Hebrews 10:1

Σκιὰν γὰρ ἔχων … The γὰρ intimates that we have here a further explanation of the finality of Christ's one sacrifice (Hebrews 9:28) and therefore of its superiority to the sacrifices of the law. The explanation consists in this that the law had only “a shadow of the good things that were to be, not the very image of the things”. Σκιὰν is in the emphatic place, as that characteristic of the law which determines its inadequacy. “A shadow” suggests indefiniteness and unsubstantially; a mere indication that a reality exists. εἰκών suggests what is in itself substantial and also gives a true representation of that which it images. “The εἰκών brings before us under the conditions of space, as we can understand it, that which is spiritual” (Westcott). So Kübel, etc. The contrast is between a bare intimation that good things were to be given, and an actual presentation of these good things in an apprehensible form. It is implied that this latter is given in Christ; but what is asserted is, that the law did not present the coming realities in a form which brought them within the comprehension of the people. [Bleek cites from Cicero, De Off., iii. 17, 69, “nos veri juris germanaeque justitiae solidam et expressam effigiem nullam tenemus, umbra et imaginibus utimur”.]

That the law possessed no more than a shadow of the coming good was exhibited in its constantly renewed sacrifices. κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν belongs to ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις, “with the same annually repeated sacrifices,” further explained and emphasised by the relative clause, ἃς προσφέρουσιν εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς, “which they perpetually offer”. οὐδέποτε δύναται … the law can never with these perpetually renewed offerings perfect the worshippers”. “No repetition of the shadow can amount to the substance” (Davidson). The proof is given in the following words, Hebrews 10:2 : ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι. The constant renewal of the yearly round of sacrifices proves that they were inefficacious, for had the worshippers once been cleansed they would have had no longer any consciousness of sins and would therefore have sought no renewal of sacrifice. ἐπαὶ, “since,” if the O.T. sacrifices had perfected those who used them. προσφερόμεναι corresponding to προσφέρουσιν, and τοὺς λατρεύοντας to τοὺς προσερχομένους of previous verse. ἅπαξ κεκαθ., that is, once delivered from a sense of guilt, cf. Hebrews 9:14, where συνείδησις is also used in same sense as here, the consciousness of sin as barring approach to God. The sinner once cleansed may, no doubt, be again defiled and experience a renewed consciousness of guilt. But in the writer's view this consciousness is at once absorbed in the consciousness of his original cleansing. Cf. John 13:10. ἀλλʼ ἐν αὐταῖς.… So far from these O.T. sacrifices once for all cleansing the conscience and thus perfecting the worshippers, “by and in them there is a yearly remembrance of sins,” that is, of sins not yet sufficiently atoned for by any past sacrifice. Cf. Numbers 5:15. θυσία μνημοσύνου ἀναμιμνήσκουσα ἁμαρτίαν, and Philo, De Plantat., 25, αἱ θυσίαι ὑπομιμνήσκουσαι τὰς ἑκάστων ἀγνοίας, κ. τ. λ. This remembrance of sins is κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν, which is most naturally referred to the annual confession of the whole people on the day of Atonement. The remembrance was not of sins previously atoned for but of sins committed since the previous sacrifice; there was no perception that any previous atonement was sufficient for all sin. The underlying ground of this inadequacy being expressed in Hebrews 10:4. ἀδύνατον γὰρ.… “For it is impossible that the blood of oxen and goats should take away sins”. This obvious truth needs no proof. There is no relation between the physical blood of animals and man's moral offence. Cf. the Choephori of Æschylus, 70, “all waters, joining together to cleanse from blood the polluted hand, may strive in vain”. ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας, “to take away sins,” in the sense of removing their guilt as in Numbers 14:18; Leviticus 10:17; Romans 11:27.