De Moor IX:11: The Office of Angels, Part 2

[If you are being blessed by the translation work, please consider supporting the work and speeding it on its way.  Click here to watch a brief video on the project.]

But, as they furnish all that Ministry to God; so also did they furnish it to the Θεανθρώπῳ/Theanthropos/God-man Archangel, at the command of the Father, Hebrews 1:6; upon which passage see WESSELIUS’ Dissertationes Academicas XVI-XVIII, compared with his Nestorianismo et Adoptianismo redivivo confutato, chapter XI, § 156, pages 178-185, and his Dutch Preface before Pictet’s Theologiam,[1] 4 versa, who discovers here the Introduction of the Firstborn into the world a second time, which he expounds of the preaching of Christ through the Gospel of Fulfillment among the Nations, after of old God had already caused the same to be announced and made manifest to the world before the middle wall of partition was erected by Moses.[2]  While MARCKIUS, whom consult in his Historia Exaltationis Jesu Christi, book I, chapter IV, § 5, page 42, and in his Exercitationibus Textualibus, Part II, Exercitation XLVI, § 6, 13, thinks that τὴν πάλιν εἰσαγωγὴν τοῦ πρώτοτόκου εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, the bringing of the first-begotten into the world again, is able rightly to be expounded of the Resurrection of Christ.  But ARNOLDI, in his Refutatione Catecheseos Racovianæ, de Officio Christi Regio, questions 16, 17, § X-XII, pages 673, 674, takes the πάλιν/again as a note marking the citation of a new testimony, not of a repeated Introduction of Christ into the world; and he explains the Introduction of the First-begotten into the world of the very beginning of Christ on earth through human nativity.  But the Angels did furnish their Ministry to Christ in His Nativity, Luke 2:9-14; in the Temptation, Matthew 4:11; in His Passion, Luke 22:43; in the Resurrection, Matthew 28:2; Luke 24:4-7, 22, 23; John 20:11-13; in His Ascension, Acts 1:10, 11:  and they will furnish the same at the Final Judgment, 2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 24:31.

