-
HEBREWS 10 COMMENTARY EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Christ's Sacrifice Once for All
1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are
coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it
can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly
year after year, make perfect those who draw near to
worship.
1. BARNES, "For the law having a shadow - That is, the whole of
the Mosaic economy
was a shadow; for so the word Law is often used. The word shadow
here refers to a rough outline of anything, a mere sketch, such as
a carpenter draws with a piece of chalk, or such as an artist
delineates when he is about to make a picture. He sketches an
outline of the object which he designs to draw, which has some
resemblance to it, but is not the very image; for it is not yet
complete. The words rendered the very image refer to a painting or
statue which is finished, where every part is an exact copy of the
original. The good things to come here refer to the future
blessings which would be conferred on man by the gospel. The idea
is, that under the ancient sacrifices there was an imperfect
representation; a dim outline of the blessings which the gospel
would impart to people. They were a typical representation; they
were not such that it could be pretended that they would answer the
purpose of the things themselves which they were to represent, and
would make those who offered them perfect. Such a rude outline;
such a mere sketch, or imperfect delineation, could no more answer
the purpose of saving the soul than the rough sketch which an
architect makes would answer the purpose of a house, or than the
first outline which a painter draws would answer the purpose of a
perfect and finished portrait. All that could be done by either
would be to convey some distant and obscure idea of what the house
or the picture might be, and this was all that was done by the Law
of Moses.
Can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year
continually - The sacrifices here particularly referred to were
those which were offered on the great day of atonement. These were
regarded as the most sacred and efficacious of all, and yet the
apostle says that the very fact that they were offered every year
showed that there must be some deficiency about them, or they would
have ceased to be offered.
Make the comers thereunto perfect - They could not free them
from the stains of guilt; they could not give ease to a troubled
conscience; there was in them no efficacy by which sin could be put
away; compare the notes on Heb_7:11; Heb_9:9.
2. CLARKE, "The law, having a shadow of good things to come - A
shadow, , signifies,
-
1. Literally, the shade cast from a body of any kind, interposed
between the place on which the shadow is projected, and the sun or
light; the rays of the light not shining on that place, because
intercepted by the opacity of the body, through which they cannot
pass.
2. It signifies, technically, a sketch, rude plan, or imperfect
draught of a building, landscape, man, beast, etc.
3. It signifies, metaphorically, any faint adumbration,
symbolical expression, imperfect or
obscure image of a thing; and is opposed to , body, or the thing
intended to be thereby defined.
4. It is used catachrestically among the Greek writers, as umbra
is among the Latins, to signify any thing vain, empty, light, not
solid; thus Philostratus, Vit. Soph., lib. i. cap. 20:
All pleasures are but Shadows and dreams. And Cicero, in Pison.,
cap. 24: Omnes umbras falsae gloriae consectari. All pursue the
Shadows of False Glory. And again, De Offic., lib. iii. cap. 17:
Nos veri juris germanaeque justitiae solidam et expressam effigiem
nullam tenemus; umbra et itnaginibus utimur. We have no solid and
express effigy of true law and genuine justice, but we employ
shadows and images to represent them.
And not the very image - , image, signifies,
1. A simple representation, from , I am like.
2. The form or particular fashion of a thing.
3. The model according to which any thing is formed.
4. The perfect image of a thing as opposed to a faint
representation.
5. Metaphorically, a similitude, agreement, or conformity.
The law, with all its ceremonies and sacrifices, was only a
shadow of spiritual and eternal good. The Gospel is the image or
thing itself, as including every spiritual and eternal good.
We may note three things here:
1. The shadow or general outline, limiting the size and
proportions of the thing to be represented.
2. The image or likeness completed from this shadow or general
outline, whether represented on paper, canvass, or in statuary,
3. The person or thing thus represented in its actual, natural
state of existence; or what is
called here the very image of the things, .
Such is the Gospel, when compared with the law; such is Christ,
when compared with Aaron; such is his sacrifice, when compared with
the Levitical offerings; such is the Gospel remission of sins and
purification, when compared with those afforded by the law; such is
the Holy Ghost, ministered by the Gospel, when compared with its
types and shadows in the Levitical service; such the heavenly rest,
when compared with the earthly Canaan. Well, therefore, might the
apostle say, The law was only the shadow of good things to
come.
Can never - make the comers thereunto perfect - Cannot remove
guilt from the conscience, or impurity from the heart. I leave
preachers to improve these points.
-
3. GILL, "For the law having a shadow of good things to
come,.... By which is meant not the moral law, for that is not a
shadow of future blessings, but a system of precepts; the things it
commands are not figuratively, but really good and honest; and are
not obscure, but plain and easy to be understood; nor are they
fleeting and passing away, as a shadow, but lasting and durable:
but the ceremonial law is intended; this was a "shadow", a figure,
a representation of something true, real, and substantial; was dark
and obscure, yet had in it, and gave, some glimmering light; and
was like a shadow, fleeting and transitory: and it was a shadow of
good things; of Christ himself, who is the body, the sum and
substance of it, and of the good things to come by him; as the
expiation of sin, peace and reconciliation, a justifying
righteousness, pardon of sin, and eternal life; these are said to
be "to come", as they were under the former dispensation, while the
ceremonial law was in force, and that shadow was in being, and the
substance not as yet. And not the very image of the things; as it
had not neither the things themselves, nor Christ, the substance of
them, so it did not give a clear revelation of them, as is made in
the Gospel, nor exhibit a distinct delineation of them, such as an
image expresses; it only gave some short and dark hints of future
good things, but did not exactly describe them: and therefore can
never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year
continually: namely, the sacrifices of bullocks and goats, which
were offered on the day of atonement, year after year, in
successive generations, from the first appointment of that day, to
the writing of this epistle: sacrifices of such a kind, and so
often repeated, could never make the comers thereunto perfect;
either the people that came to the temple, and brought them to the
priests to offer them for them, or the priests that offered them;
so the Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it, "perfect them that
offer"; and if not one, then not the other: legal sacrifices could
not make perfect expiation of sin; there is no proportion between
them and sin: nor did they extend to all sin, and at most only
typically expiated; nor could they justify and cleanse from sin.
Contrary to this, the Jews (p) say, "when Israel was in the holy
land, there was no iniquity found in them, for the sacrifices which
they offered every day stoned for them;'' but spiritual sacrificers
and worshippers were expiated, justified, and cleansed another way,
even by the blood of Christ, slain from the foundation of the world
in purpose, promise, and type, and to which their faith had respect
in every sacrifice.
4. HENRY, "Here the apostle, by the direction of the Spirit of
God, sets himself to lay low the Levitical dispensation; for though
it was of divine appointment, and very excellent and useful in its
time and place, yet, when it was set up in competition with Christ,
to whom it was only designed to lead the people, it was very proper
and necessary to show the weakness and imperfection of it, which
the apostle does effectually, from several arguments. As,
I. That the law had a shadow, and but a shadow, of good things
to come; and who would dote upon a shadow, though of good things,
especially when the substance has come? Observe, 1. The things of
Christ and the gospel are good things; they are the best things;
they are best in themselves, and the best for us: they are
realities of an excellent nature. 2. These good things were, under
the Old Testament, good things to come, not clearly discovered, nor
fully enjoyed. 3. That the Jews then had but the shadow of the good
things of Christ, some adumbrations of them; we under the gospel
have the substance.
II. That the law was not the very image of the good things to
come. An image is an exact draught of the thing represented
thereby. The law did not go so far, but was only a shadow, as
-
the image of a person in a looking-glass is a much more perfect
representation than his shadow upon the wall. The law was a very
rough draught of the great design of divine grace, and therefore
not to be so much doted on.
5. JAMISON, " Heb_10:1-39. Conclusion of the foregoing argument.
The yearly recurring law sacrifices
cannot perfect the worshipper, but Christs once-for-all offering
can.
Instead of the daily ministry of the Levitical priests, Christs
service is perfected by the one sacrifice, whence He now sits on
the right hand of God as a Priest-King, until all His foes shall be
subdued unto Him. Thus the new covenant (Heb_8:8-12) is
inaugurated, whereby the law is written on the heart, so that an
offering for sin is needed no more. Wherefore we ought to draw near
the Holiest in firm faith and love; fearful of the awful results of
apostasy; looking for the recompense to be given at Christs
coming.
Previously the oneness of Christs offering was shown; now is
shown its perfection as contrasted with the law sacrifices.
having inasmuch as it has but the shadow, not the very image,
that is, not the exact likeness, reality, and full revelation, such
as the Gospel has. The image here means the archetype (compare
Heb_9:24), the original, solid image [Bengel] realizing to us those
heavenly verities, of which the law furnished but a shadowy outline
before. Compare 2Co_3:13, 2Co_3:14, 2Co_3:18; the Gospel is the
very setting forth by the Word and Spirit of the heavenly realities
themselves, out of which it (the Gospel) is constructed. So Alford.
