: quia mulier formata est ex ossibus et came viri, and Holzhausen: because the man, in loving his wife, loves himself (comp. Meier and Matthies), are forced just because of their taking Eph_5:31 not according to its mystic reference, but of real marriage.

ἄνθρωπος] a human being, i.e. according to the context, a man (without on that account ἄνθρωπος standing for ἈΝΉΡ, see Fritzsche, ad Matt. p. 593), by which, however, according to the mystical interpretation of the apostle, Christ is antitypically to be understood.

καὶ τὴν μητέρα] is doubtless taken up along with the rest as a constituent part of the words of Adam, but is not destined for a special exposition in the typical reference of the passage to Christ, since καταλείψει τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ can, in accordance with that typical reference, only apply to the descending of Christ from the right hand of God, which will ensue at the Parousia. Then the σύνθρονος of the Father comes down to earth, to wed Himself (Mat_25:1) to the church, the bride, 2Co_11:2.

[287] Who, however, here too despairs of more precise explanation, as the passage stands forth in an abrupt form merely as a hint thrown out for the more initiated.

[288] What in marriage the fleshly union is, that in the connection of the church with Christ the substantial union by means of the Supper is alleged to be! As man and wife are indeed always one in love, but in the elements of conjugal union, in which the specific nature of marriage consists, become in a special sense one flesh; so is also the church as a whole, and each congregation, like each soul in it, always one spirit with Christ, the Head of the body; but in the elements of the sacred Supper the believing soul celebrates in a very special sense the union with its Saviour, in that it takes up into itself His flesh and blood, and therewith the germ of the immortal body. This fanciful view of Olshausen is without any warrant in the context, and at variance with the future καταλείψει, which mustand that indeed according to Genesis 2express something not yet accomplished, but only to be expected in the future. Moreover, the leaving, etc., does not at all suit the conception of the communion of Christ with believers in the Supper, and least of all the orthodox Lutheran conception of ubiquity. Nevertheless Kahnis (Abendm. p. 144) has entirely acceded to the view of Olshausen. He objects to the explanation of the union of Christ with the church at the Parousia, that this union cannot possibly be thought of as a sacrificial renunciation, on the part of Christ, of His heavenly glory. But the matter is neither so thought of nor so represented. That which is meant by καταλείψει, the coming again of Christ from heaven, willand this was well known to the believing consciousness of every readertake place not without His heavenly glory, but with that glory; and by the union, which is expressed in the typical representation προσκολληθήσεται κ.τ.λ., the συνδοξασθῆναι of the believers will then be accomplished. Comp. Col_3:4.

