Hebrews 10:1-4

VThe perpetually repeated expiations of the old covenant attest their impotence for any real taking away of sin

Hebrews 10:1-4

1For the law having a shadow of [the] good things to come, and [om. and] not the very image of the things, Song of Song of Solomon 1:0 never with those [the same] sacrifices, which2 they offered [offer, προσφέρουσιν] year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. 2For then would they not3 have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged4 [having once for all been cleansed] should [would] have had no more conscience [or consciousness] of sins. 3But in those sacrifices [in them] there is a remembrance 4again made [om. made] of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin.

[Hebrews 10:1—Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων, for a shadow the law having, etc. The emphasis of the Greek order of words can hardly be reached in English.—κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν, annually, year by year, is difficult as to position. Ebr., Hofm., Del., Alf. connect with οὐδέποτε δύναται; Calv., Bl. De W., etc., with προσφέρουσιν. The former seems the easier, and, though harsh in construction, very forcible, “year by year with the same sacrifices, etc., can never.” But see below.—ἂς προσφέρουσιν, which they offer, not as Eng. ver. offered, the figure of the present time having been kept up from the preceding chapter, and especially as the old covenant sacrifices did undoubtedly still continue. Still, that the writer’s mind is mainly on the past, is shown by the Aor. ἐπαύσαντο, for which, if he had distinct reference to the present time, the Imperf. ἐπαύοντο should be used.

Hebrews 10:2.—ἐπεί, since, viz: in that case, Romans 3:6; 1 Corinthians 15:29—συνείδησιν, consciousness=moral consciousness, conscience.—ἅπαξ κεκαθ., having been once for all cleansed.

Hebrews 10:3.—ἐν αὐταῖς, in them; the addition of the Eng. ver. is unnecessary.—ἀνάμνησις, a calling to mind, remembrance.—κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν, year by year.

Hebrews 10:4.—ἀδύνατον γάρ, for it is impossible, Hebrews 6:4.—K.].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Hebrews 10:1.—Image.—Εἰκών is not the essence itself (Peshito, Luth., Grot., Justiniani, etc.); nor the primitive form of the original (Stengel) which is then explained as the substantial essence of the things; nor merely the finished picture in contrast with the slight and shadowy outline (Chrys., Theodoret, etc.); but the living historical form, in which the invisible essence finds its representation.