As Christ is the express image (Greek, impress) of the Fathers
person (Heb_1:3), so the Gospel is the heavenly verities themselves
manifested by revelation - the heavenly very archetype, of which
the law was drawn as a sketch, or outline copy (Heb_8:5). The law
was a continual process of acted prophecy, proving the divine
design that its counterparts should come; and proving the truth of
those counterparts when they came. Thus the imperfect and continued
expiatory sacrifices before Christ foretend, and now prove, the
reality of, Christs one perfect antitypical expiation.
good things to come (Heb_9:11); belonging to the world (age) to
come. Good things in part made present by faith to the believer,
and to be fully realized hereafter in actual and perfect enjoyment.
Lessing says, As Christs Church on earth is a prediction of the
economy of the future life, so the Old Testament economy is a
prediction of the Christian Church. In relation to the temporal
good things of the law, the spiritual and eternal good things of
the Gospel are good things to come. Col_2:17 calls legal ordinances
the shadow, and Christ the body.
never at any time (Heb_10:11).
with those sacrifices rather, with the same sacrifices.
year by year This clause in the Greek refers to the whole
sentence, not merely to the words which they the priests offered
(Greek, offer). Thus the sense is, not as English Version, but, the
law year by year, by the repetition of the same sacrifices,
testifies its inability to perfect the worshippers; namely, on the
YEARLY day of atonement. The daily sacrifices are referred to,
Heb_10:11.
continually Greek, continuously, implying that they offer a
toilsome and ineffectual continuous round of the same
atonement-sacrifices recurring year by year.
comers thereunto those so coming unto God, namely, the
worshippers (the whole people) coming to God in the person of their
representative, the high priest.
perfect fully meet mans needs as to justification and
sanctification (see on Heb_9:9).
-
6. CALVIN, "For the Law having a shadow, etc. He has borrowed
this similitude
from the pictorial art; for a shadow here is in a sense
different from
what it has in Colossians 2:17; where he calls the ancient rites
or
ceremonies shadows, because they did not possess the real
substance of
what they represented. But he now says that they were like
rude
lineaments, which shadow forth the perfect picture; for
painters,
before they introduce the living colors by the pencil, are wont
to mark
out the outlines of what they intend to represent. This
indistinct
representation is called by the Greeks skiagraphia, which you
might
call in Latin, "umbratilem", shadowy. The Greeks had also the
eikon,
the full likeness. Hence also "eiconia" are called images
(imagines) in
Latin, which represent to the life the form of men or of animals
or of
places.
The difference then which the Apostle makes between the Law and
the
Gospel is this, -- that under the Law was shadowed forth only in
rude
and imperfect lines what is under the Gospel set forth in living
colors
and graphically distinct. He thus confirms again what he had
previously
said, that the Law was not useless, nor its ceremonies
unprofitable.
For though there was not in them the image of heavenly
things,
finished, as they say, by the last touch of the artist; yet
the
representation, such as it was, was of no small benefit to the
fathers;
but still our condition is much more favorable. We must
however
observe, that the things which were shown to them at a distance
are the
same with those which are now set before our eyes. Hence to both
the
same Christ is exhibited, the same righteousness,
sanctification, and
salvation; and the difference only is in the manner of painting
or
setting them forth.
Of good things to come, etc. These, I think, are eternal things.
I
indeed allow that the kingdom of Christ, which is now present
with us,
was formerly announced as future; but the Apostle's words mean
that we
have a lively image of future blessings. He then understands
that
spiritual pattern, the full fruition of which is deferred to
the
resurrection and the future world. At the same time I confess
again
that these good things began to be revealed at the beginning of
the
kingdom of Christ; but what he now treats of is this, that they
are not
only future blessings as to the Old Testament, but also with
respect to
us, who still hope for them.
Which they offered year by year, etc. He speaks especially of
the
yearly sacrifice, mentioned in Leviticus 16, though all the
sacrifices
are here included under one kind. Now he reasons thus: When
there is no
longer any consciousness of sin, there is then no need of
sacrifice;
but under the Law the offering of the same sacrifice was
often
repeated; then no satisfaction was given to God, nor was guilt
removed
-
nor were consciences appeased; were it otherwise there would
have been
made an end of sacrificing. We must further carefully observe,
that he
calls those the same sacrifices which were appointed for a
similar
purpose; for a better notion may be formed of them by the design
for
which God instituted them, than by the different beasts which
were
offered.
And this one thing is abundantly sufficient to confute and
expose the
subtlety of the Papists, by which they seem to themselves
ingeniously
to evade an absurdity in defending the sacrifice of the mass;
for when
it is objected to them that the repetition of the sacrifice
is
superfluous, since the virtue of that sacrifice which Christ
offered is
perpetual, they immediately reply that the sacrifice in the mass
is not
different but the same. This is their answer. But what, on
the
contrary, does the Apostle say? He expressly denies that the
sacrifice
which is repeatedly offered, though the same, is efficacious or
capable
of making an atonement. Now, though the Papists should cry out
a
thousand times that the sacrifice which Christ once offered is
the same
with, and not different from what they make daily, I shall still
always
contend, according to the express words of the Apostle, that
since the
offerings of Christ availed to pacify God, not only an end was
put to
former sacrifices, but that it is also impious to repeat the
sacrifice.
It is hence quite evident that the offering of Christ in the
mass is
sacrilegious. [164]
7. MURRAY 1-4,
WE have now seen the Priest for ever, able to save
completely
(chap, vii.) ; the true sanctuary in which He ministers
(chap,
viii.) ; and the blood through which the sanctuary was
opened,
and we are cleansed to enter in (chap. ix.). There is still
a
fourth truth of which mention has been made in passing, but
which has not yet been expounded, What is the way into the
Holiest, by which Christ entered in? What is the path in
which He walked when He went to shed His blood and pass
through the veil to enter in and appear before God ? In
other
words, what was it that gave His sacrifice its worth, and what
the
disposition, the inner essential nature of that mediation
that
secured His acceptance as our High Priest. The answer to be
given in the first eighteen verses of this chapter will form
the
conclusion of the doctrinal half of the Epistle, and especially
of
the higher teaching it has for the perfect.
To prepare the way for the answer, the chapter begins with
once again reminding us of the impotence of the law. The law
having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very
image of the things. The law had only the shadow, not the
-
substance. The gospel gives us the very image. The image
of God in which man was created was an actual spiritual
reality.
The Son Himself, as the image of the Father, was His true
likeness ever in possession of His Father s life and glory.
When man makes an image, it is but a dead thing. When
God gives an image it is a living reality, sharing in the life
and
the attributes of the original. And so the gospel brings us
not
a shadow, a picture, a mental conception, but the very image
of
the heavenly things, so that we know and have them, really
taste and possess them. A shadow is first of all a picture,
an
external figure, giving a dim apprehension of good things to
come. Then, as the external passes away, and sight is
changed
into faith, there comes a clearer conception of divine and
heavenly
blessings. And then faith is changed into possession and
experience, and the Holy Spirit makes the power of Christ s
redemption and the heavenly life a reality within us. Some
Christians never get beyond the figures and shadows ; some
advance to faith in the spiritual good set forth ; blessed
they
who go on to full possession of what faith had embraced.
In expounding what the law is not able to do, the writer
uses four remarkable expressions which, while they speak of
the
weakness of the law with its shadows, indicate at the same
time
what the good things to come are, of which Christ is to bring
us
the very image, the divine experience.
The priests can never make perfect them that draw nigh.
This is what Christ can do. He makes the conscience perfect.
He hath perfected us for ever. These words suggest the
infinite
difference between what the law could do, and Christ has
truly
brought. What they mean in the mind of God, and what Christ
our High Priest in the power of an endless life can make
them to be to us, this the Holy Spirit will reveal. Let us
be
content with no easy human exposition, by which we are
content
to count the ordinary low experience of the slothful
Christian
the hope of being pardoned, as an adequate fulfilment of
what
God means by the promises of the perfect conscience. Let us
seek to know the blessing in its heavenly power.
The worshippers once cleansed would have had no more
conscience of sins. This is the perfect conscience when
there
is no more conscience of sins a conscience that, once
cleansed
in the same power in which the blood was once shed, knows
how completely sin has been put away out of that sphere of
spiritual fellowship with God to which it has found access.
-
In those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins
year by year. The cleansing of the heavens and the putting
away of sin is so complete that with God our sins are no
*more
remembered. And it is meant that the soul that enters fully
into the Holiest of All, and is kept there by the power of
the
eternal High Priest, should have such an experience of His
eternal, always lasting, always acting redemption, that
there
shall be no remembrance of aught but of what He is and does
and will do. As we live in the heavenly places, in the
Holiest
of All, we live where there is no more remembrance of sins.
