성경 주석서

CHAPTER 10

Acts 10:1. After τις, Elz. Scholz have ἦν, which Lachm. Tisch. and Born. have deleted. It is wanting in A B C E G א, min., in the VSS. and Theophyl.; it was inserted (after Acts 9:36), because the continuous construction of Acts 10:1-3 was mistaken. Almost according to the same testimony the usual τέ, Acts 10:2, after ποιῶν is condemned as an insertion.

Acts 10:3. ὡσεί] Lachm. and Born. read ὡσεὶ περί, after A B C E א, min. Dam. Theophyl. 2. Rightly; the περί after ὡσεί was passed over as superfluous.

Acts 10:5. After Σίμωνα read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., τινα, according to A B C, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. (in the margin) Vulg. The indefinite τινα appeared not suited to the dignity of the prince of the apostles, and was therefore omitted.

After Acts 10:6, Elz. (following Erasm.) has οὗτος λαλήσει σοι, τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν, which, according to decisive testimony, is to be rejected as an interpolation from Acts 9:6, Acts 10:32. The addition, which some other witnesses have instead of it: ὅς λαλήσει ῥήματα πρός σε, ἐν οἷς σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ οἶκός σου, is from Acts 9:14.

Acts 10:7. αὐτῷ] Elz. has τῷ Κορνηλίῳ, against decisive testimony. On similar evidence αὐτοῦ after οἰκετ. (Elz. Scholz) is deleted.

Acts 10:10. αὐτῶν] So Lachm. Born. Tisch. instead of the usual ἐκείνων, which has far preponderant evidence against it, and was intended to remedy the indefiniteness of the αὐτῶν.

ἐπέπεσεν] A B C א, min. Copt. Or. have ἐγένετο, which Griesb. approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. have adopted, and that rightly, as it is preponderantly attested, and was easily replaced by the more definite ἐπέπεσεν (Clem.: ἔπεσεν) as its gloss.

Acts 10:11. After καταβαῖνον, Elz. has ἐπʼ αὐτόν, which is wanting in A B C** E א, min. VSS. Or. Defended, indeed, by Rinck (as having been omitted in conformity to Acts 11:5); but the very notice καὶ ἦλθεν ἄχρις ἐμοῦ, Acts 11:5, has here produced the addition ἐπʼ αὐτόν as a more precise definition.

δεδεμένον καί] is wanting in A B C** E א, min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Or. Cyr. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. But see Acts 9:5.

Acts 10:12. τῆς γῆς] is wanting in too few witnesses to be regarded as spurious. But Lachm. and Tisch. have it after ἑρπετά, according to A B C E א, min. VSS. and Fathers. Rightly; see Acts 11:6, from which passage also the usual καὶ τὰ θηρία before καὶ τὰ ἑρπετά is interpolated, τά before ἑρπετά and πετεινά is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted.

Acts 10:16. εὐθύς] So Lachm. and Tisch. after A B C E א, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But Elz. Scholz have πάλιν, which is introduced from Acts 11:10, although defended by Born. (who places it after ἀνελ.) on account of its appearing superfluous.

Acts 10:17. καὶ ἰδού] Lachm. reads ἰδού, after A B א, min.; but καί was unnecessary, and might appear disturbing.

Acts 10:19. διενθυμουμένου] Elz. has ἐνθυμ. against decisive evidence. Neglect of the double compound, elsewhere not occurring in the N. T.

ἄνδρες] Elz. Lachm. Scholz add to this τρεῖς, which is wanting in D G H min. VSS. and Fathers. An addition, after Acts 10:7; Acts 11:11; instead of which B has δύο (Acts 10:7), which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 357, unsatisfactorily defends by the artificial assumption—not confirmed by the expression in Acts 10:8—that the soldier was only taken with him as escort and attendant.

Acts 10:20. Instead of ὅτι, Elz. διότι, against decisive evidence.

Acts 10:21. After ἄνδρας, Elz. has τοὺς ἀπεσταλμένους ἀπὸ τοῦ Κορνηλίου πρὸς αὐτόν, against A B C D E G א, min. and most VSS. Chrys. An addition, because Acts 10:21 commences a church-lesson.