Can never, etc.—The προσφέροντες are the priests, the προσερχόμενοι are the members of the congregation to whom the offering belongs. Κατ’ ἐνιαυτόν is connected by Ebr., Hofm., Del., Alf., with οὐδέποτε δύναται, by Calv., Bl., De W., etc., with ἂς προσφέρ. by most intpp. with ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις=the same year by year, or annual offerings. Hofm. also connects, with Paulus and Lachm., εἰς τὸ διηνεκές with τελειῶσαι, and further makes the προσερχόμενοι the subject of προσφέρ. We should thus have the statement that the individual members of the congregation, by the fact of their continuing throughout the year to bring offerings for themselves, and these of the same kind as those brought by the high-priests, viz.: animal offerings, furnished a practical proof of the insufficiency of the law, and of the expiatory offerings ordained by the law, and annually offered by the high-priest in behalf of the whole congregation, to produce any real and permanent perfection. In favor of this we may indeed be pointed to the like connection, τελειοῦν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές Hebrews 10:14, and to the sharp contrast of this idea “perfecting in perpetuum” with the οὐδέποτε; but, on the other hand, we may urge with Bleek, and others the tameness of the relative clause, ἃς προσφέρουσιν when standing without εἰς τὸ διην., and the forcible suggestion of Tholuck, that the very combination κατ’ ἐνιαυτὸν τανς αὐταῖς θυσίαις εἰς τὸ διηνηκές, in connection with the οὐδέποτε, presents, as in a vivid picture, an endlessly recurring round of painful and unavailing ceremonies (as at Hebrews 10:11). The individual expressions will not aid in solving the problem. Εἰς τὸ διηνεκ́ς (an Ionic form for the Attic διανεκές, which found its way into familiar use) harmonizes well with the idea that the offering of sacrifices, under the dominion and in accordance with the purposes of the law, continues on indefinitely and endlessly into the future—a point unsuccessfully combated by Hofmann. Nor again does the word λατρεύειν, Hebrews 10:2, necessitate our adoption of Hofmann’s view; for though we grant, indeed, that the term here denotes no priestly function, (as Este., etc.), but refers to the service of the private members of the congregation; yet this service again does not here as at Hebrews 9:9, refer to the offering of gifts and sacrifices, but to the general religious worship of the congregation who, by means of priestly offerings, were drawing near to God. On the other hand, we must concede (comp. Hebrews 11:4; Hebrews 11:17, with Sept., at Numbers 31:50) that the statement of Del., that προσφέρειν, in our Epistle, denotes exclusively an official and priestly offering, must be accepted with limitation. The decision then of the question turns upon this. The author is assigning the ground for the declaration, made but a little before, of Christ’s having entered, once for all, with His high-priestly offering of Himself into the heavenly holy of holies. He finds this ground in the utter inefficacy of the annually recurring expiatory sacrifices of the Levitical high-priest, which were ordained by the law, and which were of ever unvarying quality, and which had, therefore, but one significance in their bearing on the establishment of the New Covenant, which was at once promised and typified in the old. The law, in consequence of its peculiar nature—a nature inseparable from its purpose and destination—has not the power, by its annually recurring and prescribed expiatory offerings, to secure for the congregation perfection, i.e., that substantial and abiding purification which brings them into relationship with God. Could such have been the effect of these offerings on the congregation, the annual sin-offerings, and with these the Old Covenant itself would have ceased, and been done away; there would have been such a removal and doing away of the sense of guilt, as could take place only on the basis of completely satisfactory, and hence final and unrepeated sacrifice. This view of Hofm. thus becomes, in every way, improbable. It is discountenanced alike by the fact that even in the New Covenant the individual members of the church may not cease to seek, on the basis of the expiation once for all accomplished by Christ, individual reconciliation and continued forgiveness of their sins, and also that even in the Old Covenant the continued service and offerings of individuals were no less studiously and explicitly enjoined than the annual sin-offering of the high-priest.

Hebrews 10:2.—For otherwise would they not have ceased, etc.—If we omit the οὐκ, the sentence must be taken as an affirmation; the better reading with οὐκ makes it interrogative. The construction of παύεσθαι, with the Particip., is entirely classical. Hofm. refers ἀλλά to the main negative statement of Hebrews 10:1, and translates, by “sondern,” making it simply the counterpart of that negative statement (viz: cannot make perfect, but, instead of that, there is a remembrance). But it is more natural to refer it to Hebrews 10:2 as=on the contrary. Ἀνάμνησις might mean (with Vulg., Calov, and others) commemoration, or (as Schlicht. Grot., Beng., etc.) commemoratio publica, in allusion to the three penitential acknowledgments of the high-priest on the day of atonement. But the common signification in memoriam revocatio is to be preferred as the more comprehensive. Del. has given in full the three penitential prayers in his history of Heb. poesy, p. 186 ff. Συνείδησις ἁμαρτ. is not the consciousness of sin in general, but that which brings back upon the man the personal criminality, responsibility, and punishableness involved in his sins. Com. Güder. (Stud. und Krit., 1857 II. 279 ff. Inquiry into the Scriptural Doctrine of Conscience).

