성경 주석서

CHAPTER 11

1 Corinthians 11:2. ἀδελφοί] is wanting in A B C א, min[1732] Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Athan. Cyr. Bas. Chrys. Deleted by Lachm. and Rückert. A natural addition at the beginning of a new section. Comp 1 Corinthians 10:1, 1 Corinthians 12:1, where not a single authority omits it. Had it been in the original text here, there was no inducement to leave it out. It is otherwise in 1 Corinthians 15:31, Romans 15:15.—1 Corinthians 11:5. ἙΑΥΤῆς] ΑὐΤῆς (Lachm.) occurs in A C D* F G L א, min[1734] Chrys. Theodoret, al[1735] This is such a preponderance of evidence against the Recept[1736] (preferred by Tisch. on the authority of B E K Or.), that we must suppose the latter to be an exegetical change for the sake of clearness.—1 Corinthians 11:7. ΓΥΝΉ] A B D* F G א, 73, 118, Dial. Isid. Theodoret read Ἡ ΓΥΝΉ, which is adopted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Rightly; the article was omitted as in the verse before and after.—1 Corinthians 11:11. Elz. has the two clauses in inverted order (which Rinck defends), but there is decisive evidence against it. To put the man first seemed more natural.—1 Corinthians 11:14. Ἤ] is wanting in witnesses of decisive authority; deleted by Lach. Rück. Tisch. Added to mark the question.

ΑὐΤῊ Ἡ ΦΎΣΙς] A B C D H א, min[1737] Damasc. have ἡ φύσις αὐτή (so Lachm. and Tisch.); F G Arm. Tert. simply Ἡ ΦΎΣΙς. In the absence of grounds of an internal kind, the weight of evidence on the side of Ἡ Φ. ΑὐΤΉ should make it be preferred.—1 Corinthians 11:17. ΠΑΡΑΓΓΈΛΛΩΝ … ἘΠΑΙΝῶ] Lachm. Rück. Tisch. read ΠΑΡΑΓΓΈΛΛΩΝ … ἘΠΑΙΝῶΝ, on the authority of A B C* F G min[1738] Syr[1739] utr. Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Clar. Börn. Ambrosiast. Aug. Pel. Bede. This is a preponderance of evidence—all the more that D*, with its reading of ΠΑΡΑΓΓΈΛΛΩ, ΟὐΚ ἘΠΑΙΝῶ, must here remain out of account. Then, too, 1 Corinthians 11:2 compared with 1 Corinthians 11:22 made ΟὐΚ ἘΠΑΙΝῶ come most naturally to the copyist; so that altogether we must give the preference to Lachmann’s reading, which is, besides, the more difficult of the two (against Reiche, who defends the Recept[1740]).—1 Corinthians 11:21. ΠΡΟΛΑΜΒΆΝΕΙ] A, 46, al[1741] have ΠΡΟΣΛΑΜΒ. So Rückert. But this is plainly an alteration, because the ΠΡΌ, prae, was not understood.—1 Corinthians 11:22. ἐπαινέσω] So also Lachm. on the margin (but with ἘΠΑΙΝῶ in the text) and Tisch., following A C D E K L א, all min[1742], several vss[1743] Chrys. Theodoret. The present crept in from its occurrence before and after.—1 Corinthians 11:24. After εἶπε Elz. has ΛΆΒΕΤΕ, ΦΆΓΕΤΕ; but in the face of decisive evidence. Taken from Matthew 26:26.

ΚΛΏΜΕΝΟΝ] omitted in A B C* א*, 17, 67**, Ath. Cyr. Fulg. In D* we have ΘΡΥΠΤΌΜΕΝΟΝ; in Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. al[1744], διδόμενον. Justly suspected by Griesb., and deleted by Lachm. Rück. Tisch. Mere supplements.—1 Corinthians 11:26. The τοῦτο which stands after ποτήριον in Elz. is condemned by decisive evidence. So, too, the τοῦτον, which Elz. has after ἄρτον in 1 Corinthians 11:27, is a later addition.—1 Corinthians 11:29. ἀναξίως does not occur in A B C א*, 17, Sahid. Aeth.; nor does τοῦ Κυρίου (after σῶμα) in these and some other witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch. delete them both; and both are glosses. What reason was there for omitting them if in the original?—1 Corinthians 11:31. There is a great preponderance of evidence in favour of δέ instead of γάρ. The latter is an explanatory alteration.—1 Corinthians 11:34. εἰ] Elz. has εἰ δέ; but there is conclusive evidence for rejecting it.