Acts 10:23. ἀναστάς] is wanting in Elz., but is just as certainly protected by decisive testimony, and by its being apparently superfluous, as ὁ Πέτρος, which in Elz. stands before ἐξῆλθε, is condemned by A B C D א, min. and several VSS. as the subject written on the margin.

Acts 10:25. τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν] Elz. has merely εἰσελθεῖν. But τοῦ is found in A B C E G א, min. Chrys. Bas. Theophyl. See the exegetical remarks.

Born. reads Acts 10:25 thus: προσεγγίζοντος δὲ τοῦ Πέτρου εἰς τὴν Καισάρειαν, προδραμὼν εἷς τῶν δούλων διεσάφησεν παραγεγονέναι αὐτόν· ὁ δὲ Κορνήλιος ἐκπηδήσας καὶ συναντήσας αὐτῷ πεσὼν πρὸς τοὺς πόδας προσεκύνησεν αὐτόν, only after D, Syr. p. (on the margin); an apocryphal attempt at depicting the scene, and how much of a foil to the simple narrative in the text!

Acts 10:30. After ἐνάτην, Elz. has ὥραν, which, according to preponderant testimony, is to be rejected as a supplementary addition. Lachm. has also deleted νηστεύων καί, after some important codd. (including א) and several VSS. But the omission is explained by there being no mention of fasting in Acts 10:3.

Acts 10:32. ὃς παραγενόμ. λαλήσει σοι] is wanting in Lachm., after A B א, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But the omission took place in accordance with Acts 10:6.

Acts 10:33. Instead of ὑπό, read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. according to preponderating evidence, ἀπό (E παρά).

Instead of Θεοῦ, Lachm. and Tisch. have κυρίου, according to predominant attestation; Θεοῦ is a mechanical repetition from the preceding, in which the reading ἐνώπ. σου (Born.) is, on account of too weak attestation, to be rejected.

Acts 10:36. ὅν] is wanting in A B א**, loti. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Ath. Deleted by Lachm.; but the omission very naturally suggested itself, in order to simplify the construction.

Acts 10:37. ἀρξάμενον] A C D E H א, min. have ἀρξάμενος, which Lachm. has on the margin. A D Vulg. Cant. Ir. add γάρ, which Lachm. puts in brackets. Born. has ἀρξάμενος γάρ. But ἀρξάμενον is necessary, according to the sense.

Acts 10:39. After ἡμεῖς, Elz. has ἐσμεν, against decisive testimony. A supplementary addition.

Acts 10:42. αὐτός] B C D E G, min. Syr. utr. Copt. Sahid. have οὗτος. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Born. An erroneous correction. See the exegetical remarks.

Acts 10:48. αὐτούς] αὐτοῖς is neither strongly enough attested (A א), nor in accordance with the sense.

τοῦ κυρίου] A B E א, min. VSS. Fathers have Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. So Lachm. An alteration, in order to denote the specific character of the baptism more definitely. Hence some codd. and VSS. have both together. So Born, after D.

Acts 10:1-2. Καισαρείᾳ] See on Acts 8:40.

The centurion was of the Italian cohort, which, stationed at Caesarea, consisted of Italians, not of natives of the country, like many other Roman troops in Syria. Such a Roman auxiliary corps was appropriately stationed at the place where the procurator had his residence, for the maintenance of tranquillity. See Schwarz, de cohorte Italica et Augusta, Altorf. 1720; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 145, and Beiträge z. Würdig. d. Evangelien, 1869, p. 327 f.

