3

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.

Nigel J
  • 30,958
  • 3
  • 38
  • 84

2 Answers2

4

According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

ἐκ, before a vowel ἐξ, a preposition governing the genitive. Also, it denotes exit or emission out of, as separation from, something with which there has been close connection; opposed to the prepositions εἰς into and ἐν in

So the meaning of εκ isn't simply "of" but primarily "out of."

And thus, it is a pity that, when the Textus Receptus is used, this isn't more literally translated as something like the following:

For we are members of his body, out of his flesh, and out of his bones.

For this would make a more direct reference to the Genesis account of the bond of marriage based on the creation of woman "out of" the body of man:

Gen 2:23 - And the man said: “This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.”

This would strengthen the Genesis imagery already present in this portion of the passage paralleling the bond between husband and wife with the bond between Christ and the members of his Church. We are not simply considered members of his body as a mere matter of covenantal statements, but we are members of his body based on the creation of the assembled body of believers out of the potent reality of Christ's resurrected body.

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, out of his flesh, and out of his bones. 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. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
-Ephesians 5:28-32

Austin
  • 3,913
  • 2
  • 14
  • 31
1

I have always read this as a simple repetition for emphasis, precisely because "flesh and bones" (or "flesh and blood") is such a common Hebrew idiom meaning "body". For example:

  • Gen 2:23 - And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.”
  • Job 2:5 - But stretch out Your hand and strike his flesh and bones, and he will surely curse You to Your face.”
  • Luke 24:39 - Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see—for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
  • Judges 9:2 - “Please ask all the leaders of Shechem, ‘Is it better for you that seventy men, all the sons of Jerubbaal, rule over you, or just one man?’ Remember that I am your own flesh and blood.”

Therefore, this is simply to add emphasis.

Dottard
  • 104,076
  • 4
  • 44
  • 149
  • Luke 4:39 is clearly important. Agreed. But why use ek ? : is the question. – Nigel J Dec 07 '22 at 22:53
  • @NigelJ - that is one of the many meanings of ek - meaning either "out of", or "from", or "of", etc. – Dottard Dec 07 '22 at 23:13
  • I mean, Why use ek 'of' rather than use the plain genitive 'of'. ? – Nigel J Dec 08 '22 at 07:16
  • @NigelJ - that is one of the meanings and uses it carries in the Greek. "of" even in English can mean "from". Eg, "King John of England" means that John came out of England. – Dottard Dec 08 '22 at 07:17
  • @Dottard, +1 Thanks, again for cobbling together related scripture that significantly aids in proper interpreting of the text in question. – Austin Dec 08 '22 at 19:17