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 5:31 . ἀντὶ τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος [ τὸν ] πατέρα [ αὐτοῦ ] καὶ [ τὴν ] μητέρα : for this cause shall a man leave [ his ] father and mother . Lachm. and Tregelles omit τόν and τήν ; which are bracketed by WH. The αὐτοῦ is omitted by LTTrWHRV, as not supported by [689] [690] [691] [692] * [693] , 17, Vulg., Arm., etc. It is found in [694] 3 [695] [696] 3 [697] [698] [699] , Syr.-P., Boh., etc. These words, whether Paul gives them professedly as a quotation in a free form, or uses them directly, making them his own (Mey.), are substantially those which in Gen 2:24 follow the statement regarding Eve as bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh. ἀντὶ τούτου corresponds to the ἕνεκεν τούτου of Gen 2:24 ; ἀντί , the prep. of exchange and succession , being used also, like the Hebrew תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר , in the sense of “for that,” and occasionally as = “wherefore”; cf. ἀνθʼ ὧν , Luk 12:3 ; cf. Blass, Gram. of N. T. Greek , p. 125; Win.-Moult., p. 456. Thus ἀντὶ τούτου 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 cherishes the Church. The former connection leads, as in Meyer’s case, to an allegorising 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, e.g. , by Von Soden, who makes it = “instead of this,” supposing the point to be that in place of hating , as mentioned in Eph 5:29 , 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, e.g. , in Mat 7:26 ; Luk 22:49 ; Joh 6:68 ; Rom 10:14 , etc.; cf. Win.-Moult., p. 348; Donaldson, Greek Gram. , p. 407. Meyer insists on its being a pure future, and refers it to 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 meanings in the words. Not a few of the Fathers (Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Jerome, etc.) interpreted it of the Incarnation; and late exegetes expounded it as referring in one way or other to Christ’s present connection with the Church (Grot., Beng., etc.); some understanding Christ’s separation from His nation (Mich.), or from the synagogue , to be indicated by the phrase “leave His Father,” and others even explaining it of the Lord’s Supper (Harl., Olsh.). Alford applies it mystically to “that past, present, and future which constitutes Christ’s Union to His Bride, the Church His leaving the Father’s bosom, which is past His gradual preparation of the Union, which is present His full consummation of it, which is future ”. Even Meyer puts a forced, allegorical sense upon it, taking it to be used typically of the perfect union which takes place between Christ and the Church only at His Second Coming, before which time He is not Husband, but Bridegroom. So the ἄνθρωπος becomes Christ , at the Parousia; the leaving father and mother becomes mystically Christ’s leaving His seat at the right hand of God; the two becoming one flesh is the descending, returning Christ making one ethical person with the Church, etc. But all this is in the highest degree unnatural. When Paul allegorises he gives intimation of the fact ( ἅτινά ἐστιν ἀλληγορούμενα , Gal 4:24 ), and certainly there is no such allegory as this would be anywhere else in the Pauline writings. Its incongruities condemn it. What is to be made, e.g. , of the leaving of the mother , which Jerome, e.g. , is driven to say means the leaving of the heavenly Jerusalem? We take the verse, therefore, in its simple and obvious sense, as referring to the direct and ruling idea of the paragraph, viz. , the natural marriage relation and the duty of husbands to wives; and we read it as an enforcement of that duty based upon the natural identity of the wife with the husband, as stated in the narrative of Creation and illustrated in its highest ideal in the Church’s relation to Christ. καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ δύο ἔσονται εἰς σάρκα μίαν : and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one flesh . “Cleave to” represents very well the force of the verb προσκολλάω , the Sept. representative of דָבַק , to glue to, stick to . For πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα , the reading of TR, with [700] [701] 3 [702] 3 [703] [704] [705] , Orig., etc., τῇ γυναικί is given in [706] [707] [708] [709] * [710] , etc., and is preferred by LTTr, while WH place it in the margin. The αὐτοῦ is omitted by T with [711] 1 , etc. For προσκολληθήσεται there is also the variant κολληθήσεται in [712] 3 [713] 1 [714] , etc.

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

[690] Autograph of the original scribe of א .

[691] Autograph of the original scribe of א .

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

[693] 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[702] Codex Ephraemi (sæc. v.), the Paris palimpsest, edited by Tischendorf in 1843.

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

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

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

[706] Autograph of the original scribe of א .

[707] Autograph of the original scribe of א .

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

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

[710] 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.

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

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

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

[714] 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.

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

Eph_5:31

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, because 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 sustains 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 Christ and his people. They also are one flesh because they have a common life, and because his people derive their life from his flesh as Eve derived hers from the flesh of Adam.

The principal difficulty here relates to the connection. The passage stands thus: We are members of Christs body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. There is an apparent incongruity between the premises and the conclusion. How does our being members of Christs body, prove that a man should leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife? There are three methods of getting over this difficulty. First, some assume that there is no connection between the two verses, but that the 31st refers back to the 28th. The sense would then be, A man should love his wife, because she is his body. For this cause, a man should leave his father and cleave to his wife, etc. This method of solution is inconsistent both with what precedes and with what follows. It does not agree with what precedes, because the words, of his flesh, etc., in Eph_5:30, referring to Christ, form part of the passage in Genesis, the continuation of which is given in Eph_5:31. If the one refers to Christ, the other must. It contradicts what follows; for in Eph_5:32, the main ideal contained in Eph_5:31 (they shall be one flesh), is expressly said to be affirmed in reference to Christ and the church.

The second method of explanation assumes an immediate connection between the two Eph_5:30 and Eph_5:31, and understands the whole of the latter to refer to the relation between Christ and his church. It then may be explained either in reference to the present, or the future. If to the present, the sense would be, We are members of Christs body, and, therefore, he left his Father and all dear to him in heaven that he might be united to his people. But how is it possible that the words, a man shall leave his father and mother, can mean Christ left God and heaven? If the passage be understood in reference to the future, the meaning will be, We are members of Christs body, and therefore hereafter when he comes the second time, he will leave his Fathers throne, and take his church as his bride.‹28› But this view not only does the same violence to the meaning of the words, but is in direct contradiction to the whole context. Paul does not say that hereafter the church shall be united to Christ as his bride, but that his people are now members of his body, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones.

