Text -- Hebrews 10:1-8 (NET)

Concluding Exposition: Old and New Sacrifices Contrasted

10:1 For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship. 10:2 For otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers would have been purified once for all and so have no further consciousness of sin? 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. 10:4 For the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins. 10:5 So when he came into the world, he said, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me. 10:6 “Whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you took no delight in. 10:7 “Then I said, ‘Here I am: I have come– it is written of me in the scroll of the book– to do your will, O God.’” 10:8 When he says above, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin-offerings you did not desire nor did you take delight in them” (which are offered according to the law),

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Heb 10:1

Shadow ( skian ).

The contrast here between skia (shadow, shade caused by interruption of light as by trees, Mar 4:32) and eikōn (image or picture) is striking. Christ is the eikōn of God (2Co 4:4; Col 1:15). In Col 2:17 Paul draws a distinction between skia for the Jewish rites and ceremonies and sōma for the reality in Christ. Children are fond of shadow pictures. The law gives only a dim outline of the good things to come (Heb 9:11).

Robertson: Heb 10:1

Continually ( eis to diēnekes ).

See this phrase also in Heb 7:3; Heb 9:12, Heb 9:14. Nowhere else in N.T. From diēnegka (diapherō ), to bear through.

Robertson: Heb 10:1

They can ( dunantai ).

This reading leaves ho nomos a nominativus pendens (an anacoluthon). But many MSS. read dunatai (it - the law - can). For the idea and use of teleiōsai see Heb 9:9.

Robertson: Heb 10:2

Else they would not have ceased? ( epei ouk an epausanto ).

Ellipsis of condition after epei (since if they really did perfect) with the conclusion of the second-class condition (an and the aorist middle indicative of pauomai ).

Robertson: Heb 10:2

To be offered ( prospheromenai ).

Regular idiom, participle (present passive) with pauomai (Act 5:42).

Robertson: Heb 10:2

Because ( dia to ).

Dia with the accusative of the articular infinitive, "because of the having"(echein ) as to the worshippers (tous latreuontas , accusative of general reference of the articular participle), not "would have had."

Robertson: Heb 10:2

No more conscience of sins ( mēdemian eti suneidēsin hamartiōn ).

Rather "consciousness of sins"as in Heb 9:14.

Robertson: Heb 10:2

Having been once cleansed ( hapax kekatharismenous ).

Perfect passive participle of katharizō , "if they had once for all been cleansed."

Robertson: Heb 10:3

A remembrance ( anamnēsis ).

A reminder. Old word from anamimnēskō , to remind, as in Luk 22:19; 1Co 11:24.

Robertson: Heb 10:4

Should take away ( aphairein ).

Present active infinitive of aphaireō . Old verb and common in N.T., only here and Rom 11:27 with "sins". Cf. Heb 9:9.

Robertson: Heb 10:5

When he cometh into the world ( eiserchomenos eis ton kosmon ).

Reference to the Incarnation of Christ who is represented as quoting Psa 40:7-9 which is quoted. The text of the lxx is followed in the main which differs from the Hebrew chiefly in having sōma (body) rather than ōtia (ears). The lxx translation has not altered the sense of the Psalm, "that there was a sacrifice which answered to the will of God as no animal sacrifice could"(Moffatt). So the writer of Hebrews "argues that the Son’ s offering of himself is the true and final offering for sin, because it is the sacrifice, which, according to prophecy, God desired to be made"(Davidson).

Robertson: Heb 10:5

A body didst thou prepare for me ( sōma katērtisō moi ).

First aorist middle indicative second person singular of katartizō , to make ready, equip. Using sōma (body) for ōtia (ears) does not change the sense, for the ears were the point of contact with God’ s will.

Robertson: Heb 10:6

Thou hadst no pleasure ( ouk eudokēsas ).

First aorist active indicative of eudokeō , common for God’ s good pleasure (Mat 3:17). God took no pleasure in the animal offering (thusian ), the meal-offering (prosphoran ), the burnt-offering (holokautōmata ), the sin-offering (peri hamartias , concerning sin).