[1732] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1734] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1735] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1736] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1737] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1738] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1739] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1740] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1741] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1742] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1743] ss. vss. = versions.

[1744] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

CONTENTS.—(1) How requisite it is that women cover their heads in the public assemblies for the worship of God,[1745] 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. (2) Regarding the abuses of the Agapae, and the right way of celebrating them, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34.

[1745] Much fruitless trouble has been taken to connect even the non-veiling of the women with the state of parties at Corinth. Now it has been the Pauline party (Neander), now the Christ-party (Olshausen), and now the followers of Apollos (Räbiger), who have been represented as the opponents of veiling.

1 Corinthians 11:1 belongs still to the preceding section.

Become imitators of me. Become so, Paul writes, for there was as yet a sad lack of practical evidence of this imitation; see also 1 Corinthians 10:32 (comp Kühner, a[1747] Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4).

κἀγώ] as I also have become an imitator, namely, of Christ. Comp on Matthew 15:3. Christ as the highest pattern of the spirit described in 1 Corinthians 10:33. Comp Php 2:4 ff.; Romans 15:3; Ephesians 5:2; Matthew 20:28.

[1747] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 11:2. Conciliatory preamble to the sharp correction which follows.

δέ] is simply the autem leading on to a new subject; hence we are not to seek any set purpose in the similarity of sound between μιμηταί and μέμνησθε.

πάντα] because you are in all respects mindful of me. Rückert’s explanation: “you think on everything that comes from me” (1 Corinthians 16:14), is needlessly far-fetched, seeing that μέμνημαι with the accusative, very frequent in Greek writers, does not occur in the N. T., and the absolute πάντα is common enough (1 Corinthians 9:25, 1 Corinthians 10:32).

καὶ καθὼς κ.τ.λ[1750]] and because you hold fast the traditions in the way in which I delivered them to you. This is the practical result of what was stated in the foregoing clause. Παραδόσεις might refer to doctrine as well as to usages and discipline (comp Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6; Plato, Legg. vii. p. 803 A; Polyb. xi. 8. 2); but the tenor of the following context shows that Paul means here directions of the latter sort, which he had given to the Corinthians orally (and also perhaps in his lost letter, v. 2). He had, at the foundation of the church and afterwards, made various external regulations, and rejoices that, on the whole, they had not set these aside, but were holding them fast in accordance with his directions (κατέχετε, comp 1 Corinthians 15:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; Hebrews 3:6; Hebrews 10:23). As to the connection of ΠΑΡΈΔΩΚΑ … ΠΑΡΑΔΌΣΕΙς, see Winer, p. 210 [E. T. 281].

[1750] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 11:3. “After this general acknowledgment, however, I have still to bid you lay to heart the following particular point.” And now, first of all, the principle of the succeeding admonition. Respecting θέλω … εἰδέναι, comp on 1 Corinthians 10:1; Colossians 2:1.

ΠΑΝΤῸς ἈΝΔΡ.] note the prominent position of the word, as also the article before ΚΕΦ.: of every man the Head. That what is meant, however, is every Christian man, is self-evident from this first clause; consequently, Paul is not thinking of the general order of creation (Hofmann), according to which Christ is the head of all things (Colossians 1:16 f., 1 Corinthians 2:10), but of the organization of Christian fellowship, as it is based upon the work of redemption. Comp Ephesians 5:21 ff.