The third explanation assumes that the first part of the verse has no reference to Christ and the church, and that the passage is quoted from Genesis solely for the sake of the last words, they shall be one flesh. The meaning and the connection then are, As Eve was formed out of the body of Adam, and therefore, it is said, a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. So, since we are members of Christs body, therefore, Christ and his church are one flesh. This view is:

1. In entire accordance with the context.

2. It avoids the forced and unnatural interpretations which are unavoidable if the former part of the 31st verse be understood in reference to Christ.

3. It satisfies the demands of the 32nd verse, which asserts that the words one flesh do refer to Christ and the church.

4. It is in accordance with the usage of the apostles in quoting the language of the Old Testament.

They often recite a passage of Scripture as it stands in the Old Testament, for the sake of some one clause or expression in it, without intending to apply to the case before them, any other portion of the passage quoted. In Heb_2:13, the whole stress and argument rest on the single word children: see also Gal_3:16. Very frequently the particles indicating the grammatical or logical connection of the passage in its position in the Old Testament, are included in the quotation, although entirely unsuited to the connection in which the passage is introduced. This is so frequently done as to be almost the rule. It is, therefore, not an arbitrary proceeding to make the last words of this verse refer to Christ, while the former part of it is made to refer to the context of the passage as it stands in Genesis.

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

See Matt. 19:5

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

For--The propagation of the Church from Christ, as that of Eve from Adam, is the foundation of the spiritual marriage. The natural marriage, wherein "a man leaves father and mother (the oldest manuscripts omit 'his') and is joined unto his wife," is not the principal thing meant here, but the spiritual marriage represented by it, and on which it rests, whereby Christ left the Father's bosom to woo to Himself the Church out of a lost world: Eph 5:32 proves this: His earthly mother as such, also, He holds in secondary account as compared with His spiritual Bride (Luk 2:48-49; Luk 8:19-21; Luk 11:27-28). He shall again leave His Father's abode to consummate the union (Mat 25:1-10; Rev 19:7).

they two shall be one flesh--So the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint, &c., read (Gen 2:24), instead of "they shall be one flesh." So Mat 19:5. In natural marriage, husband and wife combine the elements of one perfect human being: the one being incomplete without the other. So Christ, as God-man, is pleased to make the Church, the body, a necessary adjunct to Himself, the Head. He is the archetype of the Church, from whom and according to whom, as the pattern, she is formed. He is her Head, as the husband is of the wife (Rom 6:5; Co1 11:3; Co1 15:45). Christ will never allow any power to sever Himself and His bride, indissolubly joined (Mat 19:6; Joh 10:28-29; Joh 13:1).

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 31. Shall be joined unto his wife] προσκολληθησεται. He shall be glued or cemented to her; and, as a well-glued board will sooner break in the whole wood than in the glued joint, so death alone can part the husband and wife; and nothing but death should dissolve their affection. See Clarke's notes on Ge 2:21-24.

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

31. For this cause. This is an exact quotation from the writings of Moses. (Genesis 2:24.) And what does it mean? As Eve was formed out of the substance of her husband, and thus was a part of himself; so, if we are the true members of Christ, we share his substance, and by this intercourse unite into one body. In short, Paul describes our union to Christ, a symbol and pledge of which is given to us in the ordinance of the supper. Those who talk about the torture exercised on this passage to make it refer to the Lord’s supper, while no mention is made of the supper, but of marriage, are egregiously mistaken. When they admit that the death of Christ is commemorated in the supper, but not that such intercourse exists as we assert from the words of Christ, we quote this passage against them. Paul says that we are members of his flesh and of his bones. Do we wonder then, that in the Lord’s supper he holds out his body to be enjoyed by us, and to nourish us unto eternal life? Thus we prove that the only union which we maintain to be represented by the Lord’s supper is here declared in its truth and consequences by the apostle.