Robertson: Heb 10:7

Then ( tote ).

When it was plain that God could not be propitiated by such sacrifices.

Robertson: Heb 10:7

Lo, I am come ( Idou hēkō ).

The Messiah is represented as offering himself to do God’ s will (tou poiēsai to thelēma sou , the genitive articular infinitive of purpose).

Robertson: Heb 10:7

In the roll of the book it is written of me ( en kephalidi bibliou gegraptai peri emou ).

Stands written (gegraptai , perfect passive indicative). Kephalis is a diminutive of kephalē (head), a little head, then roll only here in N.T., but in the papyri. Here it refers "to the O.T. as a prediction of Christ’ s higher sacrifice"(Moffatt).

Robertson: Heb 10:8

Saying above ( anōteron legōn ).

Christ speaking as in Heb 10:5. "Higher up"(anōteron , comparative of anō , up) refers to Heb 10:5, Heb 10:6 which are quoted again.

Vincent: Heb 10:1

The arrangement of the verse is much disputed. Rend. " The law, with the same sacrifices which they continually renew year by year, can never make the comers thereunto perfect."

A shadow ( σκιὰν )

The emphasis is on this thought. The legal system was a shadow. Σκιὰ is a rude outline , an adumbration , contrasted with εἰκὼν , the archetypal or ideal pattern . Σκιὰ does not accurately exhibit the figure itself. Comp. Heb 8:5.

Vincent: Heb 10:1

Of good things to come ( τῶν μελλόντων ἀγαθῶν )

From the point of view of the law.

Vincent: Heb 10:1

The very image of the things ( αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων )

For εἰκὼν image , see on Rev 13:14; see on Phi 2:7. Πραγμάτων things expresses a little more distinctly than μελλόντων the idea of facts and realities .

Vincent: Heb 10:1

Can ( δύναται )

Δύναται might be expected with ὁ νόμος the law as the subject. If δύναται , the plural, is retained, the clause the law - image of the things must be taken absolutely, the construction of the sentence breaking off suddenly, and the subject being changed from the law to the priests: " The priests can never," etc. It is better to read δύναται in the singular, with Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and Weiss.

Vincent: Heb 10:1

Continually ( εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς )

See on Heb 7:3, and comp. Heb 10:12, Heb 10:14. Const. with offer .

Vincent: Heb 10:2

To be offered ( προσφερόμεναι )

The present participle brings out more forcibly the continuous repetition: " Ceased being offered ."

Vincent: Heb 10:3

A remembrance of sins ( ἀνάμνησις ἁμαρτιῶν )

Each successive sacrifice was a fresh reminder of sins to be atoned for; so far were the sacrifices from satisfying the conscience of the worshipper. Ἀνάμνησις , lit. a calling to mind . Comp. Heb 10:17, and see lxx, Num 5:15.

Vincent: Heb 10:5

Confirming the assertion of Heb 10:4 by a citation, Psa 40:7-9, the theme of which is that deliverance from sin is not obtained by animal sacrifices, but by fulfilling God's will. The quotation does not agree with either the Hebrew or the lxx, and the Hebrew and lxx do not agree. The writer supposes the words to be spoken by Messiah when he enters the world as Savior. The obedience to the divine will, which the Psalmist contrasts with sacrifices, our writer makes to consist in Christ's offering once for all. According to him, the course of thought in the Psalm is as follows: " Thou, O God, desirest not the sacrifice of beasts, but thou hast prepared my body as a single sacrifice, and so I come to do thy will, as was predicted of me, by the sacrifice of myself." Christ did not yield to God's will as authoritative constraint. The constraint lay in his own eternal spirit. His sacrifice was no less his own will than God's will.

Sacrifice and offering ( θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν )

The animal-offering and the meal-offering.

Vincent: Heb 10:6

Burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin ( ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας )

The burnt-offering and the sin-offering.