It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should
take away sins. What is impossible for the law is what
Christ
has done. He takes away not only guilt but sins, and that in
such power of the endless life that those that draw nigh are
made perfect, that there is no more conscience of sins, that
there
be no more remembrance of sins.
To how many Christians the cross and the death of Christ
are nothing so much as a remembrance of sins. Let us believe
that by God s power, through the Holy Spirit, revealing to
us
the way into the Holiest, it may become the power of a life,
with no more conscience of sins, and a walk with a perfect
conscience before God.
1. Here we have again the contrast between the two systems. In
the one God spake by the
prophets, giving thoughts and conceptions shadows of he good
things to come. But now He
speaks to us in His Son, the likeness of God, who gives us he
very image, the actual likeness, in
our experience of the heavenly things. It Is the deep contrast
between the outward and the
inward the created and the divine.
2. A perfect conscience. No more conscience of sin. Let me not
fear and say, Yes, this
Is the conscience Christ gives, but it is impossible for me to
keep it or enjoy its blessing per
manently. Let me believe in Him who is my Priest, after the
power of an endless life, who ever
Hues to pray, and is able to save completely, because every
moment His blood and love and power
are in full operation, the perfect conscience in me, because He
is for me in heaven, a Priest
perfected for evermore.
8. COFFMAN, A shadow, not the very image brings into sharp
contrast the old and new covenants, the old being likened to a
shadow, and the new to the very image of the heavenly things. Just
as a man's shadow would reveal far less information about him than
a three-dimensional color photograph; just so, the shadow of the
heavenly things as revealed in the law is far inferior to the
knowledge of God and his divine fellowship available in the new
covenant. We might even affirm that the true forgiveness available
in Christ, along with the privileges of faith, and including all
the attendant promises, hopes, and blessings of the Christian
-
faith, actually are the REALITIES typified by the shadows of the
old covenant; and yet, significantly, the sacred text falls far
short of any such declaration, the marvelous benefits and blessings
of the new institution THEMSELVES being here hailed as "the very
image" of still greater realities yet to be realized and revealed
in heaven. As Westcott said,
Theophylact ... carries our thoughts still further. As the image
is better than the shadow, so, he argues, will the archtype be
better than the image, the realities of the unseen world than the
"mysteries" that now represent them. F1
Likewise, Bruce said, "Within the New Testament itself, we have
Paul's repeated description of Christ as the [Greek: eikon] (image)
of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4;Colossians 1:15). F2
It would be wrong, however, to attribute any lack of efficacy to
the new covenant, wherein Christians are "workers together with
God," and have been blessed with "all spiritual blessings" in
Christ, and have been made to stand upon the threshold of eternal
life. The magnificent endowments of the faith in Christ are more
than sufficient for all the needs and desires of life in man's
present condition; and, therefore, it is with the deepest wonder
and admiration that one reads,
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that
which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away
... For now we see in a mirror darkly; but then face to face; now I
know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully
known (1 Corinthians 13:9-12).
Can never ... make perfect them that draw nigh is the conclusion
dependent on the truth that the law and all of its provisions had
the status of a mere shadow. They were only typical, carnal,
earthly, material, and mortal devices, having no efficacy at all,
except as they directed the minds of the worshipers to the holy and
heavenly things prefigured.
Them that draw nigh brings before us the whole purpose and
intent of holy religion, that of restoring man's lost fellowship
with his Creator. The law, far from making that possible, actually
dramatized the separation between God and men; and such drawing
nigh as took place under the law was certainly not on any general
scale but upon the most limited scope, being only for a few, and
for them on very rare occasions.
9. TERRY LARM, 10:1 This verse starts by contrasting between the
"shadow" (skian)
of the law and the "true form" (eikona) of these realities. We
have already seen this
-
kind of distinction in 8:5-6 and something of it again in 9:23.
However, the contrast
between skia and eikwn presents some difficulties. While the
sentence structure of
this verse clearly marks off eikwn as the opposite of skia,
which would give it a
meaning of "substance" or "reality," its normal meaning is
"figure," "image," "form,"
or "appearance."[11]Reflections on Hebrews 10:1-18" The Greek
Orthodox Theological
Review, 17 no 2 (February 1972): 218. These alternate meanings
may have been why
the scribe of P46 (the earliest known copy of Hebrews[12])
changed the verse to read
"Since the law has only a shadow of the good things which are to
come and the mere
copy of those realities" (he removed ouk authn and replaced it
with kai).[13] Yet, since
platonic and middle-platonic thought used eikwn as an image in
contrast to the true
form,[14] universe with skia at the low end, eikwn in the
middle, and the true form at
the top. Cf. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: a
Commentary on the
Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia--a Critical and Historical
Commentary on the
Bible, edited by Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1989), 270. Cf.
Stylianopoulos (219) and Ellingworth (490) both of whom see skia
and eikwn as
having essentially the same meaning. Whether or not skia and
eikwn had the same
meaning in the philosophers, eikwn still did not have the
meaning of reality itself. the
question comes, how can Hebrews use eikwn for reality? Evidence
from Philo shows
that during Hellenistic times eikwn was sometimes used as an
opposite to skia[15] in
the way that our author uses it here. Attridge also points to
the Jewish exegetical
tradition and the emphatic authn as evidence of the breakdown
between eikwn and
reality.[16]
Hebrews also connects the "law" (nomoj) with the "sacrifices"
(qusiaij). This supports
Ellingworth's proposal that nomoj, here as elsewhere in Hebrews,
refers primarily to
the law's cultic aspect.[17]Ellingworth also understands "the
same sacrifices" (taij
autaij qusiaij) to refer to the sacrificial rites rather than
the sacrificed animals.[18] This
cultic arrangement, reflecting what Hebrews has already said in
7:11 and 19,
influences the way we read "perfect" (teleiwsai), and leads us
to agree with Braun's
translation "consecrate."[19] Perfection is what allows the
worshipers to "approach"
(proserxomenous) God.
Since the sacrifices have to be repeated year after year, a
reference to the Day of
Atonement,[20] they can never really perfect the community, by
bringing God's plan to
completion, so that they can approach God.[21] But since the
sacrifices are prescribed
by the law, this indictment on the sacrifices is also a charge
against the law itself.
Hebrews is arguing that merely by the need to prescribe a
repetition in the sacrifices
-
the weakness of the whole system is evident.[22] The law and its
sacrifices turn out to
be only an empty shadow of reality that cannot bring us into the
presence of God.
2 If it could, would they not have stopped being
offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed
once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for
their sins.
1. BARNES, "For then would they not have ceased to be offered? -
Margin, Or they
would have. The sense is the same. The idea is, that the very
fact that they were repeated showed that there was some deficiency
in them as to the matter of cleansing the soul from sin. If they
had answered all the purposes of a sacrifice in putting away guilt,
there would have been no need of repeating them in this manner.
They were in this respect like medicine. If what is given to a
patient heals him, there is no need of repeating it; but if it is
repeated often it shows that there was some deficiency in it, and
if taken periodically through a mans life, and the disease should
still remain, it would show that it was not sufficient to effect
his cure. So it was with the offerings made by the Jews. They were
offered every year, and indeed every day, and still the disease of
sin remained. The conscience was not satisfied; and the guilty felt
that it was necessary that the sacrifice should be repeated again
and again.
Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more
conscience of sin - That is, if their sacrifices had so availed as
to remove their past sins, and to procure forgiveness, they would
have had no more trouble of conscience on account of them. They
would not have felt that it was necessary to make these sacrifices
over and over again in order to find peace. When a man has full
evidence that an atonement has been made which will meet all the
demands of the Law, and which secures the remission of sin, he
feels that it is enough. It is all that the case demands, and his
conscience may have peace. But when he does not feel this, or has
not evidence that his sins are all forgiven, those sins will rise
to remembrance, and he will be alarmed. He may be punished for them
after all. Thence it follows that if a man wants peace he should
have good evidence that his sins are forgiven through the blood of
the atonement.
No temporary expedient; no attempt to cover them up; no effort
to forget them will answer the purpose. They must be blotted out if
he will have peace - and that can be only through a perfect
sacrifice. By the use of the word rendered conscience here, it is
not meant that he who was pardoned would have no consciousness that
he was a sinner, or that he would forget it, but that he would have
no trouble of conscience; he would have no apprehension of future
wrath. The pardon of sin does not cause it to cease to be
remembered. He who is forgiven may
-
have a deeper conviction of its evil than he had ever had
before. But he will not be troubled or distressed by it as if it
were to expose him to the wrath of God. The remembrance of it will
humble him; it will serve to exalt his conceptions of the mercy of
God and the glory of the atonement, but it will no longer overwhelm
the mind with the dread of hell. This effect, the apostle says, was
not produced on the minds of those who offered sacrifices every
year. The very fact that they did it, showed that the conscience
was not at peace.