εὐσεβὴς κ. φοβούμενος τ. Θεόν] pious and fearing God. The latter is the more precise definition of the more general εὐσεβής. Cornelius was a Gentile, who, discontented with polytheism, had turned his higher interest towards Judaism, and satisfied a deeper pious want in the earnest private worship of Jehovah along with all his family. Judaism (as Stoicism and the like in the case of others) was for him the philosophical-religious school, to which he, although without being a proselyte, addicted himself in his heart and devotional life. Hence his beneficence (Acts 10:2) and his general esteem among the Jews (Acts 10:22). Comp. the centurion of Capernaum, Luke 7. Others consider him, with Mede, Grotius, Fecht (de pietate Cornelii, Rostoch. 1701), Deyling, Hammond, Wolf, Ernesti, Ziegler, Paulus, Olshausen, Neander, Lechler, and Ritschl, as a proselyte of the gate.[254] But this is at variance with Acts 10:28; Acts 10:34-35; Acts 11:1; Acts 11:18; Acts 15:7, where he is simply put into the class of the Gentiles,—a circumstance which cannot he referred merely to the want of circumcision, as the proselytes of the gate also belonged to the communion of the theocracy, and had ceased to be non-Jews like absolute foreigners. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 313; Keil, Archäol. I. p. 317. And all the great importance which this event has in a connected view of the Book of Acts, has as its basis the very circumstance that Cornelius was a Gentile. Least of all can his proselytism be proved from the expression φοβούμενος τὸν Θεόν itself, as the general literal meaning of this expression can only be made by the context (as Acts 13:16; Acts 13:26) to apply to the worship of proselytes; but here we are required by Acts 10:35 to adhere to that general literal meaning without this particular reference. It is to be considered, moreover, that had Cornelius been a proselyte of the gate, it would have, according to Acts 15:7, to be assumed that hitherto no such proselyte at all had been converted to Christianity, which, even apart from the conversion of the Ethiopian, chap.8., is—considering the many thousand converts of which the church already consisted—incredible, particularly as often very many were admitted simultaneously (Acts 2:41, Acts 4:4), and as certainly the more unprejudiced proselytes were precisely the most inclined to join the new theocracy.

Accordingly the great step which the new church makes in its development at chap. 10. consists in this, that by divine influence the first Gentile, who did not yet belong to the Jewish theocratic state, becomes a Christian, and that directly, without having first made the transition in any way through Mosaism. The extraordinary importance of this epoch-making event stands in proportion to the accumulated miraculous character of the proceedings. The view, which by psychological and other assumptions and combinations assigns to it along with the miraculous character also a natural instrumentality (Neander, p. 115 f.), leads to deviations from the narrative, and to violences which are absolutely rejected by the text. See, on the other hand, Zeller, p. 179 ff., and Baumgarten. The view which rejects the historical reality of the narrative, and refers it to a set purpose in the author (Baur, Zeller), seeks its chief confirmation in the difficulties which the direct admission of the Gentiles had for long still to encounter, in what is narrated in chap, 15., and in the conduct of Peter at Antioch, Galatians 2:11 ff. (comp. also Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 127 ff.; Gfrörer, heil. Sage, I. p. 415; Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 679 f.). But, on the other hand, it is to be observed, that not even miracles are able at once to remove in the multitude deeply rooted national prejudices, and to dispense with the gradual progress of psychological development requisite for this end (comp. the miracles of Jesus Himself, and the miracles performed on him); that further, in point of fact the difficulties in the way of the penetration of Christianity to the Gentiles were exceedingly great (see Ewald, p. 250 ff.; Ritschl, althath. K. p. 138 ff.); and that Peter’s conduct at Antioch, with a character so accessible to the impressions of the moment (comp. the denial), is psychologically intelligible as a temporary obscuration of his better conviction once received by way of revelation, at variance with his constant conduct on other occasions (see on Galatians 2:14), and therefore by no means necessitates the presupposition that the extraordinary divine disclosure and guidance, which our passage narrates, are unhistorical. Indeed, the reproach which Paul makes to Peter at Antioch, presupposes the agreement in principle between them in respect to the question of the Gentiles; for Paul designates the conduct of Peter as ὑπόκρισις, Galatians 2:13.

[254] Selden, de jure nat. ii. 3 (whom de Wette follows), has doubted, but without sufficient reason, the existence of נֵּרֵי הַשַּׁעַר, in the proper sense, after the Captivity.

Acts 10:3. Εἶδεν is the verb belonging to ἀνὴρ … Κορνήλ., Acts 10:1, and ἑκατοντ.… διαπαντός is in apposition to Κορνήλ.

