Ephesians 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 Genesis 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 Genesis 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, Luke 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 Ephesians 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 Matthew 7:26; Luke 22:49; John 6:68; Romans 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, Galatians 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. Ephesians 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.