2. CLARKE, "Would they not have ceased to be offered? - Had they
made an effectual reconciliation for the sins of the world, and
contained in their once offering a plenitude of permanent merit,
they would have ceased to be offered, at least in reference to any
individual who had once offered them; because, in such a case, his
conscience would be satisfied that its guilt had been taken away.
But no Jew pretended to believe that even the annual atonement
cancelled his sin before God; yet he continued to make his
offerings, the law of God having so enjoined, because these
sacrifices pointed out that which was to come. They were offered,
therefore, not in consideration of their own efficacy, but as
referring to Christ; See on Heb_9:9 (note).
3. GILL, "For then would they not have ceased to be offered,....
The Complutensian edition, and the Syriac and Vulgate Latin
versions, leave out the word "not"; and the sense requires it
should be omitted, for the meaning is, that if perfection had been
by the legal sacrifices, they would have ceased to have been
offered; for if the former ones had made perfect, there would have
been no need of others, or of the repetition of the same; but
because they did not make perfect, therefore they were yearly
renewed; unless the words are read with an interrogation, as they
are in the Arabic version, "for then would they not have ceased to
be offered?" yes, they would; they are indeed ceased now, but this
is owing to Christ and his sacrifice, and not to the efficacy of
these sacrifices; for yearly sacrifices were offered for former
sins, as well as for fresh ones, as appears from the following
verse. Because the worshippers, once purged, would have had no more
conscience of sins; there are external and internal worshippers;
the latter are such who worship God in Spirit and in truth: but
here ceremonial worshippers are meant, who, if they had been really
purged from sin by legal sacrifices, and purifications, would have
had no more conscience of sins, and so have had no need to have
repeated them; as such spiritual worshippers, who are once purged
from sin by the blood and sacrifice of Christ; not that they have
no sin, or no sense of sin, or that their consciences are seared,
or that they never accuse for sin, or that they are to make no
confession and acknowledgment of sin; but that they are discharged
from the guilt of sin, and are not liable to condemnation for it;
and through the application of the blood of Christ to them, have
peace with God, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
4. HENRY, "The legal sacrifices, being offered year by year,
could never make the comers thereunto perfect; for then there would
have been an end of offering them, Heb_10:1, Heb_10:2. Could they
have satisfied the demands of justice, and made reconciliation for
iniquity, - could they have purified and pacified conscience, -
then they had ceased, as being no further necessary, since the
offerers would have had no more sin lying upon their consciences.
But this was not the case; after one day of atonement was over, the
sinner would fall again into one fault or another, and so there
would be need of another day of atonement, and of one every year,
besides the daily ministrations. Whereas now, under the gospel, the
atonement is perfect, and not to be repeated; and the sinner, once
pardoned, is ever pardoned as to his state, and only
-
needs to renew his repentance and faith, that he may have a
comfortable sense of a continued pardon.
5. JAMISON, "For if the law could, by its sacrifices, have
perfected the worshippers.
they the sacrifices.
once purged IF they were once for all cleansed (Heb_7:27).
conscience consciousness of sin (Heb_9:9).
6. COFFMAN, "A shadow, not the very image brings into sharp
contrast the old and new covenants, the old being likened to a
shadow, and the new to the very image of the heavenly things. Just
as a man's shadow would reveal far less information about him than
a three-dimensional color photograph; just so, the shadow of the
heavenly things as revealed in the law is far inferior to the
knowledge of God and his divine fellowship available in the new
covenant. We might even affirm that the true forgiveness available
in Christ, along with the privileges of faith, and including all
the attendant promises, hopes, and blessings of the Christian
faith, actually are the REALITIES typified by the shadows of the
old covenant; and yet, significantly, the sacred text falls far
short of any such declaration, the marvelous benefits and blessings
of the new institution THEMSELVES being here hailed as "the very
image" of still greater realities yet to be realized and revealed
in heaven. As Westcott said,
Theophylact ... carries our thoughts still further. As the image
is better than the shadow, so, he argues, will the archtype be
better than the image, the realities of the unseen world than the
"mysteries" that now represent them. F1
Likewise, Bruce said, "Within the New Testament itself, we have
Paul's repeated description of Christ as the [Greek: eikon] (image)
of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4;Colossians 1:15). F2
It would be wrong, however, to attribute any lack of efficacy to
the new covenant, wherein Christians are "workers together with
God," and have been blessed with "all spiritual blessings" in
Christ, and have been made to stand upon the threshold of eternal
life. The magnificent endowments of the faith in Christ are more
than sufficient for all the needs and desires of life in man's
present condition; and, therefore, it is with the deepest wonder
and admiration that one reads,
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when that
which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away
... For now we see in a mirror darkly; but then face to face; now I
know in part; but then shall I know fully even as also I was fully
known (1 Corinthians 13:9-12).
-
Can never ... make perfect them that draw nigh is the conclusion
dependent on the truth that the law and all of its provisions had
the status of a mere shadow. They were only typical, carnal,
earthly, material, and mortal devices, having no efficacy at all,
except as they directed the minds of the worshipers to the holy and
heavenly things prefigured.
Them that draw nigh brings before us the whole purpose and
intent of holy religion, that of restoring man's lost fellowship
with his Creator. The law, far from making that possible, actually
dramatized the separation between God and men; and such drawing
nigh as took place under the law was certainly not on any general
scale but upon the most limited scope, being only for a few, and
for them on very rare occasions.
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
1. BARNES, "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again
made of sins
every year - The reference here is to the sacrifices made on the
great day of atonement. This occurred once in a year. Of course as
often as a sacrifice was offered, it was an acknowledgment of guilt
on the part of those for whom it was made. As these sacrifices
continued to be offered every year, they who made the offering were
reminded of their guilt and their desert of punishment. All the
efficacy which could be pretended to belong those sacrifices, was
that they made expiation for the past year. Their efficacy did not
extend into the future, nor did it embrace any but those who were
engaged in offering them. These sacrifices, therefore, could not
make the atonement which man needed. They could not make the
conscience easy; they could not be regarded as a sufficient
expiation for the time to come, so that the sinner at any time
could plead an offering which was already made as a ground of
pardon, and they could not meet the wants of all people in all
lands and at all times. These things are to be found only in that
great sacrifice made by the Redeemer on the cross.
2. BI, "Sin remembered no more:
Memory is the source both of sorrow and of joy: like the wind,
which is laden both with frankincense and with unpleasant odours,
which brings both pestilence and health, which both distributes
genial warmth and circulates cold.
-
The effect of memory depends on the subject of a particular
recollection. This faculty is directed to past events, and if those
which memory embraces have been joyous, the effect is joyous; if
they have been grievous, the effect, unless there be some
counteracting influence, is grievous. Among the multitude of
sorrows, which, memory awakens, none is so bitter as that which
arises from the recollection of sin. The recollection of sin is in
this world variously originated. Sometimes pride leads a man to
dwell on his past errors. He has a very high estimate of himself,
and his complacency has been disturbed by some act of
transgression, upon which be is constantly looking back. Vanity
moves men to remember their errors. The vain man is anxious that
others should have a good opinion of him, and his mortified vanity
occasions him to look back upon his past faults and failures. Or he
has a selfish desire for his own happiness: he sees in the past
actions which have interfered with his enjoyment, and he cherishes
the remembrance of sin because sin has been drying up the fountain
of his pleasures. But turning from the evil powers which originate
such recollections, we may look at a broken and contrite heart.
