<- Previous   First   Next ->

Eujlogei'n in the LXX. generally takes an accusative of the object. In the later books it is rarely construed with the dative: Dan. 4:31 (not 2:19); Ecclus. 50:22; 51:12; 2 Macc. 10:38. Comp. Jer. 4:2. Two forms of this Benediction are given for use in Summer (given in the translation) and Winter respectively. Both texts differ considerably from that in the German service. For the history of this Section, which has been commonly applied to Christians, that is, Christian converts from Judaism, see Hamburger, Real-Encycl. fur Bibel
u. Talmud
ii. s. v. Schemone-Esre ; or Dr Ginsburg in Kitto-Alexander, Cyclop. of Bibl. Literature , s. v. Synagogue. This is the general but not the exclusive use in the LXX. See Gen. 24:31; Deut. 7:14; 1 Sam. 25:33.

The words find a remarkable parallel in Doctr. Apost. § 15 ceirotonhvsate ou\n eJautoi'" ejpiskovpou" kai; diakovnou" ... uJmi'n ga;r leitourgou'si kai; aujtoi; th;n leitourgivan tw'n profhtw'n kai; didaskavlwn . The ministry to the Lord is also a ministry to His people. There is an interesting discussion of the use of the word in this connexion by Melanchthon in the Apology for the Augsburg Confession (c. xii. §§ 80 ff.) in answer to the assertion that ‘ Leitourgiva signifies sacrifice.’ It does not in any way belong to the present subject to discuss critical questions as to the account of the Tabernacle in the Pentateuch. That narrative unquestionably expressed and fashioned the faith of the Jews from the Return to the Apostolic Age, and it is with that faith that we are concerned. Yet it must be added that it seems to be an incredible inversion of history to suppose that the Tabernacle was an imaginary ideal constructed either from the Temple of the Monarchy or from the Temple of the Return.

I venture to use this most significant word of Howe. ‘Such a sort of Deity as should shut up itself and be reclused from all converse with men, would leave us as disfurnished of an object of religion, and would render a temple on earth as vain a thing, as if there were none at all...We might, with as rational design, worship for a God what were scarce worthy to be called a shadow of a man, as dedicate temples to a wholly unconversable Deity...For that measure and latitude of sense must be allowed unto the expression ‘conversableness with men,’ as that it signify both capacity and propension to such converse; that God is both by His nature capable of it and hath a gracious inclination of will thereunto’ ( The Living Temple , i, ch. vi. § 1). The general view of the Tabernacle and its Furniture is given admirably by Hengstenberg, Beitrage zur Einl. ins A. T. 3.628ff. Josephus (unlike Philo) neglects the Symbolism of the Court, and thus is driven to regard the Porch of the Sanctuary as a separate part.
ta;" tw'n planhtw'n dekamoiriva" hj/nivxato . The allusion is not to the number seventy, but to the combination of seven with ten (10 x 7), the number of the planets with the number which measured the extent of their active influence. The thirty degrees of the whole circle of the heavens (360 o) which was occupied by each sign of the Zodiac, was divided into three parts of ten degrees each
(
dekamoirivai ). Each part was assigned to a particular planet, which thus ‘exercised its dominion and power over spaces of ten degrees.’ The planet which so presided over the space was


<- Previous   First   Next ->