334
0 vi. I; Luc. i. 74; Rom. vi.
13; Eph
τοὺς κεκοινωμένους ἁγιάζει πρὸς τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα, 14. πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου ἑαυ-
v.2; Gal, τὸν προσήνεγκεν ἄμωμον τῷ Θεῷ, καθαριεῖ τὴν συνείδησιν ὑμῶν ἀπὸ
i. 4, et ii. 20; Tit.
ii. 14; τ Peteri. 19, et iii. 18, et iv. 2; 1 Joan.i. 7; Apoc. i. 5.
God. ῥαντίζουσα governs κεκοιν. and is not to be translated as if it were a pas- sive; so Vulg., ‘‘aspersus inquinatos sanctificat” (cf. Calvin and Bengel). ἁγιάζει, the meaning is determined by its use in Num. xix., where it signifies the removal of ceremonial defilement: the taking away of that which rendered the person ‘‘common” or “profane,” and the qualifying him for again worshipping God. This ἁγιασμός extended πρὸς THY τῆς σαρκὸς καθαρότητα, ‘in the direction of” (vi. 11) or “‘in rela- tion to” (ii. 17, ν. 1) (7: Weiss). The flesh is here opposed to ‘‘ the conscience ” of ver. 14. It was only the flesh that was defiled by attending to the dead; and only the flesh that was cleansed by the prescribed sprinkling. Defilement and cleansing were alike symbolic. It was within a well-defined ceremonial limit these sacrifices and washings availed. What kind of water, no matter how mixed with heifer’s ashes, could reach and wash the soul ?
Ver. 14. πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ... The Levitical sacrifices had their congruous effect, the sacrifice of Christ must also have its ap- propriate result. The blood offered was not of bulls and goats but of “the Christ ;’’ it was not with another’s blood (vicarious, ver. 25) but with His own He entered God’s presence. His was not a bodily sacrifice but διὰ πνεύματος aiw- viov. ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου . - Θεῷ. This clause is inserted to justify the efficacy of the blood of Christ in cleansing theconscience. It had virtue to cleanse the conscience because it was the blood of one ‘‘ who through eternal spirit offered Himself blameless to God”’. How are we to understand διὰ tv. aiw- viov? Riehm considers it a parellel ex- pression to that of vii. 16, κατὰ δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, and that it is here used to bring out the idea that Christ having an eternal spirit was thereby able to perform the whole work of atonement, not merely dying on the cross but passing through that death to present Himself before God. So too Davidson, Weiss and others. This involves that προσήνεγκεν refers not to the cross but to the appear- ance before God, subsequently to the
death. And it does not account for the absence of the article. It seems more | relevant to the passage and more con- sistent with the purpose of the clause (to show the ground of the efficacy of the blood of Christ) to understand the words as expressing the spiritual nature of the sacrifice which gave it eternal validity. It had superior efficacy to the blood of bulls and goats because it was not of the flesh merely, but was expressive of the spirit. It is the spirit prompting the sacrifice and giving it efficacy, which the writer seeks to indicate. Over against the ““ ordinances of the flesh” which made the slaughter of animals compulsory and a mere matter of letting material blood, he sets this wholly different sacrifice which was prompted and inspired by spirit and belonged wholly to the sphere of spiritual and eternal things. [Spzritus opponitur conditioni animantum ratione carentium (ver. 13, Bengel) ; ““ bezeichnet
das Lebensprinzip, in.dessen Kraft, von
dem beseelt und angetrieben Christus sich opferte” (Kiibel)]. It was the spirit underlying and expressed in the sacrifice which gave it all its potency. Spirit is eternal and can alone be efficacious in eternalthings. ἑαυτὸν. The Levitical High Priest, as stated in ver. 25, entered the holy place ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ, but Christ διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος. Also goats and calves were of no great value, but what Christ offered was of infinite value. Two points are brought out by ἑαυτόν. (1) He offered not a vicarious victim ; but, as Priest, offered the only true sacri- fice, Himself. Therefore His blood had cleansing efficacy. (2) He offered not a cheap animal, but the most precious of sacrifices. προσήνεγκεν, i.e., on the cross; for the clause is an explanation of the value of the blood. Cf. ver. 28. ἄμωμον without blemish, perfect, as required in the Levitical sacrifices, but now with an ethical significance, and therefore possessing an ethical validity. This explains how the blood of Christ should not merely furnish ceremonial cleanness but καθαριεῖ THY συν- είδησιν ὑμῶν ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργ- ων, a characterisation of sins suggested by the context. Works that defile; as the touching of a dead body defiled the