Contrition of spirit cherishes the memory of transgression. The
recollection of sin is occasioned by various influences, and the
effect of these remembrances is various. Sometimes the recollection
of sin hardens a man; sometimes it produces strong rebellion. On
other occasions it induces deep depression. The spirit of a man may
sustain his infirmities, but a wounded spirit, who can bear? There
is a provision for forgetting our sins. But there was no such
provision under the Law, nor in any of the ceremonies that Moses
ordained. On the contrary, in those sacrifices there is a
remembrance again made of sins every year. That Jew would not be a
true disciple to Moses and true child of Abraham who did not on the
Day of Atonement call to mind his trespasses, although he had
presented a trespass-offering, and all the sins he had committed,
although he had presented his sin-offerings. If you look at the
chapter, you will find that this passage is introduced for the sake
of forming a contrast between the dispensation under Moses and the
dispensation introduced by Christ. Now there is no remembrance
again made of sins. We have had our day of atonementthe day upon
which Christ hung on the Cross. We have had our sacrifice offered:
it has been both offered and accepted. We have only to feel that it
has been offered, and that it is accepted, and then the atonement
which removes the outward guilt takes away also from the conscience
the sense of guilt. In these sacrifices there is a remembrance
again made of sins every year. But by this one offering He hath
perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Here the writer penned
these words for the sake of expressing something else which these
words suggest to every Christian; such as these thoughts: First,
God has made provision for the practical forgetting of sin in His
own conduct towards a believing transgressor; and, secondly, the
state of the penitents heart should respond to this provision. This
provision is revealed to him on purpose that he may take advantage
of itthat he may get all the peace and joy it is calculated to
minister. Thou shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any
more. For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great
mercies will I gather thee. For the sake of cherishing the spirit
of humility, it is right to remember sin; for the sake of learning
patience and forbearance and a kind and forgiving spirit towards
each other; for the sake of increasing our sense of obligation to
the atonement of Christ, and stimulating our gratitude for the
everlasting mercy of God, it is right to remember sin; but sin
should be forgotten when the remembrance of it would operate as a
barrier to intercourse with God. Ye have not received the spirit of
bondage again to fear, but ye have received the Spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Let us, therefore, come boldly unto
the throne of grace; not with the sullenness of Cainmy punishment
is greater than I can bearbut with all the loving reliance of
Abelcome boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy,
and find grace to help in time of need.
1. As an obstacle to hope, there is to be no remembrance of
sins. The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The
Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? Jehovah
is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.
-
2. As a check to filial reliance, there is to be no remembrance
of sin. Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him.
3. As marring our complacency in God, there is to be no
remembrance of sin. He hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus
Christ, and annihilated the distance. You who were far off are
brought nigh by the blood of Christ.
4. As hindering our enjoyment in God, there is to be no
remembrance of sin. You are not to ask, Whither shall I go from Thy
Spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy presence? as though you
would go if you could, or as though it would be a relief to take
your eye from Gods eye and your lip from Gods ear; but your resolve
must be, I will go to the altar of my God, to God my exceeding
joy.
5. As darkening our prospects, there is to be no remembrance of
sin. He has blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions, and as
a cloud thy sins. Why is it that some Christians do not realise all
this? Why is it that sometimes fear gets the mastery over them? The
answer is at hand. Many persons think that they are Christians when
they are not. Their repentance has been a thoroughly selfish state
of soul, and not a godly sorrow. (S. Martin.)
Reminders of sins:
As they in the time of the Law had many sacrifices to put them
in remembrance of sin, so we in the time of the Gospel have many
remembrancers of sinsundry monitors to admonish us that we are
sinners. The rainbow may be a remembrance of sin to us, that the
world was once drowned for sin, and that it might be so still but
for the goodness and mercy of God. Baptism daily ministered in the
Church putteth us in mind of sin; for if we were not sinners we
needed not to be baptized. The Lords Supper puts us in mind of sin:
Do this in remembrance of Me, that My body was broken for you and
My blood shed for you on the Cross. The immoderate showers that
come oft in harvest and deprive us of the fruits of the earth may
put us in mind of sin; for they be our sins that keep good things
from us. Our moiling and toiling for the sustentation of ourselves
with much care and wearisome labour; for if we had not sinned it
should not have been so. The sicknesses and, diseases that be among
us, the plague and pestilence that hath raged among us, the death
of so many of our brethren and sisters continually before our eyes,
&c., may put us in mind of sin; for if we had not sinned we
should not have died. There be a number of things to put us in mind
of sin; but there is nothing that can take away sin but Jesus
Christ the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.
Therefore let us all fly to this heavenly Physician for the curing
of us. (W. Joules, D. D.)
3. GILL, "But in those sacrifices,.... The Arabic version reads,
"but in it"; that is, in the law;
but the Syriac version reads, and supplies, as we do, , "in
those sacrifices", which were offered every year on the day of
atonement: there is a remembrance of sins made again every year; of
all the sins that were committed the year past, and even of those
that were expiated typically by the daily sacrifice, and others
that had been offered; which proves the imperfection and
insufficiency of such sacrifices: there was a remembrance of sins
by God, before whom the goats were presented, their blood was
sprinkled, and the people cleansed, Lev_16:7 and there was a
remembrance of them by the people, who, on that day, afflicted
their souls for them, Lev_16:29 and there was a remembrance of them
by the high priest, who confessed them over, and put them upon the
head
-
of the goat, Lev_16:21 by which it was owned, that these sins
were committed; that they deserved death, the curse of the law;
that the expiation of them was undertook by another, typified by
the goat; that this was not yet done, and therefore there was no
remission, but a typical one, by these sacrifices; but that sins
remained, and required a more perfect sacrifice, which was yet to
be offered up. Legal sacrifices were so far from inducing an
oblivion of sins, that they themselves brought them to remembrance,
and were so many acknowledgments of them. Though Philo the Jew
thinks the contrary, and gives this as a reason why the heart and
brain were not offered in sacrifice, because "it would be foolish,
that the sacrifices should cause, not a forgetfulness of sins, but
a remembrance of them (q).''
4. COFFMAN 3-4, "But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance
made
of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of
bulls and
goats should take away sins.
Concerning the manner in which there was a remembrance of sins
each year, and the same sins at that, see under preceding verse.
Behold the contrast between the old law and the new, in the matter
of their most sacred ceremonies and sacrifices on the Day of
Atonement, which were directed to the remembrance of sins for which
daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal sacrifices had already been
offered. On the other hand, look at the contrast in the new
covenant where the glorious function of the solemn observance of
the Lord's Supper is not to call to mind the sins of the worshipers
but to remember Christ, his death, his truly efficacious atonement,
and his love for the redeemed. Remember sins; remember Christ! What
a difference! Any intrusion upon the mind of the worshiper with
regard to the remembrance of sins is swallowed up by the thought of
that glorious sacrifice in Christ by which sins are removed forever
and remembered no more. As Jeremiah spoke of it, "For I will be
merciful to their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no
more" (Jeremiah 31:31ff). Thus, the New Testament worshiper comes
into divine service not to recall his sins but to remember the Lord
who said, "This do in remembrance of me."
For it is impossible, ... Common sense alone is the proof of the
statement that the blood of animals cannot take away sin, but it is
reaffirmed by the word of inspiration. On account of God's having
commanded animal sacrifices, there was always the danger that men
would assume some value as pertinent to them; hence, the prophets
repeatedly instructed Israel to the contrary. As Macknight
noted,
Micah formerly taught the Jews the same doctrine and even
insinuated to them that the heathens, being sensible of the
impossibility of making
-
atonement for sins by shedding the blood of beasts, had recourse
to human sacrifices, in the imagination that they were more
meritorious (Micah 6:7). F6
Not the least of the reasons why animal sacrifices could be of
no avail lies in the fact that animals never belonged to man in the
first place. "For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle
upon a thousand hills, saith the Lord" (Psalms 50:10). It was thus
manifestly erroneous for man to think that by sacrificing some of
his fellow creatures of a lower order than himself, and which like
himself were the property of God, he could make any true expiation
for his sins.
5. JAMISON, "But so far from those sacrifices ceasing to be
offered (Heb_10:2).
in, etc. in the fact of their being offered, and in the course
of their being offered on the day of atonement. Contrast
Heb_10:17.
a remembrance a recalling to mind by the high priests
confession, on the day of atonement, of the sins both of each past
year and of all former years, proving that the expiatory sacrifices
of former years were not felt by mens consciences to have fully
atoned for former sins; in fact, the expiation and remission were
only legal and typical (Heb_10:4, Heb_10:11). The Gospel remission,
on the contrary, is so complete, that sins are remembered no more
(Heb_10:17) by God. It is unbelief to forget this once-for-all
purgation, and to fear on account of former sins (2Pe_1:9). The
believer, once for all bathed, needs only to wash his hands and
feet of soils, according as he daily contracts them, in Christs
blood (Joh_13:10).
6. CALVIN, "A remembrance again, etc. Though the Gospel is a
message of
reconciliation with God, yet it is necessary that we should
daily
remember our sins; but what the Apostle means is, that sins
were
brought to remembrance that guilt might be removed by the means
of the
sacrifice then offered. It is not, then, any kind of remembrance
that
is here meant, but that which might lead to such a confession of
guilt
before God, as rendered a sacrifice necessary for its
removal.
Such is the sacrifice of the mass with the Papists; for they
pretend
that by it the grace of God is applied to us in order that sins
may be
blotted out. But since the Apostle concludes that the sacrifices
of the
Law were weak, because they were every year repeated in order to
obtain
pardon, for the very same reason it may be concluded that the
sacrifice
of Christ was weak, if it must be daily offered, in order that
its
virtue may be applied to us. With whatever masks, then, they may
cover
their mass, they can never escape the charge of an atrocious
blasphemy
against Christ.