Two subjects are exhibited together; for the spiritual union between Christ and his church is so treated as to illustrate the common law of marriage, to which the quotation from Moses relates. He immediately adds, that the saying is fulfilled in Christ and the church. Every opportunity which presents itself for proclaiming our obligations to Christ is readily embraced, but he adapts his illustration of them to the present subject. It is uncertain whether Moses introduces Adam as using these words, or gives them as an inference drawn by himself from the creation of man. Nor is it of much consequence which of these views be taken; for, in either case, we must hold it to be an announcement of the will of God, enjoining the duties which men owe to their wives.

He shall leave his father and mother. As if he had said, “Let him rather leave his father and mother than not cleave to his wife.” The marriage bond does not set aside the other duties of mankind, nor are the commandments of God so inconsistent with each other, that a man cannot be a good and faithful husband without ceasing to be a dutiful son. It is altogether a question of degree. Moses draws the comparison, in order to express more strongly the close and sacred union which subsists between husband and wife. A son is bound by an inviolable law of nature to perform his duties towards his father; and when the obligations of a husband towards his wife are declared to be stronger, their force is the better understood. He who resolves to be a good husband will not fail to perform his filial duties, but will regard marriage as more sacred than all other ties.

And they two shall be one flesh. They shall be one man, or, to use a common phrase, they shall constitute one person; which certainly would not hold true with regard to any other kind of relationship. All depends on this, that the wife was formed of the flesh and bones of her husband. Such is the union between us and Christ, who in some sort makes us partakers of his substance. “We are bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh,” (Genesis 2:23;) not because, like ourselves, he has a human nature, but because, by the power of his Spirit, he makes us a part of his body, so that from him we derive our life.

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.

(31) For this cause.—In spite of much authority, it seems far simpler to consider the words “Even as the Lord . . . His bones” as parenthetical, and refer back to Eph_5:28-29. In exactly the same way our Lord quotes the same verse of Genesis (Gen_2:24) to show the indissoluble character of the marriage tie. Here the similarity of connection with that of the original passage is even stronger. Because a man’s wife is as his own body, “for this cause shall a man,” &c. To connect these words with those going before is indeed possible, but somewhat too mystical even for this passage.

Shall a man leave his father . . .—The relation of parentage is one of common flesh and blood, and stands at the head of those natural relations which we do not make, but into which we are born. The relation of marriage is the most sacred of all the ties into which we are not born, and which we do make for ourselves, in accordance with a true or supposed harmony of nature. It becomes, says Holy Scripture, a relation, not of common flesh and blood, but of “one flesh.” Itself originally voluntary, it supersedes all natural ties. Our Lord therefore adds, “They are no more twain, but one flesh. What God hath joined together let not man put asunder” (Mat_19:6). Hence it strikingly represents that unity with Christ—voluntarily initiated by Him, voluntarily accepted by us—which yet so supersedes all natural ties that it is said to oblige a man to “hate his father and mother . . . and his own life also” (Luk_14:26).

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

31. For this cause, &c.] The Gr. in this verse is practically identical with that of Gen_2:24. We may reverently infer that the Apostle was guided to see in that verse a Divine parable of the Coming Forth of the Lord, the Man of Men, from the Father, and His present and eternal mystical Union with the true Church, His Bride.

“For this cause:”—the cause of His (covenanted and foreseen) Union with us as Incarnate, Sacrificed, and Risen; in order to realize that Divine Idea.

joined] A kindred word is used in a kindred passage, full of importance here, 1Co_6:17.

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.

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.

Ver. 31. For this cause, &c.] {See Trapp on "Mat 19:5"} {See Trapp on "Gen 2:24"}

Shall be one flesh] By virtue of that covenant of God between married couples, Pro 2:17, for he keepeth the bonds of wedlock.

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.

For this cause - Ἀντὶ τόυτου Anti toutou. This verse is a quotation from Gen 2:24, and contains the account of the institution of marriage. The meaning of the phrase rendered “for this cause” is, “answerably to this;” or corresponding to this - that is, to what Paul had just said of the union of believers and the Redeemer. On the meaning of this verse, see the notes on Mat 19:4. There is no evidence that the marriage connection was originally designed to symbolize or typify this union, but it may be used to illustrate that connection, and to show the strength of the attachment between the Redeemer and his people. The comparison should be confined, however, strictly to the use made of it in the New Testament.

