‘
ΠΡΟΣ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΥΣ 331 λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων, 8. ἐτοῦτο δηλοῦντος τοῦ Πνεύματος τοῦ Αγίου, ε Ἀν Sh μοὶ 08Η. XIV.
, A - ε ” a A μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδὸν, ETL τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς 6. ἐχούσης στάσιν - 9. ἢ ἥτις παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, h Acts
> ἃ καθ᾽ ov! δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται, μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συν-
, an εἴδησιν τελειῶσαι τὸν λατρεύοντα, 10.
μασι καὶ διαφόροις βαπτισμοῖς, καὶ δικαιώμασι
xiii. 39; Gal.
111. 21.
ἘΠῊΝ cathe ᾿ ᾿ , 1 Lev. x1.25 μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασι καὶ πό- Num. 2 1X. 7,
σαρκὸς, μέχρι etc.
1ον ἰῇ DEEKLP; ἣν in SABD*, 17, 27, 71, 73, 137.) f, vg- 3 δικαιωμασι in DcEKL, f, vg., SyrP; δικαιωματα (sine και) in SABP, 6, 17, 27,
31, 73, 197.
place as part of the Divine arrangements for worship (ἐχούσης στάσιν as in Polyb. v. 5, 3) this signifies that the very Pre- sence of God is inaccessible. The very object of the division of the Tabernacle into two rooms, an outer and an inner, was to impress men with the fact that the way of access had not actually been
isclosed (πεφανερῶσθαι). Hence the appropriateness of the rending of the veil as the symbol that by the perfected work and sacrifice of Christ the new and living way (x. 20) was opened.
Ψετ.ο. ἥτις παραβολὴ eis... “for this is a parable for the time [then] present,” for the contemporary period. ἥτις has for its antecedent σκηνῆς. This is the simplest construction (Cf. Winer, p. 207). That suggested by Primasius and Vaughan—‘ Which thing (the fact of there being a πρώτη σκηνὴ separate from the Holy of Holies) was a parable”—is grammatically admissible. εἰς τ. και- pov τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, “for the time being’. In the usual division of time into past, present and future, the present was termed 6 ἐνεστώς. But present to whom? Several interpreters reply, To those living under the Christian dispensa- tion. So especially Delitzsch and Alford. But N.T. usage, and especially the usage of this Epistle which speaks of the Chris- tian dispensation as ‘“‘the coming age”’ (vi. 5), ‘‘the future world” (ii. 5), indi- cates that ‘‘the present time” must refer to the O.T. period. Besides, the opposi- tion to καιρὸς διορθώσεως points in the same direction; as also does the clause under καθ᾽ ἥν. εἰς is here “with refer- ence to”. And the meaning is, that the outer tent which did not itself contain God’s presence, but rather stood barring access to it, was a parable of the entire dispensation. In other words, this Taber- nacle arrangement was a striking symbol of the Mosaic economy which could not of itself. effect spiritual approach and abiding fellowship with God. The Le- vitical δικαιώματα themselves, on the
ground of which all these arrangements proceed, emphatically declared their own inadequacy. Wrapped up in them was the truth that they could not bring the worshipper into God’s presence. καθ᾽ fv Sapa re... “in accordance with which [parable] are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot perfect him that doth the service as regards con- | science, being only ordinances of the | flesh resting upon meats and drinks | and divers washings, imposed until a time of rectification”. καθ᾽ ἣν- referring to παραβολὴ; it is in accord- ance with the parabolic significance of the Tabernacle and its arrangements, that gifts and sacrifices were offered which could only purge the flesh, not the con- science. μὴ δυνάμεναι; Winer’s note (p. 608) is misleading. Cf. Jebb’s Ap- pendix to Vincent and Dickson’s Modern Greek, p. 340. ‘In later Greek, μή tended to usurp the place of ov,” especi- ally with participles. Cf. Blass, 255. κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι means, to give to the worshipper the consciousness that he is inwardly cleansed from defilement and is truly in commu- nion with God; to bring conscience finally into peace.
Ver. το. μόνον ἐπὶ βρώμασιν .. . μόνον evidently introduces the positive aspect of the virtue of the “ gifts and sacrifices,” thus more closely defining μὴ δυνάμεναι κατὰ συνείδησιν τελειῶσαι . . . the gifts and sacrifices are not able to bring the worshipper into a final rest as regards conscience, only having effect so far as regards meats and drinks and divers washings—ordinances of the flesh, not of the conscience, imposed until a time of rectification. The change of preposition from κατὰ to ἐπὶ need excite no surprise (cf. Aristotle’s frequent change of preposition, ¢.g., Eth. Nic., iv. 3, 26); and here there is a slight distinction in the reference. ἐπὶ has frequently the meaning ‘in connection with,” “ with regard to” asin Luke xii. 52; John xii.