Vincent: Heb 10:7

In the volume of the book ( ἐν κεφαλίδι βιβλίου )

Κεφαλίς , N.T.o , is a diminutive, meaning little head . Lat. capitellum or capitulum . The extremity or end , as the capital of a column. See Exo 26:32, Exo 26:37. Sometimes the column itself, as Exo 40:18; Num 3:36. Said to be used of the tips or knobs of the rollers around which parchments were rolled, but no instances are cited. A roll of parchment , a book-roll , Eze 2:9. Meaning here the Scriptures of the O.T. for Hebrew îְâִìָּä . Κεφαλίς is found in lxx with βιβλίου book , only Eze 2:9; Psa 39:7. For, βιβλίον book , see on 2Ti 4:13.

Vincent: Heb 10:8

Above when he said ( ἀνώτερον λέγων )

Lit. saying above . Introducing a partial repetition of the quotation.

Wesley: Heb 10:1

From all that has been said it appears, that the law, the Mosaic dispensation, being a bare, unsubstantial shadow of good things to come, of the gospel blessings, and not the substantial, solid image of them, can never with the same kind of sacrifices, though continually repeated, make the comers thereunto perfect, either as to justification or sanctification. How is it possible, that any who consider this should suppose the attainments of David, or any who were under that dispensation, to be the proper measure of gospel holiness; and that Christian experience is to rise no higher than Jewish?

Wesley: Heb 10:2

They who had been once perfectly purged, would have been no longer conscious either of the guilt or power of their sins.

Wesley: Heb 10:3

There is a public commemoration of the sins both of the last and of all the preceding years; a clear proof that the guilt thereof is not perfectly purged away.

Wesley: Heb 10:4

Either the guilt or the power of them.

Wesley: Heb 10:5

In the fortieth psalm the Messiah's coming into the world is represented. It is said, into the world, not into the tabernacle, Heb 9:1; because all the world is interested in his sacrifice.

Wesley: Heb 10:5

That I may offer up myself. Psa 40:6, &c.

Wesley: Heb 10:7

In this very psalm it is written of me.

Wesley: Heb 10:7

By the sacrifice of myself.

Wesley: Heb 10:8

That is, when the Psalmist pronounced those words in his name.

JFB: Heb 10:1

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 3:13-14, 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 Father's 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, Christ's one perfect antitypical expiation.

JFB: Heb 10:1

(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 Christ's 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."

JFB: Heb 10:1

At any time (Heb 10:11).

JFB: Heb 10:1

Rather, "with the same sacrifices.

JFB: Heb 10:1

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.

JFB: Heb 10:1

Greek, "continuously," implying that they offer a toilsome and ineffectual "continuous" round of the "same" atonement-sacrifices recurring "year by year."

JFB: Heb 10:1

Those so coming unto God, namely, the worshippers (the whole people) coming to God in the person of their representative, the high priest.

JFB: Heb 10:1

Fully meet man's needs as to justification and sanctification (see on Heb 9:9).

JFB: Heb 10:2

If the law could, by its sacrifices, have perfected the worshippers.

JFB: Heb 10:2

The sacrifices.

JFB: Heb 10:2

IF they were once for all cleansed (Heb 7:27).

JFB: Heb 10:2

"consciousness of sin" (Heb 9:9).

JFB: Heb 10:3

So far from those sacrifices ceasing to be offered (Heb 10:2).

JFB: Heb 10:3

In the fact of their being offered, and in the course of their being offered on the day of atonement. Contrast Heb 10:17.

JFB: Heb 10:3

A recalling to mind by the high priest's 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 men's 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 Christ's blood (Joh 13:10).

JFB: Heb 10:4

Reason why, necessarily, there is a continually recurring "remembrance of sins" in the legal sacrifices (Heb 10:3). Typically, "the blood of bulls," &c., 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 God's promise.

JFB: Heb 10:4

"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).

JFB: Heb 10:5

Christ's voluntary self offering, in contrast to those inefficient sacrifices, is shown to fulfill perfectly "the will of God" as to our redemption, by completely atoning "for (our) sins."

JFB: Heb 10:5

Seeing that a nobler than animal sacrifices was needed to "take away sins."