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

For this cause; because the woman was formed of the flesh and bones of the man. He refers to Adam’s words, Gen 2:24.

Shall a man leave his father and mother; as to cohabitation, and domestic conversation; or, let a inan rather leave his father and mother than not cleave to his wife. The apostle doth not cancel the obligations of other relations, but prefers this before them.

They two shall be one flesh; i.e. one body, or one man, viz. by the marriage bond, whereby each hath power over the other’s body, 1Co 7:4.

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

31. For this cause—That is, (in Genesis,) on account of the created completion of a sexual pair.

Two… one flesh—Two, literally; one, conceptually. And this conceptual image of oneness, by which it is pictured that man and woman, being complements of each other, are maritally united into one person, is formed in order to place in the most loving light the unity of affection and the identity of interest by which they are identified with, and vicarious representatives of, each other.

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

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall come to be one flesh.

Quoted in substance from Gen_2:24. It seems to be introduced simply to show the closeness of the relation between man and wife; it is such as in a sense to supersede that between parent and child. The apostle (as appears from the next verse) has in view, at the same time, the parallel truth the closeness of the relation between Christ and the Church; it too in a sense supersedes the relations of nature. (comp. Luk_14:26; Mat_12:50)

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

For this cause - Because of this intimate union. Gen. ii, 24.

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

Here the apostle uses a farther argument to excite the husband’s love to his espoused wife, taken from the law of marriage, which maketh them two one flesh in a civil sense; therefore the man should leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife: not that their obligations cease to their parents, or as if they were to cast off natural affection to them; but he shows, that there is a nearer union betwixt husband and wife, than betwixt parents and child, and that the bonds of matrimonial love are stronger than those of nature.

Their being said to be one flesh, implies a most strict union, and most intimate communion, and whereby they have one interest. Common goods, common friends, yea and all things common, as if they were but one person; but the apostle further intimates to us, at the 31st verse, that this matrimonial union betwixt man and wife, was designed by God, to shadow forth and represent that mystical union which is betwixt Christ and his Church. Doth the conjugal union give the wife an interest in the estate and honour of the husband, be she never so meanly descended in herself? in like manner, from the saints’ union with Christ, does there immediately result a sweet and blessed communion or fellowship with Christ in grace and spiritual privileges; all that Christ is, and has, is theirs by communication to them, or improvement for them; well might the apostle therefore say, This is a great mystery, & c.

In the 33rd verse, the apostle shuts up his discourse upon this argument, with a repeated exhortation to the husband to love his wife, and to the wife to reverence her husband. Let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself: "so love," that is, with an extensive love, reaching the whole person, soul and body; with an intensive love, above all persons and relatives whatsoever; with an hearty love, without dissimulation; with an holy love, without alteration; and with great love, beyond comparsion.

And let the wife see that she reverences her husband. The great duty which the wife owes to her husband is reverence. This is made up of three ingredients; namely, estimation, love, and fear: the wife that reverences her husband, esteems him and dares not think meanly of him; her esteem of him provokes her love unto him; and her love of him is accompanied with an ingenuous fear to offend and grieve him; and the wife expresses this reverence in her gestures, by a respectful demeanour towards him; in her speeches to him when with her, and of him when absent from her, always mentioning him with respect and honour; in her actions, by complying with his desires, by following his directions, by hearkening to his reproofs, and by her cheerful and respectful behaviour towards him at all times and in all places, as well at home as abroad before the world. And that the wife may thus reverence her husband, let her be earnest with God in prayer, for wisdom and understanding, for prudence and patience, for humility and meekness: a proud spirit would not agree with an angel, but the humble will agree with any person.

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

31-33. No one can read these verses, and call in question the Bible doctrine of conjugal unity. It is not only repeatedly affirmed, but even enforced by the example of Christ and his bride. As we receive his nature, and become one with him in spirit, mind, life, purpose, and enterprise for time and eternity, so husband and wife are “no longer twain, but one flesh.” In harmony with this truth, we must receive the doctrine of literal and actual conjugal unity in the Divine institution of Christian matrimony. Hence, we should watch and pray, lest we infringe upon the rights and privileges of this God-given blessing to the world. It was instituted in Eden, and survived the fall, to bless mankind to the end of time. The social purity problem is not to be construed interconjugally so as to antagonize conjugal unity. Husband and wife are to walk in the clear light of God’s Word, Spirit, and providence, lest they deflect into fanaticism, and mar the beauty, chill the bliss, and darken the brightness of the Christian home.