ΚΕΦΑΛΉ, from which we are not (with Hofmann) to dissociate the conception of an organized whole (this would suit in none of the passages where the word occurs, Colossians 2:10 included), designates in all the three cases here the proximate, immediate Head, which is to be specially noted in the second instance, for Christ as head of the church (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15) is also head of the woman (comp Ephesians 5:22 f.). The relation indicated by ΚΕΦ. is that of organic subordination, even in the last clause: He to whom Christ is subordinate is God (comp 1 Corinthians 3:23, 1 Corinthians 15:28, 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:15; Romans 9:5; and see Kahnis, Dogm. III. p. 208 ff.), where the dogmatic explanation resorted to, that Christ in His human nature only is meant (Theodoret, Estius, Calovius, al[1757]), is un-Pauline. Neither, again, is His voluntary subjection referred to (Billroth), but—which is exactly what the argument demands, and what the two first clauses give us—the objective and, notwithstanding His essential equality with God (Php 2:6), necessary subordination of the Son to the Father in the divine economy of redemption.[1758] Much polemic discussion as to the misuse of this passage by the Arians and others may be found in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact.

Galatians 3:28, indeed, shows that the distinction of the sexes is done away in Christ (in the spiritual sphere of the Christian life); but this ideal equality of sex as little does away with the empirical subordination in marriage as with differences of rank in other earthly relations, e.g. of masters and servants.

κεφ. δὲ Χ. ὁ Θεός] The gradation of ranks rises up to the supreme Head over all, who is the Head of the man also, mediately, through Christ. This makes it all the more obvious that, on the one hand, the man who prays or speaks as a prophet before God in the assembly ought not to have his head covered, see 1 Corinthians 11:7; but that, on the other hand, the relation of the women under discussion is all the more widely to be distinguished from that of the men.

[1757] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1758] Melanchthon puts it well: “Deus est caput Christi, non de essentia dicitur, sed de ministeriis. Filius mediator accipit ministerium a consilio divinitatis, sicut saepe inquit: Pater misit me. Fit hic mentio non arcanae essentiae, sed ministerii.”—Even the exalted and reigning Christ is engaged in this ministerium, and finally delivers up the kingdom to the Father. See 1 Corinthians 15:28.

1 Corinthians 11:4. First inference from the aforesaid gradation of rank.

This inference is a plea of privilege for the men, which was but to prepare the way for the censure next to be passed upon the women. Had Paul meant to correct the men because they had prayed or preached as prophets at Corinth with their heads covered (Chrysostom and many of the older commentators; see against this view, Bengel, and especially Storr, Opusc. II. p. 283), he would have gone into the matter more in detail, as he does in what follows respecting the women.

προσευχ.] of praying aloud in the public assemblies. For that Paul is giving instructions for the sphere of church-life, not for family worship (Hofmann), is quite clear from the προφητεύειν added here and in 1 Corinthians 11:5, which does not suit the idea of the private devotions of a husband and wife, like the σχολάζειν τῇ προσευχῇ in 1 Corinthians 7:5, but always means the public use for general edification of the χάρισμα referred to, namely, that of apocalyptic utterance (Acts 2:17 f., Acts 19:6, Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 13, 14; Matthew 7:22). Moreover, 1 Corinthians 11:5 f. and 10 presuppose publicity; as indeed à priori we might assume that Paul would not have prescribed so earnestly a specific costume for the head with a view only to the family edification of a man and his wife. It was precisely in the necessity of avoiding public occasion of offence that such precepts could alone find ground enough to justify them; they were not designed by the liberal-minded apostle to infringe upon the freedom of a woman’s dress at home. How can any one believe that he meant that when a wife desired, in the retirement of her own house, to pray with her husband (and how often in a moment might an occasion for doing so arise!), she must on no account satisfy this religious craving without first of all putting on her περιβόλαιον, and that, if she failed to do so, she stamped herself as a harlot (1 Corinthians 11:5 f.)!

To take προσευχ. as equivalent to γλώσσαις λαλεῖν (Baur) is not justified by 1 Corinthians 14:13, although speaking with tongues may have occurred in connection with public prayer by women.

προφητ.] See on 1 Corinthians 12:10. The force of the participles is: Every man, when he prays or speaks as a prophet, while he has, etc.