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The heavenly good things are even to Christians still in the future; but because, and from the time when, Christ appeared as high-priest of those good things (Hebrews 9:11), we are brought into actual fellowship with them, and we have, as already tasting (Hebrews 6:5) the powers of the world to come, the pledge and the assurance that we shall yet, as children of God entitled to their inheritance, enter into their full possession. The Gospel renders possible not merely a clear and sharp expression of them, but also the formation of heavenly relations upon earth; the introduction and setting forth, the use and enjoyment of the heavenly good things even in the world, of which the law was able to furnish only an unsubstantial and shadowy image. “Christ stands, as it were, in the meridian light of the great day of time, and casts His shadow backwards over the whole Old Covenant. But as the shadow is seen only in the light, and comes out all the more clearly and sharply in proportion to the brightness of the light, so it is only in the light of the New Covenant that we recognize clearly the typical character of the old.” (Bisping).

2. With the certainty of an atonement actually accomplished, and truly acknowledged of God, comes a completed transformation of the moral and religious conscience and consciousness of man. No longer is this consciousness filled with sin and with the fear of righteous punishment, under the sense of unremoved guilt; but it enjoys reconciliation in consequence of the forgiveness of sin wrought through grace, and by virtue of an atonement. The subjects of this reconciliation, inasmuch as they are not yet brought to a state of perfection, need, it is true, the continuous appropriation of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, and of its influences; but inasmuch as they have been, once for all, brought into the new relation of salvation and peace with God, they have no need of the successive repetitions of that sacrifice. In fact, the repetition of the sin-offering shows, that it does not accomplish that which it signifies; that it is thus not the true sin-offering, as the animal sacrifices in pagan religions show indeed the need of an atonement, but are inadequate to the satisfaction of that need.

3. The idea of the sacrifice in the mass, as a bloodless repetition of the bloody sacrifice on the cross, is entirely irreconcilable with this passage of Scripture, which lays its emphasis upon the fact that the repetition of the atoning sacrifice points back to its objective insufficiency, which would thus only strengthen and deepen our longing after that perfect and effectual expiatory system which the old economy only prefigured and paved the way for.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The actual deliverance of the conscience from the stain and burden of sin, is accomplished neither through human services, nor through legal sacrifices, but only through the blood of Jesus Christ.—The connection between the service of God, approach to God, and human perfection.—The pain and the blessing of a remembrance of sin.—The means for the purification of the conscience in our religious services.

Starke:—All religious service must tend to this end, viz., the perfection of man.—The forgiveness of sin takes away all guilt and punishment, but not the root and entire stain of sin.—Conscience accuses and bears testimony that we are ever, repeatedly, sinning and needing forgiveness.—Alike the days of feasting, of fasting and of prayer, ordained by Christianity, serve for a memorial of the Divine benefits and of our sins.

Rieger:—Even the shadowy outline given by the law, is to be regarded as a great benefaction on the part of God.—The purification of the conscience is an inestimable good.

Menken:—So long as man does not possess the offering itself, but only a shadow of it, so long he must fail of true reconciliation. A shadow can never give that which lies only in the substance.

Heubner:—How great was the veneration of the Jews for the shadow! Do Christians hold in equal veneration the truth and reality?—What the blood of animals could not, the blood of Christ could effect.

Footnotes:

Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:1.—The meaningless Plur. δύνανται in Sin. A. C. D**. and many minusc. is to be regarded as a clerical error. In order to explain it Lachm. put a point after πραγμάτων, and omitted in his small ed. the relative before προσφέρ. with A., 2, 7*, 17, 47, while A*. 31, Philox. introduce αἵ before οὐδέποτε. The Sing. is found in D*. D***. E. K. L. and many minusc., also Vulg. Itala. Copt.

Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:1.—Instead of ἅς Bl., Tisch., Alf., read (after Sin. D*. L. (?) N. Lat. ver. before D. and E., also minusc. 73,173) αἴς, which, however, might have easily sprung from the endings of the three immediately preceding words.

Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:2.—For ἐπεὶ ἄν all authorities require the reading ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἄν.

Hebrews 10:2; Hebrews 10:2.—The reading κεκαθαρισμένους deserves the preference, as is also indicated by the reading κεκαθερισμένους in A. and C., (whether this orthography be a mere blunder in copying, or more probably, a conformity of the spelling to a careless pronunciation.)