The intimation made to Cornelius is a vision in a waking condition, caused by God (during the hour of prayer, which was sacred to the centurion on account of his high respect for Judaism), i.e. a manifestation of God made so as to be clearly perceptible to the inner sense of the pious man, conveyed by the medium of a clear (φανερῶς) angelic appearance in vision, which Cornelius himself, Acts 10:30, describes more precisely in its distinctly seen form, just as it at once on its occurrence made the corresponding impression upon him; hence Acts 10:4 : ἔμφοβος γενόμ. and τί ἐστι, κύριε. Comp. Luke 24:5. Eichhorn rationalized the narrative to the effect that Cornelius, full of longing to become acquainted with the distinguished Peter now so near him, learned the place of his abode from a citizen of Joppa at Caesarea, and then during prayer felt a peculiar elevation of mind, by which, as if by an angel, his purpose of making Peter’s acquaintance was confirmed. This is opposed to the whole representation; with which also Ewald’s similar view fails to accord, that Cornelius, uncertain whether or not he should wish a closer acquaintance with Peter, had, “as if irradiated by a heavenly certainty and directed by an angelic voice,” firmly resolved to invite the apostle at once to visit him

ὡσεὶ περὶ ὥρ. ἐνάτ. (see the critical remarks): as it were about the ninth hour. Circumstantiality of expression. See Bornemann in loc.

Acts 10:4. Εἰς μνημόσυνον ἐνώπ. τ. Θεοῦ] is to be taken together, and denotes the aim or the destination of ἀνέβησαν (comp. Matthew 26:13): to be a mark, i.e. a token of remembrance, before God, so that they give occasion to God to think on thee. Comp. Acts 10:31. The sense of the whole figurative expression is: “Thy prayers and thine alms have found consideration with God; He will fulfil the former[255] and reward the latter.” See Acts 10:31.

ἈΝΈΒΗΣΑΝ is strictly suited only to ΑἹ ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΑΊ, which, according to the figurative embodiment of the idea of granting prayer, ascend from the heart and mouth of man to God (comp. Genesis 18:2; Exodus 2:23; 1Ma 5:31); but it is by a zeugma referred also to the alms, which have excited the attention of God, to requite them by leading the pious man to Christ. The opinion (Wolf, Bengel, Eichhorn, and others) that ἈΝΈΒ. is based on the Jewish notion (Tob 12:12; Tob 12:15; Revelation 8:4) that prayers are carried by the angels to the throne of God, is as arbitrarily imported into the text as is the view (Grotius, Heinrichs, and others) that ΕἸς ΜΝΗΜΌΣΥΝΟΝ signifies instar sacrificii (comp. on the idea, Psalm 141:2), because, forsooth, the LXX. express אַזְכָּרָה by ΜΝΗΜΌΣΥΝΟΝ, Leviticus 2:2; Leviticus 2:9; Leviticus 2:16; Leviticus 5:12; Leviticus 6:15; Numbers 5:26; comp. Sir 32:7; Sir 38:11; Sir 45:16. In all these passages the sense of a memorial-offering is necessarily determined by the context, which is not the case here with the simple ἈΝΈΒΗΣΑΝ.

On the relation of the good works of Cornelius to his faith, Gregory the Great, in Ez. Hom. 19, already correctly remarks that he did not arrive at faith by his works, but at the works by his faith. The faith, however cordial and vivid it was, was in his case up till now the Old Testament faith in the promised Messiah, but was destined, amidst this visitation of divine grace, to complete itself into the New Testament faith in Jesus as the Messiah who had appeared. Thus was his way of salvation the same as that of the chamberlain, chap. 8. Comp. also Luther’s gloss on Acts 10:1.

[255] Assuredly from the heart of the devout Gentile there had arisen for the most part prayers for higher illumination and sanctification of the inner life; probably also, seeing that Christianity had already attracted so much attention in that region, prayers for information regarding this phenomenon bearing so closely on the religions interests of the man. Perhaps the thought of becoming a Christian was at that very time the highest concern of his heart, in which case only the final decision was yet wanting.