κατὰ κεφ. ἔχων] sc[1759] τί. See Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 36. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 127 [E. T. 146]. Having (something) down from the head, i.e. with a head-covering. The Jewish men prayed with the head covered, nay, even with a veil (Tallith) before the face. See Lightfoot, Horae, p. 210 f. Michaelis, Anm. p. 244 f. Hellenic usage again required that the head should be bare on sacred occasions (Grotius on 1 Corinthians 11:2; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 36. 18 f.), while the Romans veiled themselves at sacrifices (Serv. a[1760] Aen. iii. 407; Dougt. Anal. II. p. 116). The Hellenic usage had naturally become the prevalent one in the Hellenic churches, and had also commended itself to the discriminating eye of the apostle of the Gentiles as so entirely in accordance with the divinely appointed position of the man (1 Corinthians 11:3), that for the man to cover his head seemed to him to cast dishonour on that position.

καταισχ. τὴν κεφ. αὐτοῦ] So, with the spiritus lenis, αὐτοῦ should be written, from the standpoint of the speaker, consequently without any reflex reference (his own head), which the context does not suggest. The emphasis of the predicate lies rather on καταισχύνει, as also in 1 Corinthians 11:5. Every man, when he prays, etc., dishonours his head. In what respect he does so, 1 Corinthians 11:3 has already clearly indicated, namely (and this meets Baur’s objection to the apostle’s argument, that the duty of being veiled should attach to the man also from his dependence, 1 Corinthians 11:3), inasmuch as he cannot represent any submission to human authority by a veil on his head without thereby sacrificing its dignity. His head ought to show to all (and its being uncovered is the sign of this) that no man, but, on the contrary, Christ, and through Him God Himself, is Head (Lord) of the man. We are to understand, therefore, τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ quite simply like ΚΑΤᾺ ΚΕΦΑΛῆς, of the bodily head (Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Flatt, Ewald, Neander); not, with Oecumenius, Theophylact (doubtful), Calvin, Calovius, and others, including Heydenreich, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Maier, Hofmann, of Christ, which is not required by 1 Corinthians 11:3, and is positively forbidden by 1 Corinthians 11:5-6; 1 Corinthians 11:14, which take for granted also, as respects the man, the similar conception of the κεφαλή, namely, in the literal sense. This holds also against the double sense which Wolf, Billroth, and Olshausen assume the passage to bear, understanding it to refer to the literal head and to Christ as well.

[1759] c. scilicet.

[1760] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

1 Corinthians 11:5. A second inference of an opposite kind from 1 Corinthians 11:3, namely, with respect to the women.

Prayer and prophetic utterances in meetings on the part of the women are assumed here as allowed. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, on the contrary, silence is imposed upon them; comp also 1 Timothy 2:12, where they are forbidden to teach. This seeming contradiction between the passages disappears, however, if we take into account that in chap. 14 it is the public assembly of the congregation, the whole ἐκκλησία, that is spoken of (1 Corinthians 11:4-5; 1 Corinthians 11:12; 1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Corinthians 11:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 11:26 ff., 1 Corinthians 11:33). There is no sign of such being the case in the passage before us. What the apostle therefore has in his eye here, where he does not forbid the ΠΡΟΣΕΎΧΕΣΘΑΙ Ἢ ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΎΕΙΝ of the women, and at the same time cannot mean family worship simply (see on 1 Corinthians 11:4), must be smaller meetings for devotion in the congregation, more limited circles assembled for worship, such as fall under the category of a church in the house (1 Corinthians 16:19; Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2). Since the subject here discussed, as we may infer from its peculiar character, must have been brought under the notice of the apostle for his decision by the Corinthians themselves in their letter, his readers would understand both what kind of meetings were meant as those in which women might pray and speak as prophetesses, and also that the instruction now given was not abrogated again by the “taceat mulier in ecclesia.” The latter would, however, be the case, and the teaching of this passage would be aimless and groundless, if Paul were here only postponing for a little the prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14:34, in order, first of all, provisionally to censure and correct a mere external abuse in connection with a thing which was yet to be treated as wholly unallowable (against my own former view). It is perfectly arbitrary to say, with Grotius, that in 1 Corinthians 14:34 we must understand as an exception to the rule: “nisi speciale Dei mandatum habeant.”

