<- Previous   First   Next ->

phrase is used of the prevalence of periodic winds: Polyb. 5.5, 3 tw'n ejthsiw'n h[dh stavsin ejcovntwn .

Heb. 9:9. h{ti" parab. ... ejnesthkovta ] Vulg. quae parabola est temporis
instantis, which is
(seeing it is) a parable , a figure, and nothing more, for the season now present , ‘the present age,’ that period of preparation which will be followed by ‘the age to come’ for which we look. This sense of oJ kairo;" oJ ejnestwv" is established beyond all doubt. In technical language all time was divided into ‘the past, the present ( ejnestwv" ), and the future’ (Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. Hypot. 3.17, 144 oJ crovno" levgetai trimerh;" ei\nai: kai; to; me;n parw/chkwv", to; de; ejnestwv", to; de; mevllwn ); and the use of the word ejnevsthka in the N. T. is decisive in favour of the sense the season that is present (not the season that is at hand ): see 2 Thess. 2:2; Gal. 1:4; 1 Cor. 7:26. Things ‘present’ ( ejnestw'ta ) are contrasted with things ‘future’ ( mevllonta ): 1 Cor. 3:22; Rom. 8:38.

It may therefore be reasonably laid down that oJ kairo;" oJ ejnestwv" must be taken in connexion with that which the writer of the Epistle speaks of as ‘future,’ ‘the future world’ (Heb. 2:5), ‘the future age’ (6:5), ‘the future blessings’ (10:1). If then, as is beyond doubt, ‘the future,’ in the vision of the writer, is that which is characteristic of the Christian order, ‘the present’ must be that which is characteristic of the preparatory order, not yet outwardly abolished (comp. Gal. 1:4), that which is commonly called in other writings, ‘this age,’ or ‘the present age’; and in the present context oJ kairo;" oJ ejnestwv" stands in opposition to kairo;" diorqwvsew" (Heb. 9:10), and parallel with ‘these days’ in Heb. 1:1 (note).

It will be noticed also that kairov" is chosen (in place of aijwvn ) as suggesting the idea of a present crisis: comp. Rom. 3:26; 11:5 (2 Cor. 8:13).

Thus ‘the present season’ must be carefully distinguished from the fulness of the Christian time, though in one sense the blessings of Christianity were already realised essentially. So far Primasius, while he gives a wrong sense to ‘present,’ says truly: Quod enim agebatur in templo tunc temporis figura erat et similitudo istius veritatis quae jam in ecclesia completur.

The Levitical system then, represented by ‘the first Tabernacle,’ is described here as a parable ‘to serve for’ or, perhaps ‘to last as long as’ the present season. It conveyed its lessons while the preparatory age continued up to the time of change. It did indeed foreshadow that which is offered in the Gospel, but that is not the aspect of it which is here brought forward. As a parable (Heb. 11:19) it is regarded not so much in relation to a definite future which is directly prefigured (‘type’) as in regard to its own power of teaching. The parable suggests thoughts: the type points to a direct fulfilment.

Heb. 9:9, 10. kaqj h}n dw'ra ... movnon ejpi; br. ... baptismoi'", dikaiwvmata ...
ejpikeivmena ] in accordance with which ( and after this parable, or teaching by figure) gifts and sacrifices are offered such as cannot make the worshipper perfect as touching the conscience (in conscience), being only ordinances of flesh, resting upon meats and drinks and divers washings, imposed until a season of reformation. If the kaiv is retained ( kai; dikaiwvmata ) then two things are stated of the Levitical sacrifices, ‘that they cannot bring perfection, as resting only on meats’...and ‘that they are ordinances of flesh...’.

This sense is given in a rude form by the Old Latin version: quae [munera et bestiae] non possunt conscientia consummare servientes, solum


<- Previous   First   Next ->