They are also Ministers to the Church, under Both Testaments equally, with certain urging diversity here without good reason from the text, Hebrews 2:5, wrested contrary to the intention of Paul, concerning the sense of which passage I will speak in § 18.  Although it is certain, that the Visible Appearances of Angels were of old more frequent, perhaps it was because of the greater rudeness of the Church; and because the Archangel Himself was also at that time appearing from time to time, who afterwards personally united human flesh with Himself:  but now He, received up into the heavens, has been taken from our eyes, and so also He does not now allow us to rejoice in the Appearances of Angels:  which is so much less needful at this time, because the will of God has now been fully committed to writing:  compare ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VIII, chapter IV, § 8, pages 853, 854.  Nevertheless, Angels continue to minister to the Church:  but, as Evil Angels everywhere invisibly operate in the wicked and unbelieving, Ephesians 2:2, and in the same manner vex the pious, Ephesians 6:12, and lay in wait for them, 1 Peter 5:8; so also do Good Angels invisibly dwell in the Church and among the pious:  to which is referred 1 Corinthians 11:10, which others apply to the human Doctors of the Church, with the similar saying in Ecclesiastes 5:6 brought in for comparison:  but our AUTHOR in his Exercitationibus Miscellaneis, Disputation III, § 6, page 55, concludes that the saying of the Apostle has regard to Angels; not indeed as if Paul commands women to cover their Heads, lest by the beauty of their form they should incite the Angels to lust, as TERTULLIAN took the matter, de Velandis Virginibus, chapter VII, which rests upon the ancient error of Angels having sexual intercourse with women,[3] of which I shall speak at greater length in § 15.  But our AUTHOR thinks that this is to be referred to Reverence, which is due to Good Angels as primary Ministers of God, lest they should observe in the assemblies of the faithful, being invisibly present in them, anything unbecoming to the vocation of believers or foreign to honest modesty.  In which opinion, with a number of others reviewed and rejected, ultimately also acquiesce JOHANN CHRISTOPH WOLF,^[4] Curis philologicis et criticis, on this passage, and ODÉ, Commentario de Angelis, section VIII, chapter III, § 30-42, pages 811-834:  in favor of the same consult also SALDENUS’ Otia Theologica, book I, Exercitation VI, § 8, pages 81-95.  JOHANN STECK, in Symbolis Litterariis Bremensibus, tome 3, part I, pages 211-217, insightfully illustrating this whole phrase, διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους, explains it as because of the Angels, in this sense:  that the very Angels, Spirits set in such an eminent place, yet being in the presence of δόξης, divine Glory, have a sign of subjection, covering their face and feet with their wings, Isaiah 6:2.  JOHANN GEORG ALTMANN, in his Meletematis philologico-criticis in Novum Testamentum, tome 3, in the twofold Exercitation upon this passage, contends that the words are to be translated, for this cause ought the woman to have power under her head, that is, under her husband, through the Angels, that is, lawfully circumscribed through the Doctors of the Church.  Let the Reader inspect these Dissertations and judge for himself of the probability of this opinion:  the examination of which GEORGIUS REKUC, Reg. Bor., takes upon himself in his elegant Dissertation on this text, published at Leiden under the oversight of the Most Illustrious Jan van den Honert, 1738, calling to mind the opinion of Altmann, as if this verse 10 were containing nothing other than a continuation of those things that the Apostle had undertaken to say concerning the reciprocal duties of Husbands and Wives; and, since in what precedes the power and authority of the Husband over the Wife had been heaped up with sufficient clarity, the Apostle would now seasonably warn the Men of Corinth (that is, lest they, thinking themselves to have plenary power over their Wives, should abuse it), that neither ought their Wives to be totally deprived of all authority, in the economic relation:  for, power is applicable to them, although the same be not absolute, but subordinate to their Husbands, just as the Angels, or the Interpreters of Sacred Scripture, the Embassadors of Christ, and the Preachers of the Gospel, had taught them:  this opinion, I say, ought to have been propped up by more powerful supports, if it were to have the force of persuasion.  Rekuc observes, that no one is going to easily elicit without prejudice this opinion by way of conclusion from what precedes, as it ought nevertheless to be done because of that διὰ τοῦτο, for this cause:  By no means, says he, on verse 10, is the right and power of the Husband circumscribed in definite bounds and limits, and at the same time is the right of the Wife over the Husband, in the economic relationship, explained:  but immediately through those things that were said already concerning the Man over the the Woman it is concluded, that the Woman ought to display a sign of her subjection on her head:  but to this conclusion, only at length in verse 11, is subjoined that which the Most Learned Man (Altmann) was thinking himself to find in verse 10.  Rekuc adds, from a comparison with verse 3, that it is no more approved, that κεφαλὴ/head in verse 10 denotes the Economic Head, or the Man himself, than if from verse 3 you might also wish to urge this signification of the word κεφαλὴ/head in verse 4, 5, so that a Woman prophesying with uncovered head might mean with her Husband uncovered.  And he additionally advises, that Altmann, contrary to all use of Writers, both sacred and profane, takes it upon himself to translate ἐπὶ, constructed with the Genitive,[5] here as under instead of on:  while ἐπὶ, as often as it is constructed with the Genitive, according to the judgment of Rekuc, comes by ellipsis, with which understood, it ought to be rendered on.  Against these and other observations of Rekuc, ALTMANN, in his posteriori ex duabus Dissertationibus, cited above, attempts to defend his opinion to the best of his ability, appealing also to the consent of SIEGMUND FRIEDRICH DRESING, the Reformer of the Gymnasium of Leipzig, in his Dissertatione de Uxore sub Marito Domina; especially with respect to the signification and use of the preposition ἐπὶ constructed with the Genitive.  Which is superior in reason, let the skillful Philologist judge with the arguments on both sides compared.  Again, a new explication of the words has been supplied by GERHARDUS DE HAAS in a Disputation held at Utrecht on June 13, 1661, in which, explaining this verse in the whole context, he renders it, Therefore, the woman ought to obtain the lawful power of covering the head through the Ministers of the Church.  That is, κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν and κομᾷν, to cover the head and to have long hair, in the whole context occur as synonyms, he contends, so that τὸ κομᾷν, to have long hair, is nothing other than to adorn the head, to bind up the hair of the woman in such a way that her veil swells.  Thus to appear with the head covered and having long hair, both elsewhere and especially in the sacred books, according to the teaching of the Apostle, is not fitting for men, but savors of something feminine and indicates an altogether indecent softness in men:  on the other hand, Paul contends that the power and permission of wrapping and ordering the head is in the hands of women; that this, if it be done modestly, becomes them, and is contrarily unbecoming, if woman appear in a masculine manner with a close-cropped head:  that hence that power is to be left to women upon their own head, that they might gather up the hair, and from the hair form for themselves a head-covering; and that this power is not to be denied to women by the Ministers of the Church, but contrarily it is to be impressed upon women, that a modest head-covering of this sort is especially fitting for them.  Certainly this opinion is rendered altogether probable in the Disputation cited, which, as I myself have read it thoroughly with the greatest delight, so I commend to others to be read for an understanding of the whole Pauline context of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16.  But if this explanation of the Pauline passage should stand, that text will not be cited here on this matter.  The illustrious CURTENIUS following others weighs painstakingly the various opinions concerning the sense of this text, ad Pauli Δυσνόητα in Epistola ad Corinthios, pages 229-278.

[1] Benedict Pictet (1655-1724) was a Swiss Reformed theologian, and cousin of the great Francis Turretin.  He served as a pastor in Geneva, and was appointed Professor of Theology in 1686.  He is a transitional figure, having been influenced both by Genevan theological orthodoxy and by some measure of Enlightenment philosophy.  Among other works, he wrote Theologiam Christianam and Morale chrétienne.

[2] See Ephesians 2:14.

[3] See Genesis 6:1-4.

[4] Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739) was a German Lutheran Hebraist and scholar.  His Bibliotheca Hebræa (published in four volumes, 1715-1733) was a standard reference work on Jewish literature for more than a century.

[5] 1 Corinthians 11:10:  “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head (ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς) because of the angels.”