ἀκατακαλύπτῳ] Polyb. xv. 27. 2. As to the dative, see Winer, p. 203 [E. T. 271].

ΤῊΝ ΚΕΦΑΛ. ΑὐΤῆς]—see the critical remarks—is, like Τ. ΚΕΦ. ΑὐΤΟῦ in 1 Corinthians 11:4, to be understood of the literal head. A woman when praying was to honour her head by having a sign upon it of the authority of her husband, which was done by having it covered; otherwise she dishonoured her head by dressing not like a married wife, from whose head-dress one can see that her husband is her head (lord), but like a loose woman, with whose shorn head the uncovered one is on a par.

ἓν γάρ ἐστι Κ.Τ.Λ[1762]] for she is nothing else, nothing better, than she who is shorn. As the long tresses of the head were counted a womanly adornment among Jews and Gentiles, so the hair shorn off was a sign either of mourning (Deuteronomy 21:12; Homer, Od. iv. 198, xxiv. 46; Eurip. Or. 458; Hermann, Privatalterth. § xxxix. 28) or of shamelessness (Elsner, Obss. p. 113), and was even the penalty of an adulteress (Wetstein in loc[1763]). What Paul means to say then is: a woman praying with uncovered head stands in the eye of public opinion, guided as it is by appearances, on just the same level with her who has the shorn hair of a courtesan.

ἓν κ. τὸ αὐτό] emphatic: unum idemque. See instances in Kypke, II. p. 220. The subject to this is πᾶσα γυνὴ κ.τ.λ[1764], not the appearing uncovered, so that strictly it ought to have been Τῷ ἘΞΥΡῆΣΘΑΙ (Billroth). And the neuter is used, because the subject is regarded as a general conception. Comp 1 Corinthians 3:8. Respecting the dative, see Kühner, II. p. 244; Krüger, § xlviii. 14. 9.

The form ΞΥΡΆΩ has less authority in Attic writers than ΞΥΡΈΩ. See Lobeck, a[1766] Phryn. p. 205.

[1762] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1763] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1764] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[1766] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

REMARK.

The evil, which Paul here rebukes with such sharpness and decision, must have broken out after the apostle had left Corinth; had he been present, he would not have allowed it to emerge. It arose probably from an unseemly extension of the principle of Christian liberty, occasioned by the fact of women partaking in the special gifts of the Spirit, 1 Corinthians 11:4, and doubtless under the influence of the greater laxity of Hellenic ideas about female dress. The letter from the Corinthians, when referring to the way in which the apostle’s instructions were acted upon at Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:2), must have contained an inquiry put to him upon this particular point (comp on 1 Corinthians 11:5). The fact that Paul makes no allusion to virgins here proves that they were not involved in the wrong practice, although Tertullian (de virginib. veland.) unwarrantably applies our passage to them also.

1 Corinthians 11:6 gives the ground of ἕν ἐστι κ.τ.λ[1768], 1 Corinthians 11:5. That ground is, that the step from not being covered to being shorn is only what consistency demands, while the dishonour again implied in being shorn requires that the woman should be covered; consequently, to be uncovered lies by no means midway between being shorn and being covered as a thing indifferent, but falls under the same moral category as being shorn. For when a woman puts on no covering, when she has once become so shameless, then she should have herself shorn too (in addition). A demand for logical consistency (Winer, p. 292 [E. T. 391]) serving only to make them feel the absurdity of this unseemly emancipation from restraint in public prayer and speaking (for 1 Corinthians 11:5 shows that these rules cannot be general ones, against Hofmann). To understand it simply as a permission, does not suit the conclusion; comp on the contrary κατακαλυπτέσθω.

τὸ κείρ ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι] “Plus est radi (ξυρ.) quam tonderi,” Grotius. Comp Valckenaer. Ξυρ. means to shave, with the razor (ξυρόν). The two words occur together in Micah 1:16, LXX. Note the absence of any repetition of the article in connection with the double description of the one unseemly thing.

