For  if  he  were  disputing  about  marriages,  as  he
does  in  the  sequel,  where  the  apostle  could  bet-
ter have  named  some  particular  example,  it  would
appear  right  for  him  to  say,  "  For  have  we  not
the  p)ower  of  leading  about  wiveSy  like  the  other
apostles  and  Cephas?"  But  when  he  subjoins
those  (expressions)  which  show  his  abstinence
from  (insisting  on)  the  supply  of  maintenance,
saying,  "  For  have  we  not  the  power  of  eating
and  drinking?"  he  does  not  demonstrate  that
"  wives  "  were  led  about  by  the  apostles,  whom
even  such  as  have  not  still  have  the  power  of
eating  and  drinking ;  but  simply  "  women,"  who
used  to  minister  to  them  in  the  same  way  (as
they  did)  when  accompanying  the  Lord.s  But
further,  if  Christ  reproves  the  scribes  and  Phari-
sees, sitting  in  the  official  chair  of  Moses,  but
not  doing  what  they  taught,^  what  kind  of  (sup-
position) is  it  that  He  Himself  withal  should
set  upon  His  own  official  chair  men  who  were
mindful  rather  to  enjoin —  (but)  not  likewise  to
practise  —  sanctity  of  the  flesh,  which  (sanctity)
He  had  in  all  ways  recommended  to  their  teach-
ing and  practising?  —  first  by  His  own  example,
then  by  all  other  arguments;  while  He  tells
(them)  that  "  the  kingdom  of  heavens "  is
"children's;"'  while  He  associates  with  these
(children)  others  who,  after  marriage,  remained
(or  became)  virgins ;  "*^  while  He  calls  (them)  to
(copy)  the  simplicity  of  the  dove,  a  bird  not
merely  innocuous,  but  modest  too,  and  whereof
one  male  knows  one  female ;  while  He  denies
the  Samaritan  woman's  (partner  to  be)  a  hus-
band, that  He  may  show  that  manifold  husbandry
is  adultery ;  ^  while,  in  the  revelation  of  His  own
glory. 