-
4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and
goats to take away sins.
1. BARNES, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and
of goats should take
away sins - The reference here is to the sacrifices which were
made on the great day of the atonement, for on that day the blood
of bulls and of goats alone was offered; see the notes on Heb_9:7.
Paul here means to say, doubtless, that it was not possible that
the blood of these animals should make a complete expiation so as
to purify the conscience, and so as to save the sinner from
deserved wrath. According to the divine arrangement, expiation was
made by those sacrifices for offences of various kinds against the
ritual law of Moses, and pardon for such offences was thus
obtained. But the meaning here is, that there was no efficacy in
the blood of a mere animal to wash away a moral offence. It could
not repair the Law; it could not do anything to maintain the
justice of God; it had no efficacy to make the heart pure. The mere
shedding of the blood of an animal never could make the soul pure.
This the apostle states as a truth which must be admitted at once
as indisputable, and yet it is probable that many of the Jews had
imbibed the opinion that there was such efficacy in blood shed
according to the divine direction, as to remove all stains of guilt
from the soul; see the notes, Heb_9:9-10.
2. CLARKE, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and
of goats should take away sins - The reference here is to the
sacrifices which were made on the great day of the atonement, for
on that day the blood of bulls and of goats alone was offered; see
the notes on Heb_9:7. Paul here means to say, doubtless, that it
was not possible that the blood of these animals should make a
complete expiation so as to purify the conscience, and so as to
save the sinner from deserved wrath. According to the divine
arrangement, expiation was made by those sacrifices for offences of
various kinds against the ritual law of Moses, and pardon for such
offences was thus obtained. But the meaning here is, that there was
no efficacy in the blood of a mere animal to wash away a moral
offence. It could not repair the Law; it could not do anything to
maintain the justice of God; it had no efficacy to make the heart
pure. The mere shedding of the blood of an animal never could make
the soul pure. This the apostle states as a truth which must be
admitted at once as indisputable, and yet it is probable that many
of the Jews had imbibed the opinion that there was such efficacy in
blood shed according to the divine direction, as to remove all
stains of guilt from the soul; see the notes, Heb_9:9-10.
3. GILL, "For it is not possible,.... There is a necessity of
sin being taken away, otherwise it will be remembered; and there
will be a conscience of it, and it must be answered for, or it will
remain marked, and the curse and penalty of the law must take
place: but it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats
should take away sins; which was shed on the day of atonement: sin
is a breach of the moral law, but these sacrifices belong to, the
ceremonial law, which are less acceptable to God than moral duties;
sin is committed against God, and has an objective infiniteness in
it, and therefore can never be atoned for by the blood of such
creatures; it leaves a stain on the mind and conscience, which this
blood cannot reach; besides, this is not the same blood, nor of the
same kind with the person that has sinned; yea, if this could take
away sin, it would do more than the blood of the man himself could
do; such blood shed can
-
never answer the penalty of the law, satisfy divine justice, or
secure the honour of divine holiness: but what the blood of these
creatures could not do, the blood of Christ has done, and does:
that takes away sin from the sight of justice, and from the
consciences of the saints. Compare with this the Septuagint version
of Jer_11:15. "what, has the beloved committed abomination in my
house? shall prayers, and the holy flesh take away thy wickednesses
from thee, or by these shall thou escape?''
4. HENRY, " As the legal sacrifices did not of themselves take
away sin, so it was impossible they should, Heb_10:4. There was an
essential defect in them. 1. They were not of the same nature with
us who sinned. 2. They were not of sufficient value to make
satisfaction for the affronts offered to the justice and government
of God. They were not of the same nature that offended, and so
could not be suitable. Much less were they of the same nature that
was offended; and nothing less than the nature that was offended
could make the sacrifice a full satisfaction for the offence. 3.
The beasts offered up under the law could not consent to put
themselves in the sinner's room and place. The atoning sacrifice
must be one capable of consenting, and must voluntarily substitute
himself in the sinner's stead: Christ did so.
V. There was a time fixed and foretold by the great God, and
that time had now come, when these legal sacrifices would be no
longer accepted by him nor useful to men. God never did desire them
for themselves, and now he abrogated them; and therefore to adhere
to them now would be resisting God and rejecting him. This time of
the repeal of the Levitical laws was foretold by David (Psa_40:6,
Psa_40:7), and is recited here as now come. Thus industriously does
the apostle lay low the Mosaical dispensation.
5. JAMISON, "For, etc. reason why, necessarily, there is a
continually recurring remembrance of sins in the legal sacrifices
(Heb_10:3). Typically, the blood of bulls, etc., sacrificed, had
power; but it was only in virtue of the power of the one real
antitypical sacrifice of Christ; they had no power in themselves;
they were not the instrument of perfect vicarious atonement, but an
exhibition of the need of it, suggesting to the faithful Israelite
the sure hope of coming redemption, according to Gods promise.
take away take off. The Greek, Heb_10:11, is stronger,
explaining the weaker word here, take away utterly. The blood of
beasts could not take away the sin of man. A MAN must do that (see
on Heb_9:12-14).
6. CALVIN, "For it is not possible, etc. He confirms the former
sentiment with
the same reason which he had adduced before, that the blood of
beasts
could not cleanse souls from sin. The Jews, indeed, had in this
a
symbol and a pledge of the real cleansing; but it was with
reference to
another, even as the blood of the calf represented the blood of
Christ.
But the Apostle is speaking here of the efficacy of the blood of
beasts
in itself. He therefore justly takes away from it the power
of
cleansing. There is also to be understood a contrast which is
not
expressed, as though he had said, "It is no wonder that the
ancient
sacrifices were insufficient, so that they were to be
offered
continually, for they had nothing in them but the blood of
beasts,
which could not reach the conscience; but far otherwise is the
power of
-
Christ's blood: It is not then right to measure the offering
which he
has made by the former sacrifices."
__________________________________________________________________
[164] No remark is made on the second verse. Doddridge and Beza
read
the first clause without negative ouk and not as a question,
according
to the Vulg. And the Syr. Versions, "Otherwise they would have
ceased
to be offered." Most MSS. favor our present reading. There is no
real
difference in the meaning. The words, "no more conscience of
sins," are
rendered by Beza, "no more conscious of sins;" by Doddridge, "no
more
consciousness of sins;" and by Stuart, "no longer conscious of
sins."
The true meaning is no doubt thus conveyed. We meet with two
other
instances of conscience, suneideses, being followed by what may
be
called the genitive case of the object, "conscience of the
idol," i.e.,
as to the idol, 1 Corinthians 8:7, -- "conscience of God," i.e.,
as to
God, or towards God, 1 Peter 2:19. And here, "conscience of
sins," must
mean conscience with reference to sins, i.e., conviction of
sins, a
conscience apprehensive of what sins deserve. It is a word,
says
Parkhurst, which "is rarely found in the ancient heathen
writers;" but
it occurs often in the New Testament, though not but once in the
Sept.,
Ecclesiastes 10:20. Its common meaning is conscience, and
not
consciousness, though it may be so rendered here, consistently
with the
real meaning of the passage. Michaelis in his Introduction to
the New
Testament, is referred to by Parkhurst, as having produced
two
instances, one from Philo, and the other from Diod. Siculus, in
which
it means "consciousness." -- Ed
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body
you prepared for me;
1. BARNES, "Wherefore - This word shows that the apostle means
to sustain what he had
said by a reference to the Old Testament itself. Nothing could
be more opposite to the prevailing Jewish opinions about the
efficacy of sacrifice, than what he had just said. It was,
therefore, of the highest importance to defend the position which
he had laid down by authority which they would not presume to call
in question, and he therefore makes his appeal to their own
Scriptures.
When he cometh into the world - When the Messiah came, for the
passage evidently referred to him. The Greek is, Wherefore coming
into the world, he saith. It has been made a
-
question when this is to be understood as spoken - whether when
he was born, or when he entered on the work of his ministry.
Grotius understands it of the latter. But it is not material to a
proper understanding of the passage to determine this. The simple
idea is, that since it was impossible that the blood of bulls and
goats should take away sin, Christ coming into the world made
arrangements for a better sacrifice.
He saith - That is, this is the language denoted by his great
undertaking; this is what his coming to make an atonement implies.
We are not to suppose that Christ formally used these words on any
occasion for we have no record that he did - but this language is
what appropriately expresses the nature of his work. Perhaps also
the apostle means to say that it was originally employed in the
Psalm from which it is quoted in reference to him, or was indited
by him with reference to his future advent.
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not - This is quoted from
Psa_40:6, Psa_40:8. There has been much perplexity felt by
expositorsin reference to this quotation, and after all which has
been written, it is not entirely removed. The difficulty relates to
these points.
