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