Acts 10:5-7. The tanner, on account of his trade, dwelt by the [Mediterranean] sea, and probably apart from the city, to which his house belonged (“Cadavera et sepulcra separant et coriarium quinquaginta cubitos a civitate.” Surenh. Mischn. xi. 9. Comp. Artemid. i. 53). See Walch, de Simone coriario, Jen. 1757.

The τινά is added to Σίμωνα (see the critical remarks) from the standpoint of Cornelius, as to him Peter was one unknown.

εὐσεβῆ] the soldier, one of the men of the cohort specially attached and devoted to Cornelius (τῶν προσκαρτ. αὐτῷ), had the same religious turn of mind as his master, Acts 10:2. On προσκαρτ., comp. Acts 8:13; Dem. 1386. 6 : θεραπαίνας τὰς Νεαίρᾳ τότε προσκαρτερούσας. Polyb. xxiv. 5. 3.

Acts 10:9-10. On the following day (for Joppa was thirty miles from Caesarea), shortly before the arrival of the messengers of Cornelius at Peter’s house, the latter was, by means of a vision effected by divine agency in the state of ecstasy, prepared for the unhesitating acceptance of the summons of the Gentile; while the feeling of hunger, with which Peter passed into the trance, served the divine revelation as the medium of its special form.

ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα] for the flat roofs (comp. Luke 5:19; Luke 12:3; Luke 17:31) were used by the Hebrews for religious exercises, prayers, and meditations. Winer, Realw. s.v. Dach. Incorrectly Jerome, Luther, Pricaeus, Erasmus, Heinrichs, hold that the ὑπερῷον is meant. At variance with N. T. usage; even the Homeric δῶμα (hall) was something different (see Herm. Privatalterth. § 19. 5); and why should Luke not have employed the usual formal word ὑπερῷον (Acts 1:13-14, Acts 9:37; Acts 9:39, Acts 20:8)? Moreover, the subsequent appearance is most in keeping with an abode in the open air.

ἕκτην] See on Acts 3:1. πρόσπεινος, hungry, is not elsewhere preserved; the Greeks say πειναλέος.

ἤθελε γεύσασθαι] he had the desire to eat (for examples of the absolute γεύσασθαι, see Kypke, II. p. 47)—and in this desire, whilst the people of the house (αὐτῶν) were preparing food (παρασκευαζόντων, see Elsner, Obss. p. 408; Kypke, l.c.) the ἔκστασις came upon him (ἐγένετο, see the critical remarks), by which is denoted the involuntary setting in of this state. Comp. Acts 5:5; Acts 5:11; Luke 1:65; Luke 4:37. The ἔκστασις itself is the waking but not spontaneous state, in which a man, transported out of the lower consciousness (2 Corinthians 12:2-3) and freed from the limits of sensuous restriction as well as of discursive thought, apprehends with his higher pneumatic receptivity divinely presented revelations, whether these reach the inner sense through visions or otherwise. Comp. Graf in the Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 265 ff.; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 285.

Acts 10:11-13. Observe the vividly introduced historical present θεωρεῖ.

τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς δεδεμ.] attached with four ends, namely, to the edges of the opening which had taken place in heaven. Chap. Acts 11:5 requires this explanation, not the usual one: “bound together at the four corners.” Nor does the text mention anything of ropes, bound to which it was let down. The visionary appearance has something marvellous even in the way of its occurrence. We are to imagine the vessel (whose four corners, moreover, are without warrant explained by Augustine, Wetstein, Bengel, Lange, and others as pointing to the four quarters of the world), looking like a colossal four-cornered linen-cloth (ὀθόνη), letting itself down, while the corners attached to heaven support the whole. On ἀρχαί, extremitates, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 50.

πάντα τὰ τετράποδα] The formerly usual interpretation: “four-footed beasts of all sorts, i.e. of very many kinds” is linguistically erroneous. The phenomenon in its supernatural visionary character exhibits as present in the σκεῦος (ἐν ᾡ ὕπηρχε) all four-footed beasts, reptiles, and birds (all kinds of them) without exception.[256] In a strangely arbitrary manner Kuinoel, after Calovius and others, holds that these were only unclean animals. See on Acts 10:14.

