This text is disputed. The question is only about the Textus Receptus Greek text, as below.
οτι μελη εσμεν του σωματος αυτου εκ της σαρκος αυτου και εκ των οστεων αυτου [Ephesians 5:30 TR - Beza, Stephanus, Elzevir and Scrivener are all identical]
... because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones;[Young's Literal]
Here there are three predicate, genitive, nouns (body, flesh, bones) the first of which is without preposition, the following two being grammatically subject to the same, repeated, preposition.
The preposition could have been omitted. 'Of' his flesh, in genitive inflection, means the same as 'of' his flesh when the preposition has the force 'of'.
But if it be the case that the preposition is deliberately added to affect the application of the article, then the translation should read something like (very literally) :
For we are members of the body of him , of that of the flesh of him, and of that of the bones of him.
The Greek article being derived from, and often conveying the same force as, the demonstrative pronoun, then the addition of εκ, where it could be considered unnecessary, must have a deliberate, idiomatic and functional purpose.
If that be the case then the spiritual meaning is a focus on 'that' of his flesh and on 'that' of his bones'. It is a spiritual view of his physical parts, not the physical parts, as such, themselves.
This question is not about that further spiritual meaning : that would be a further question. First, in this question, it is necessary to determine if the idiom being used points in that direction . . . . or not.
Which is my question.
Comment on the partitive genitive may be relevant.