366
Vv.
2 Ch. i. a3 γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς "ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς 1 " σωτὴρ
a=Constr., τοῦ σώματος. 1 Tim. iv. 10; John iv. 42; 1 John iv. 14.
1 και αντος εστιν alone N*ABD*E*F Victorin., etc.
24. ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 5 ἡ ἐκκλησία " ὑποτάσσεται τῷ χριστῷ,
0,» 5E*KLP, Syr., Arm., Goth., Bas., Chr., Thdrt., etc. ; αυτος 72, 73, 112, 178, d, e, f, g, Vulg., Copt., Clem., Euth., Orig.,
ἕως SAD*FGP 17, 31, 47, 673, 73, Clem., Orig., Chr., Euth., etc. ; ωσπερ DSEKL,
al., pler., Bas., Thdrt., Dam., etc.
master. If the husband’s supremacy had been in view, it would have been expressed by τοῖς κυρίοις. The ὡς de- notes more than similarly, and more than “just as they are submissive to Christ so should they be to their husbands”. The next sentence, and the whole statement of the relation between husband and wife in the following verse in terms of the relation between Christ and the Church, suggest that the point of the ὡς is that the wife is to regard the obedience she has to render to her husband as an obedience rendered to Christ, the Christian husband being head of the wife and representing to her Christ the Head of the whole Christian
body.
Ver. 23. ὅτι ὁ ἀνήρ ἐστι κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικός, ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας : because the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church. Reason for a wifely sub- jection of the kind indicated. It is found in the relation of headship. In the mar- riage union the husband holds the same relation, viz., that of headship, as Christ holds to the Church, and the headship of the one represents the headship of the other. For ἐστι κεφαλή, B, Vulg., etc., give κεφαλή ἐστιν, which WH place in the margin. The 6 before ἀνήρ rests on the slenderest authority, and is omitted by LTTrWHRYV on the testimony of BRA DFKL, etc. The anarthrous ἀνήρ means ‘‘a husband” in the sense of any man belonging to the class of husbands. The article, again, is appropriate in τῆς γυναι- κός, as a definite relation is expressed there τὸ "ἃ husband is head of his wife”. The ὡς καί indicates the point common to the two subjects—each is head, though in relation to different objects.—{al] αὐ- τός [ἐστι] σωτὴρ τοῦ τος: and He is Himself the Saviour of the body. The καί and the ἐστι of the TR have consider- able authority (NQ°D**KLP, most cursives, Syr., Arm., etc.); but they are not found in BN*ADG, Vulg., etc., and are to be omitted (with LTTrWHRV). The clause then might be construed as in apposition to the previous ὃ Χριστός, = “ as Christ
is the Head of the Church—He, the Saviour of the body”. But it is best taken as an independent clause, stating in a definite and emphatic way an impor- tant point in which Christ, who resembles the husband in respect of headship, at the same time differs from the husband, It is best rendered, therefore, “He, He Himself (i.e., = He alone) is the Saviour of the body". The RV less happily makes it “ being Himself the Saviour of the body". The αὐτός can only be Christ, and the σῶμα is the Church—the body to which He brings salvation. The husband is head of the wife, and in that he is like Christ; but Christ is also that which the husband is not, viz., Saviour of that whereof He is Head.
Ver. 24. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ ἡ ἐκκλησία ὑπο- τάσσεται τῷ Χριστῷ, καὶ αἱ γυ-
vaixes τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ἐν παντί: nevertheless as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be subject to their husbands in everything. For ἀλλ᾽ the best editors give ἀλλά, For the ὥσ- περ of the TR, supported by D®KL and most cursives, read (with LTTrWHRY) ὡς, which is found in a. 17, 67*, etc. But B omits it. The ἰδίοις inserted by TR (after AD*°KLP and various Ver- sions, etc.) before ἀνδράσιν is wanting in BND*G, 17, 673, etc., and should be deleted. It has crept in probably from νετ. 22. The question here is as to the force of the ά. Some suppose a suppressed negation before it, ¢.g., ‘‘ be not disobedient,” “do not disallow the marital headship, but,” etc. (Eadie). Others give it a resumptive force (Harl., εἰς). But the supposed digression, which can only be the brief clause αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος, requires no such re- sumption. Others give it a certain syllo- gistic force, understanding it to introduce a proof of the preceding statement, pre- senting the relation in a new light, or an inference from the statement (De Wette, Olsh.); but ἀλλά does not draw conclu- sions like οὖν, nor is it = ὥστε, alth