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

31–33. For this cause. This verse is quoted from Gen. 2:24. It speaks not only a fact of the marriage state, but also implies that Christ left the Father for the sake of his mystical Bride.

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.

General Information:

The quotation is from the writings of Moses in the Old Testament.

General Information:

The words "his" and "himself" refer to a male believer who marries.

translationWords

flesh

mystery

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.

31.ἀντὶ τούτου κ.τ.λ. Gen 2:24 = LXX. with ἀντὶ for ἕνεκεν and πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα for τῇ γυναικὶ, and om. of αὐτοῦ after πατέρα and μητέρα. For this use of ἀντὶ cf. ἀνθʼ ὦν, 2Th 2:10; Lk. (3); Acts (1).

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.

31. ἀντὶ τούτου = ἕνεκεν τούτου. Compare the use of ἀντί in ἀνθʼ ὧν. Then the sense will be: because a man is to love his wife as Christ the Church. V. Soden, however, takes ἀντὶ τούτου to mean “instead of this,” viz. instead of hating (ver. 29), observing that the conclusion of this verse returns to the main idea there, i.e. ἡ ἑαυτοῦ σάρξ. See on Luk 12:3.

καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος, κ.τ.λ. A quotation from Gen 2:24, which might have been introduced by “as it is written”; but with words so familiar this was needless.

Most commentators interpret this verse of Christ, either primarily or secondarily. So Jerome: “primus vates Adam hoc de Christo et ecclesia prophetavit; quod reliquerit Dominus noster atque Salvator patrem suum Deum et matrem suam coelestem Jerusalem.” So many moderns, including Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, the last mentioned, however, referring the words to the Second Coming, the tense being future. Ellicott thinks this is pressing the tense unnecessarily, whereas it may have the ethical force of the future, for which he refers to Winer, § 40. 6, whose examples are wholly irrelevant to Ellicott’s purpose. If the passage is interpreted of Christ it refers to a definite fact, and the future must have its future sense. Understood of Christ, the expressions ἄνθρωπος for Christ, and “leave his father and mother,” for “leave His seat in heaven,” are so strange and so unlike anything else in St. Paul, that without an express intimation by the writer it is highly unreasonable so to interpret them. Can we imagine St. Paul writing, “Christ will leave His father and His mother and will cleave to His wife, the Church”? We might not be surprised at such an expression in a mystical writer of the Middle Ages, but we should certainly not recognise it as Pauline. It is, if possible, less likely that he should say the same thing, using ἄνθρωπος instead of Χριστός, and expect his readers to understand him. If the future is given its proper meaning, the expression “leaving His seat at the right hand of God” is inappropriate.

On the other hand, the whole passage treats of the duty of husbands, the reference to Christ and the Church being introduced only incidentally for the purpose of enforcing the practical lesson. It was, indeed, almost inevitable that where St. Paul was so full on the duty of the husband, he should refer to these words in Genesis in their proper original meaning. This meaning being so exactly adapted to enforce the practical precept, to take them otherwise, and to suppose that they are introduced allegorically, is to break the connexion, not to improve it.

There are some differences of reading. The articles before πατέρα and μητέρα are absent in B D* G, and are omitted by Lachm. and Treg., and bracketed by WH. Tischendorf omitted them in his 7th ed., but restored them in the 8th in consequence of the added evidence of א. αὐτοῦ is added after πατέρα in אc A Dc K L P, Syr-Pesh, Boh., from LXX; not in, א* B D* G 17, Vulg., Arm., αὐτοῦ is added after μητέρα in P 47, Vss.

For πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα which is in אc B D c K L, Orig., τῇ γυναικί is read by א* A D * G. The readings in the Sept. also vary.

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

Shall be joined [προσκολληθησεται] . Only here; and Mr 10:7.

See on Luk 14:15. The compound verb denotes most intimate union.

Shall be one flesh [εσονται εις σαρκα μιαν] . The A. V. overlooks the force of eijv unto. Lit., shall be unto one flesh. Rev., shall become.

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