(1) To the question whether the Psalm originally had any
reference to the Messiah. The Psalm appears to have pertained
merely to David, and it would probably occur to no one on reading
it to suppose that it referred to the Messiah, unless it had been
so applied by the apostle in this place.
(2) There are many parts of the Psalm, it has been said, which
cannot, without a very forced interpretation, be applied to Christ;
see Psa_40:2, Psa_40:12, Psa_40:14-16.
(3) The argument of the apostle in the expression a body hast
thou prepared me, seems to be based on a false translation of the
Septuagint, which he has adopted, and it is difficult to see on
what principles he has done it. - It is not the design of these
notes to go into an extended examination of questions of this
nature. Such examination must be sought in more extended
commentaries, and in treatises expressly relating to points of this
kind.
On the design of Ps. 40, and its applicability to the Messiah,
the reader may consult Prof. Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus xx.
and Kuinoel in loc. After the most attentive examination which I
can give of the Psalm, it seems to me probable that it is one of
the Psalms which had an original and exclusive reference to the
Messiah, and that the apostle has quoted it just as it was meant to
be understood by the Holy Spirit, as applicable to him. The reasons
for this opinion are briefly these:
(1) There are such Psalms, as is admitted by all. The Messiah
was the hope of the Jewish people; he was made the subject of their
most sublime prophecies, and nothing was more natural than that he
should be the subject of the songs of their sacred bards. By the
spirit of inspiration they saw him in the distant future in the
various circumstances in which he would be placed, and they dwelt
with delight upon the vision; compare Introduction to Isaiah,
section 7.iii.
(2) The fact that it is here applied to the Messiah, is a strong
circumstance to demonstrate that it had an original applicability
to him. This proof is of two kinds. First, that it is so applied by
an inspired apostle, which with all who admit his inspiration seems
decisive of the question. Second, the fact that he so applied it
shows that this was an ancient and admitted interpretation. The
apostle was writing to those who had been Jews, and whom he was
desirous to convince of the truth of what he was alleging in regard
to the nature of the Hebrew sacrifices. For this purpose it was
necessary to appeal to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but it
cannot be supposed that he would adduce a passage for proof whose
relevancy would not be admitted. The presumption is, that the
passage was in fact commonly applied as here.
(3) The whole of the Psalm may be referred to the Messiah
without anything forced or unnatural. The Psalm throughout seems to
be made up of expressions used by a suffering
-
person, who had indeed been delivered from some evils, but who
was expecting many more. The principal difficulties in the way of
such an interpretation, relate to the following points.
(a) In Psa_40:2, the speaker in the Psalm says, He brought me up
out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon
a rock, and on the ground of this he gives thanks to God. But there
is no real difficulty in supposing that this may refer to the
Messiah. His enemies often plotted against his life; laid snares
for him and endeavored to destroy him, and it may be that he refers
to some deliverance from such machinations. If it is objected to
this that it is spoken of as having been uttered when he came into
the world, it may be replied that that phrase does not necessarily
refer to the time of his birth, but that he uttered this sentiment
sometime during the period of his incarnation. He coming into the
world for the purpose of redemption made use of this language. In a
similar manner we would say of Lafayette, that he coming to the
United States to aid in the cause of liberty, suffered a wound in
battle. That is, during the period in which he was engaged in this
cause, he suffered in this manner.
(b) The next objection or difficulty relates to the application
of Psa_40:12 to the Messiah. Mine iniquities have taken hold upon
me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs
of my head; therefore my heart faileth me. To meet this some have
suggested that he refers to the sins of people which he took upon
himself, and which he here speaks of as his own. But it is not true
that the Lord Jesus so took upon himself the sins of others that
they could be his. They were not his, for he was in every sense
holy, harmless, and undefiled.
The true solution of this difficulty, probably is, that the word
rendered iniquity - awon - means calamity, misfortune, trouble; see
Psa_31:10; 1Sa_28:10; 2Ki_7:9; Psa_28:6; compare Psa_49:5. The
proper idea in the word is that of turning away, curving, making
crooked; and it is thus applied to anything which is perverted or
turned from the right way; as when one is turned from the path of
rectitude, or commits sin; when one is turned from the way of
prosperity or happiness, or is exposed to calamity. This seems to
be the idea demanded by the scope of the Psalm, for it is not a
penitential Psalm, in which the speaker is recounting his sins, but
one in which he is enumerating his sorrows; praising God in the
first part of the Psalm for some deliverance already experienced,
and supplicating his interposition in view of calamities that he
saw to be coming upon him. This interpretation also seems to be
demanded in Psa_40:12 by the parallelism. In the former part of the
verse, the word to which iniquity corresponds, is not sin, but
evil, that is, calamity.
For innumerable evils have compassed me about; Mine iniquities
(calamities) have taken hold upon me.
If the word, therefore, be used here as it often is, and as the
scope of the Psalm and the connection seem to demand, there is no
solid objection against applying this verse to the Messiah.
(c) A third objection to this application of the Psalm to the
Messiah is, that it cannot be supposed that he would utter such
imprecations on his enemies as are found in Psa_40:14-15. Let them
be ashamed and confounded; let them be driven backward; let them be
desolate. To this it may be replied, that such imprecations are as
proper in the mouth of the Messiah as of David; but particularly,
it may be said also, that they are improper in the mouth of
neither. Both David and the Messiah did in fact utter denunciations
against the enemies of piety and of God. God does the same thing in
his word and by his Providence. There is no evidence of any
malignant feeling in this; nor is it inconsistent with the highest
benevolence. The Lawgiver who says that the murderer shall die, may
have a heart full of benevolence; the judge who sentences him to
death, may do it with eyes filled with tears. The objections, then,
are not of such a nature that it is improper to regard this Psalm
as wholly applicable to the Messiah.
-
(4) The Psalm cannot be applied with propriety to David, nor do
we know of anyone to whom it can be but to the Messiah. When was it
true of David that he said that he had come to do the will of God
in view of the fact that God did not require sacrifice and
offerings? In what volume of a book was it written of him before
his birth that he delighted to do the will of God? When was it true
that he had preached righteousness in the great congregation? These
expressions are such as can be applied properly only to the
Messiah, as Paul does here; and taking all these circumstances
together it will probably be regarded as the most proper
interpretation to refer the whole Psalm at once to the Redeemer and
to suppose that Paul has used it in strict accordance with its
original design. The other difficulties referred to will be
considered in the exposition of the passage. The difference between
sacrifice and offering is, that the former refers to bloody
sacrifices; the latter to any oblation made to God - as a
thank-offering; an offering of flour, oil, etc.; see the notes on
Isa_1:11.
When it is said sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, the
meaning is not that such oblations were in no sense acceptable to
God - for as his appointment, and when offered with a sincere
heart, they doubtless were; but that they were not as acceptable to
him as obedience, and especially as the expression is used here
that they could not avail to secure the forgiveness of sins. They
were not in their own nature such as was demanded to make an
expiation for sin, and hence, a body was prepared for the Messiah
by which a more perfect sacrifice could be made. The sentiment here
expressed occurs more than once in the Old Testament. Thus,
1Sa_15:22. Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken
than the fat of rams, Hos_6:6, For I desired mercy and not
sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings;
compare Psa_51:16-17, For thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I
give it; thou delightest not in burnt-offering. The sacrifices of
God are a broken spirit. This was an indisputable principle of the
Old Testament, though it was much obscured and forgotten in the
common estimation among the Jews. In accordance with this principle
the Messiah came to render obedience of the highest order, even to
such an extent that he was willing to lay down his own life.
But a body hast thou prepared me - This is one of the passages
which has caused a difficulty in understanding this quotation from
the Psalm. The difficulty is, that it differs from the Hebrew, and
that the apostle builds an argument upon it. It is not unusual
indeed in the New Testament to make use of the language of the
Septuagint even where it varies somewhat from the Hebrew; and where
no argument is based on such a passage, there can be no difficulty
in such a usage, since it is not uncommon to make use of the
language of others to express our own thoughts. But the apostle
does not appear to have made such a use of the passage here, but to
have applied it in the way of argument. The argument, indeed, does
not rest wholly, perhaps not principally, on the fact that a body
had been prepared for the Messiah; but still this was evidently in
the view of the apostle an important consideration, and this is the
passage on which the proof of this is based.
The Hebrew Psa_40:6 Mine ears hast thou opened, or as it is in
the margin, digged. The idea there is, that the ear had been, as it
were, excavated, or dug out, so as to be made to hear distinctly;
that is, certain truths had been clearly revealed to the speaker;
or perhaps it may mean that he had been made readily and
attentively obedient. Stuart; compare Isa_1:5. The Lord God hath
opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious. In the Psalm, the proper
connection would seem to be, that the speaker had been made
obedient, or had been so led that he was disposed to do the will of
God. This may be expressed by the fact that the ear had been opened
so as to be quick to hear, since an indisposition to obey is often
expressed by the fact that the ears are stopped. There is
manifestly no allusion here, as has been sometimes supposed, to the
custom of boring through the ear of a servant with an awl as a sign
that he was willing to remain and serve his master; Exo_21:6;
Deu_15:17.