[1768] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9. Γάρ] introduces the grounding of the κατακαλυπτέσθω, consequently a second ground for the proposition under discussion (the first being 1 Corinthians 11:3-6). The argument sets out again (comp 1 Corinthians 11:3) e contrario.

οὐκ ὀφείλει] does not mean: he is not bound, which, as 1 Corinthians 11:3 shows, would not be enough; but: he ought not, etc., in contrast to the woman who ought (1 Corinthians 11:5; 1 Corinthians 11:10). Comp 2 Corinthians 12:14.

εἰκὼν κ. δόξα κ.τ.λ[1773]] The obligation to pray, etc., with the head covered would be inconsistent with this high dignity, because to cover the head is a sign of submission to human power, 1 Corinthians 11:10. A man as such (ἈΝΉΡ) is the image of God (Genesis 1:26 f.), inasmuch as he, being Adam’s representative, has dominion over the earth. Other elements of what constitutes the image of God are not, according to the context, taken into account here, nor are the ecclesiastical definitions of it. He is also the glory of God, inasmuch as, being the image of God, he, in his appearance as man, practically represents on earth in a human way the majesty of God as a ruler. Rückert, following older interpreters (given in Wolf), holds that δόξα is meant here as the rendering of דְּמוּת, Genesis 1:26; as also the LXX., in Numbers 12:8, Psalm 17:15, translates תְּמוּנָה by ΔΌΞΑ. But had Paul wished to convey the meaning of דְּמוּת, a passage so important and so familiar as Genesis 1:26 would certainly have suggested to him the word used there by the LXX., ὁμοίωσις. Δόξα corresponds simply to the Hebrew כבוד.

Paul describes only the man as being the image and ΔΌΞΑ of God; for he has in his eye the relation of marriage, in which rule is conferred on the man alone. The woman accordingly has, in harmony with the whole connection of the passage, to appear simply as ΔΌΞΑ ἈΝΔΡΌς, inasmuch, namely, as her whole wedded dignity, the high position of being spouse of the man, proceeds from the man and is held in obedience to him; so that the woman does not carry an independent glory of her own, an ἸΔΊΑ ΔΌΞΑ, but the majesty of the man reflects itself in her, passing over to her mediately and, as it were, by derivation. Grotius compares her happily to the moon as “lumen minus sole.” This exposition of δόξα ἀνδρός is the only one which suits the context, and corresponds in conception to the preceding δόξα Θεοῦ, without at the same time anticipating what is next said in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9. The conception of the δόξα, which is Θεοῦ in case of the man and ἀνδρός in that of the woman, is determined by the idea of the ordo conjugalis, not by that of humanity (Hofmann) originally realized in the man but passing thence into a derivative realization in the woman.

Paul omits εἰκών in the woman’s case, not because he refused to recognise the divine image in her (except in an immediate sense), but because he felt rightly that, in view of the distinction of sex, the word would be unsuitable (comp de Wette), and would also convey too much, considering the subordinate position of the woman in marriage.—1 Corinthians 11:8. For there is not such a thing as man from woman, etc., but the relation of the two as respects being is the converse.—1 Corinthians 11:9. The γάρ here is subordinate to that in 1 Corinthians 11:8 : “for there was not created a man for the woman’s sake, but conversely.” This is the concrete historical establishment, from the narrative of their creation, of the relation between the two sexes, which had been generally stated in 1 Corinthians 11:8; in giving it, Paul, with Genesis 2:18 in his view, does not bring in ἐκ again, but ΔΙΆ, which, however, considering how familiar the history was, throws no doubt upon the genuineness of the ἘΚ. In ΚΑῚ ΓΆΡ the ΚΑΊ (which has the force of even indeed, Hartung, I. p. 135) belongs to οὐκ ἐκτίσθη. The present genetic relation of the two sexes, 1 Corinthians 11:8, began as early as the creation of the first pair.

[1773] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.