τοῦ οὐρανοῦ] See on Matthew 6:26.

ἈΝΑΣΤΆς] Perhaps Peter lay during the trance. Yet it may also be the mere call to action: arise (Acts 9:11; Acts 9:39, Acts 8:26, and frequently; comp. on Acts 8:26).

θῦσον] occide (Vulg.), slay, not: sacrifice, as 1Ma 1:47 (Thiersch), see Acts 10:10.

[256] That fishes (those without fins and scales were forbidden) are not included in the vision, is explained from the fact that the σκεῦος was like a cloth. Fishes would have been unsuitable for this, especially as the animals were presented as living (θῦσον). According to Lange, it is “perhaps a prophetic omission, wherein there is already floating before the mind the image of fishes as the souls to be gathered.” A fanciful notion.

Acts 10:14-16. Peter correctly recognises in the summons θῦσον κ. φάγε, Acts 10:13, the allowance of selection at his pleasure among all the animals, by which, consequently, the eating of the unclean without distinction was permitted to him. Hence, and not because only unclean animals were seen in the vessel, his strongly declining μηδαμῶς κύριε! This κύριε is the address to the—to him unknown—author of the voice, not to Christ (Schwegler, Zeller).

Concerning the animals which the Jews were forbidden to eat, see Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14:1 ff.; Ewald, Alterth. p. 194 ff.; Saalschütz, Mos. B. p. 251 ff.

ὅτι οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτ.] for never ate I anything common or unclean (the Talmudic פסול או טמא), i.e. for any profane thing I have always left uneaten. ἤ does not stand for καί (which Lachm. and Tisch. read, after A B א, min. VSS. Clem. Or.; perhaps correctly, see Acts 11:8), but appends for the exhaustion of the idea another synonymous expression. Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 277; Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xl. f. κοινός = βέβηλος; the opposite of ἅγιος (Ezekiel 42:20).

καὶ φωνή] and a voice (not ἡ φωνή, because here other words were heard) came again the second time to him (πάλιυ ἐκ δευτέρου, pleonastically circumstantial; see on Matthew 26:42; comp. on John 4:54).

ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε, σὺ μὴ κοίνου] what God has cleansed, make not thou common (unclean). The miraculous appearance with the divine voice (Acts 10:13) had done away the Levitical uncleanness of the animals in question; they were now divinely cleansed; and thus Peter ought not, by his refusal to obey that divine bidding, to invest them with the character of what is unholy—to transfer them into the category of the κοινόν (Romans 14:14). This were man’s doing in opposition to God’s deed.

ἐπὶ τρίς] for thrice, which “ad confirmationem valuit” (Calvin); ἐπί, denotes the terminus ad quem. Bernhardy, p. 252. Comp. ἐς τρίς, Herod, i. 86; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 16; and Wetstein.

The object aimed at in the whole vision was the symbolical divine announcement that the hitherto subsisting distinction between clean and unclean men (that hedge between Jews and Gentiles!) was to cease in Christianity, as being destined for all men without distinction of nation (Acts 10:34-35). But in what relation does the ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε stand to the likewise divine institution of the Levitical laws about food? This is not answered by reference to “the effected and accomplished redemption, which is regarded as a restitution of the whole creation” (Olshausen), for this restoration is only promised for the world-period commencing with the Parousia (Acts 3:20; Matthew 19:28 : Romans 8:19 ff.); but rather by pointing out that the institution of those laws of food was destined only for the duration of the old theocracy. They were a divine institution for the particular people of God, with a view to separate them from the nations of the world; their abolition could not therefore but be willed by God, when the time was fully come at which the idea of the theocracy was to be realized through Christ in the whole of humanity (Acts 10:35; Romans 3.; Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11; John 10:16). Comp. Matthew 15:17-18. The abolition therefore does not conflict with Matthew 5:17, but belongs to the fulfillment of the law effected by Christ, by which the distinction of clean and unclean was removed from the Levitical domain and (comp. Romans 2:28-29) raised into the sphere of the moral idea. See also on Romans 15:14; Matthew 5:17.