Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 9:9 - 9:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_9:9. Ἥτις ] is not synonymous with ἥ . It is employed argumentatively, in that it presents the following declaration as a fact, the truth of which is manifest.
We have not, however, to take ἥτις with παραβολή as a designation of the subject (Calvin, al.: which emblem was only for the present time; Storr, al.: which emblem was to continue only to the present; Zeger, Semler, de Wette, al.: which emblem has reference to the present time). For the verb to be supplemented would not be the mere copula; it would have a peculiar signification, and thus could not be omitted. ἥτις alone is consequently the subject, and παραβολή the predicate. Yet ἥτις is not to be referred back to στάσιν (Chr. Fr. Schmid), for the expression στάσιν does not occupy a sufficiently independent position in the preceding context to justify this; still less—what is thought possible by Cramer—to τὴν τῶν ἁγίων ὁδόν , by which the idea would be rendered unmeaning. Nor have we to assume an attraction to παραβολή , in such wise that ἥτις should stand in the sense of ὅτι (so Bengel, who makes it point back to Heb_9:6-8; Maier, who makes it refer to Heb_9:7-8; Michaelis, who makes it refer to μήπω πεφανερῶσθαι κ . τ . λ ., and others), or, what amounts to the same thing, to supplement to the phrase ἥτις παραβολή , comprehended together as a subject, παραβολή ἐστιν as a predicate: which emblem (described Heb_9:6-8) is an emblem for the present time (so Nickel in Reuter’s Repertor. 1858, März, p. 188 f.). for, in the course of Heb_9:9-10, respect is had just to the closing words alone of Heb_9:8 : ἔτι τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς ἐχούσης στάσιν . The exclusively right construction, therefore, is the referring back of ἥτις to τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς , Heb_9:8.
παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα ] sc. ἐστίν . παραβολή in the Gospels very frequently a fictitious historic likeness. Here a likeness by means of a fact, an emblem. Not incorrectly, therefore, is it explained, on the part of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, by τύπος .
εἰς ] in reference to, as regards. Instead of εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα , consequently, the mere τοῦ καιροῦ τοῦ ἐνεστηκότος might have been written.
ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστηκώς ] the present time. The opposite thereto is formed by the καιρὸς διορθώσεως , Heb_9:10, by which the reader is referred to the Christian epoch of time, the αἰὼν μέλλων (Heb_6:5; comp. also Heb_2:5). ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστηκώς is therefore synonymous with the αἰὼν οὗτος elsewhere, and indicates the pre-Christian period of time still extending onward into the present.[90] The term καιρός , however, is chosen, instead of the more general ΧΡΌΝΟς or ΑἸΏΝ , because it is the thought of the author that this period of time has already reached its turning-point, at which it is to take its departure.
ΚΑΘʼ ἭΝ ] conformably to which, or in accordance with which, applies not to παραβολή (Oecumenius, Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Nickel, l.c., Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 495, Obs.; Alford, Woerner, al.), but to τῆς πρώτης σκηνῆς , as the last preceding main notion; stands thus parallel to ἭΤΙς .
ΜῊ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΑΙ ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙΝ ΤΕΛΕΙῶΣΑΙ ΤῸΝ ΛΑΤΡΕΎΟΝΤΑ ] is to be taken in close connection with ΔῶΡΆ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΘΥΣΊΑΙ ΠΡΟΣΦΈΡΟΝΤΑΙ (against Böhme, who unwarrantably presses the force of the plural ΔῶΡΆ ΤΕ ΚΑῚ ΘΥΣΊΑΙ ).
ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙΝ ] as regards the consciousness, or as to the conscience (Theophylact: κατὰ τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον ), i.e. so that the reality of being led to perfection is inwardly experienced, and the conscience in connection therewith feels itself satisfied.
τὸν λατρεύοντα ] him rendering the service (Heb_10:2). Not specially the priest is meant (Estius, Gerhard; comp. also Drusius), but in general, the man doing homage to God by the offering of sacrifice, whether it be a priest who offers for himself, or another who presents this offering through the medium of the priest. [Mat_4:10; cf. ὁ προσερχόμενος , Heb_10:1.]
[90] Quite mistaken (as is already apparent even from the opposition to καιρὸς διορθώσεως , ver. 10) is the opinion of Delitzsch, with whom Alford concurs, that ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἑνεστηκώς denotes the present begun with the καινὴ διαθήκη , the present of the New Testament time, in which the parable has attained its close. See, on the contrary, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 494, Obs., and specially Reiche, Commentar. Crit. p. 74 sq.—That, for the rest, by ὁ καιρὸς ὁ ἐνεστηκώς only that present in which the author lived and wrote can be meant, needs not another word of explanation. When Kurtz and Hofmann deny this,—and the former will understand only an “imagined present,” into which the author “only transposed himself;” the latter, “that present in which the Holy Ghost prophesied by means of that which was written in the law,”—this is done only in the interest of their wrong interpretations of ver. 6.