In that case, the outer circle, or rim of the ear was bored
through with an awl; here the idea is that of hollowing out,
digging, or excavating - a process to make the passage clear, not
to pierce
-
the outward ear. The Hebrew in file Psalm the Septuagint
translates, a body hast thou prepared me, and this rendering has
been adopted by the apostle. Various ways have been resorted to of
explaining the fact that the translators of the Septuagint rendered
it in this manner, none of which are entirely free from difficulty.
Some critics, as Cappell, Ernesti, and others have
endeavored to show that it is probable that the Septuagint
reading in Psa_40:6, was - $
o&tionkate&rtiso& moi - my ear thou hast prepared;
that is, for obedience. But of this
there is no proof, and indeed it is evident that the apostle
quoted it as if it were . so&ma, body; see Heb_10:10. It is
probably altogether impossible now to explain the reason why the
translators of the Septuagint rendered the phrase as they did; and
this remark may be extended to many other places of their version.
It is to be admitted here, beyond all doubt, whatever consequences
may follow:
(1) That their version does not accord with the Hebrew;
(2) That the apostle has quoted their version as it stood,
without attempting to correct it;
(3) That his use of the passage is designed, to some extent at
least, as proof of what he was demonstrating.
The leading idea; the important and essential point in the
argument, is, indeed, not that a body was prepared, but that he
came to do the will of God; but still it is clear that the apostle
meant to lay some stress on the fact that a body had been prepared
for the Redeemer. Sacrifice and offering by the bodies of lambs and
goats were not what was required, but instead of that the Messiah
came to do the will of God by offering a more perfect sacrifice,
and in accomplishing that it was necessary that he should be
endowed with a body But on what principle the apostle has quoted a
passage to prove this which differs from the Hebrew, I confess I
cannot see, nor do any of the explanations offered commend
themselves as satisfactory. The only circumstances which seem to
furnish any relief to the difficulty are these two:
(1) That the main point in the argument of the apostle was not
that a body had been prepared, but that the Messiah came to do the
will of God, and that the preparation of a body for that was rather
an incidental circumstance; and
(2) That the translation by the Septuagint was not a material
departure from the scope of the whole Hebrew passage.
The main thought - that of doing the will of God in the place of
offering sacrifice - was still retained; the opening of the ears,
that is, rendering the person attentive and disposed to obey, and
the preparing of a body in order to obedience, were not
circumstances so unlike as to make it necessary for the apostle to
re-translate the whole passage in order to the main end which he
had in view. Still, I admit, that these considerations do not seem
to me to be wholly satisfactory. Those who are disposed to examine
the various opinions which have been entertained of this passage
may find them in Kuinoel, in loc., Rosenmuller, Stuart on the
Hebrews, Excursus xx., and Kennicott on Psa_40:6. Kennicott
supposes that there has been a change in the Hebrew
text, and that instead of the present reading - aaznaayim -
ears, the reading was
aazguwph - then a body; and that these words became united by
the error of transcribers, and by a slight change then became as
the present copies of the Hebrew text stands. This conjecture is
ingenious, and if it were ever allowable to follow a mere
conjecture, I should be disposed to do it here. But there is no
authority from mss. for any change, nor do any of the old versions
justify it, or agree with this except the Arabic.
-
2. CLARKE, "When he (the Messiah) cometh into the world - Was
about to be incarnated, He saith to God the Father, Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not - it was never thy will and design that
the sacrifices under thy own law should be considered as making
atonement for sin, they were only designed to point out my
incarnation and consequent sacrificial death, and therefore a body
hast thou prepared me, by a miraculous conception in the womb of a
virgin, according to thy word, The seed of the woman shall bruise
the head of the serpent.
A body hast thou prepared me - The quotation in this and the two
following verses is taken from Psalm 40, 6th, 7th, and 8th verses,
as they stand now in the Septuagint, with scarcely any variety of
reading; but, although the general meaning is the same, they are
widely different
in verbal expression in the Hebrew. Davids words are,
oznayimcarithali, which we translate, My ears hast thou opened; but
they might be more properly rendered, My ears hast thou bored, that
is, thou hast made me thy servant for ever, to dwell in thine own
house; for the allusion is evidently to the custom mentioned,
Exo_21:2, etc.: If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall
serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free; but if the servant
shall positively say, I love my master, etc., I will not go out
free, then his master shall bring him to the door post, and shall
bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever.
But how is it possible that the Septuagint and the apostle should
take a meaning so totally different from the sense of the Hebrew?
Dr. Kennicott has a very ingenious conjecture here: he supposes
that the Septuagint and apostle express the meaning of the words as
they stood in the copy from which
the Greek translation was made; and that the present Hebrew text
is corrupted in the word
oznayim, ears, which has been written through carelessness for
azgevah, Then a Body. The
first syllable , Then, is the same in both; and the latter ,
which joined to , makes
oznayim, might have been easily mistaken for gevah, Body; nun,
being very like gimel;
yod, like vau; and he, like final mem; especially if the line on
which the letters were written in the MS. happened to be blacker
than ordinary, which has often been a cause of mistake, it might
have been easily taken for the under stroke of the mem, and thus
give rise to a
corrupt reading: add to this the root carah, signifies as well
to prepare as to open, bore, etc. On this supposition the ancient
copy, translated by the Septuagint, and followed by the
apostle,
must have read the text thus: azgevahcarithali, , then a body
thou hast prepared me: thus the Hebrew text, the version of the
Septuagint, and the apostle, will agree in what is known to be an
indisputable fact in Christianity, namely, that Christ was
incarnated for the sin of the world.
The Ethiopic has nearly the same reading; the Arabic has both, A
body hast thou prepared me, and mine ears thou hast opened. But the
Syriac, the Chaldee, and the Vulgate, agree with the present Hebrew
text; and none of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi have
any various reading on the disputed words.
It is remarkable that all the offerings and sacrifices which
were considered to be of an atoning or cleansing nature, offered
under the law, are here enumerated by the psalmist and the apostle,
to show that none of them nor all of them could take away sin, and
that the grand sacrifice of Christ was that alone which could do
it.
Four kinds are here specified, both by the psalmist and the
apostle, viz.:
Sacrifice, zebach,
Offering, minchah,
-
Burnt-Offering, olah, I
Sin-Offering, chataah, L.
Of all these we may say, with the apostle, it was impossible
that the blood of bulls and goats, etc., should take away sin.
3. GILL, "Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he
saith,.... In Psa_40:7. This was said by David, not of himself, and
his own times, for sacrifice and offering were desired and required
in his times; nor was he able to do the will of God; so as to
fulfil the law, and make void legal sacrifices; nor did he engage
as a surety to do this; nor was it written of him in the volume of
the book that he should: besides, he speaks of one that was not yet
come, though ready to come, when the fulness of time should be up;
and who is here spoken of as coming into the world, and who is no
other than Jesus Christ; and this is to be understood, not of his
coming into Judea, or the temple at Jerusalem; or out of a private,
into a public life; nor of his entrance into the world to come,
into heaven, into life eternal, as the Targum on Psa_40:7
paraphrases it, after he had done his work on earth, for the other
world is never expressed by the world only; nor did Christ go into
that to do the will of God, but to sit down there, after he had
done it; besides, Christ's entrance into heaven was a going out of
the world, and not into it. To which may be added, that this phrase
always signifies coming into this terrene world, and intends men's
coming into it at their birth; See Gill on Joh_1:9 and must be
understood of Christ's incarnation, which was an instance of great
love, condescension, and grace; and the, reason of it was to do
what the law, and the blood of bulls and goats, could not do. For
it follows, sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; or didst not
desire and delight in, as the word
, used in Psa_40:6 signifies; meaning not the sacrifices of
wicked men, or such as were offered up without faith in Christ; but
the ceremonial sacrifices God himself had instituted, and which
were offered in the best manner; and that not merely in a
comparative sense, as in Hos_6:6 but the meaning is, that God would
not have these continue any longer, they being only imposed for a
time, and this time being come; nor would he accept of them, as
terms, conditions, and causes of righteousness, pardon, peace, and
reconciliation; but he willed that his Son should offer himself an
offering, and a sacrifice for a sweet smelting savour to him. But a
body hast thou prepared me; or "fitted for me"; a real natural
body, which stands for the whole human nature; and is carefully
expressed, to show that the human nature is not a person. This was
prepared, in the book of God's purposes and decre