Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 10:1 - 10:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_10:1. Establishment of the ἅπαξ προσενεχθεὶς εἰς τὸ πολλῶν ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας , Heb_9:28, as being the main thought lying in Heb_9:25-28, by making good the opposite state of the case in the province of the O. T. theocracy: “For since the law contains only a shadow of the future good things, not the actual likeness of the things, it is not able by means of the same sacrifices every year, which are unceasingly offered, ever to make perfect them that draw nigh.” The emphasis of the proposition rests partly upon the characterization of the law as σκιὰν ἔχων κ . τ . λ ., partly upon κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις , ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές . The author, however, cannot thereby mean, as the words at first hearing might seem to imply, that the law, in case its contents were no mere σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν , would in reality effect the τελείωσις by means of its ever-repeated expiatory sacrifices. For, as is shown by Heb_10:2-3, the author already bases upon the very fact of the yearly repetition of the Mosaic expiatory sacrifices the proof for their inadequacy. We must therefore suppose that two independent particulars of thought have been blended together into a single statement. One can resolve the matter either in such wise that οὐδέποτε δύναται τελειῶσαι is looked upon as the common predicate for both particulars: the law is incapable of leading to τελείωσις , because it contains a mere σκιά κ . τ . λ .; and certainly it is incapable, by means of its ever-repeated sacrifices, of leading to τελείωσις . Or in such wise that the second particular is thought of originally as an inference from the first, from which the οὐδέποτε δύναται κ . τ . λ . is then progressively derived: because the law contains a mere σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν , there is found in its domain an unceasing repetition of the same expiatory sacrifices; by this unceasing repetition, however, it is never able to lead to perfection. The latter analysis is to be preferred, because by means of it the opposition, required by the course of the argument, between the once offered and the ofttimes repeated expiatory sacrifice, comes out clearly and definitely in all its severity; while the characterization of the νόμος , on the other hand, as σκιὰν ἔχων κ . τ . λ ., is made only that which here, in harmony with the context, it alone can be, i.e. a mere subsidiary factor in the argument.
σκιάν ] a shadow, which is unsubstantiated, melts away into obscurity, and only enables us to recognise the external outlines. Opposite to this is the εἰκών , the image or impress, which sets before us the figure itself, sharply and clearly stamped forth. See on Heb_8:5. Freely, but not incorrectly, does Luther translate: “the very substance of the good things.”
τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν ] see at Heb_9:11.
τῶν πραγμάτων ] different from τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν only as respects the more general form of expression.
κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν ] belongs neither to οὐδέποτε δύναται (Ebrard, Delitzsch, Hofmann, Schrifibew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 446; Alford) nor to ἃς προσφέρουσιν (Calvin, Er. Schmid, Wolf, Heinrichs, Bleek, de Wette, Bloomfield, and others), in which latter case the words would have to be resolved by ταῖς θυσίαις , ἃς κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν τὰς αὐτὰς προσφέρουσιν , or something similar. But κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν is rather to be taken in intimate combination with ταῖς αὐταῖς : with the same sacrifices every year. The author forebore writing ταῖς αὐταῖς κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν θυσίαις , in order that he might accentuate each notion equally strongly. As, moreover, with κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν in this place, so also elsewhere with adverbs which in point of meaning may be compared with it, such as ἀεί , πολλάκις , etc., a transposing is nothing rare. Comp. Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 514 f.
ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ] Those meant are, as is required by κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν (comp. also Heb_10:4), only the sacrifices on the great day of atonement, not also the daily sacrifices of propitiation (Heb_10:11), as Böhme, Stein, and others suppose.
προσφέρουσιν ] sc. the Levitical high priests. Wrongly Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 446), who in general has entirely failed in his interpretation of the statement:[96] the προσερχόμενοι .
εἰς τὸ διηνεκές ] Note of time to προσφέρουσιν . If we should seek, with Paulus, Lachmann, and Hofmann, l.c., to conjoin εἰς τὸ διηνεκές with that which follows, the relative clause ἃς προσφέρουσιν would be deprived of all signification.
τοὺς προσερχομένους ] those who approach God through the medium of the Levitical priests, thus identical with τοὺς λατρεύοντας , Heb_10:2; Heb_9:9.
[96] Namely, in that he brings out as the sense of the same, “the propitiatory sacrifice, which is, as it were, offered by the law itself, because offered at its direction and by the high priest for the congregation,” is here “convinced of its manifest incapacity for effecting real and abiding purity of conscience for the individuals. This conviction is wrought by the fact that, notwithstanding this sacrifice has been offered every year for the whole congregation, the individuals still continue throughout the year to offer sacrifices for themselves”!