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