JFB: Heb 10:5

Greek, "coming." The time referred to is the period before His entrance into the world, when the inefficiency of animal sacrifices for expiation had been proved [THOLUCK]. Or, the time is that between Jesus' first dawning of reason as a child, and the beginning of His public ministry, during which, being ripened in human resolution, He was intently devoting Himself to the doing of His Father's will [ALFORD]. But the time of "coming" is present; not "when He had come," but "when coming into the world"; so, in order to accord with ALFORD'S view, "the world" must mean His PUBLIC ministry: when coming, or about to come, into public. The Greek verbs are in the past: "sacrifice . . . Thou didst not wish, but a body Thou didst prepare for Me"; and, "Lo, I am come." Therefore, in order to harmonize these times, the present coming, or about to come, with the past, "A body Thou didst prepare for Me," we must either explain as ALFORD, or else, if we take the period to be before His actual arrival in the world (the earth) or incarnation, we must explain the past tenses to refer to God's purpose, which speaks of what He designed from eternity as though it were already fulfilled. "A body Thou didst prepare in Thy eternal counsel." This seems to me more likely than explaining "coming into the world," "coming into public," or entering on His public ministry. David, in the fortieth Psalm (here quoted), reviews his past troubles and God's having delivered him from them, and his consequent desire to render willing obedience to God as more acceptable than sacrifices; but the Spirit puts into his mouth language finding its partial application to David, and its full realization only in the divine Son of David. "The more any son of man approaches the incarnate Son of God in position, or office, or individual spiritual experience, the more directly may his holy breathings in the power of Christ's Spirit be taken as utterances of Christ Himself. Of all men, the prophet-king of Israel resembled and foreshadowed Him the most" [ALFORD].

JFB: Heb 10:5

Greek, "Thou didst fit for Me a body." "In Thy counsels Thou didst determine to make for Me a body, to be given up to death as a sacrificial victim" [WAHL]. In the Hebrew, Psa 40:6, it is "mine ears hast thou opened," or "dug." Perhaps this alludes to the custom of boring the ear of a slave who volunteers to remain under his master when he might be free. Christ's assuming a human body, in obedience to the Father's will, in order to die the death of a slave (Heb 2:14), was virtually the same act of voluntary submission to service as that of a slave suffering his ear to be bored by his master. His willing obedience to the Father's will is what is dwelt on as giving especial virtue to His sacrifice (Heb 10:7, Heb 10:9-10). The preparing, or fitting of a body for Him, is not with a view to His mere incarnation, but to His expiatory sacrifice (Heb 10:10), as the contrast to "sacrifice and offering" requires; compare also Rom 7:4; Eph 2:16; Col 1:22. More probably "opened mine ears" means opened mine inward ear, so as to be attentively obedient to what God wills me to do, namely, to assume the body He has prepared for me for my sacrifice, so Job 33:16, Margin; Job 36:10 (doubtless the boring of a slave's "ear" was the symbol of such willing obedience); Isa 50:5, "The Lord God hath opened mine ear," that is, made me obediently attentive as a slave to his master. Others somewhat similarly explain, "Mine ears hast thou digged," or "fashioned," not with allusion to Exo 21:6, but to the true office of the ear--a willing, submissive attention to the voice of God (Isa 50:4-5). The forming of the ear implies the preparation of the body, that is, the incarnation; this secondary idea, really in the Hebrew, though less prominent, is the one which Paul uses for his argument. In either explanation the idea of Christ taking on Him the form, and becoming obedient as a servant, is implied. As He assumed a body in which to make His self-sacrifice, so ought we present our bodies a living sacrifice (Rom 12:1).

JFB: Heb 10:6

Greek, "whole burnt offerings."

JFB: Heb 10:6

As if these could in themselves atone for sin: God had pleasure in (Greek, "approved," or "was well pleased with") them, in so far as they were an act of obedience to His positive command under the Old Testament, but not as having an intrinsic efficacy such as Christ's sacrifice had. Contrast Mat 3:17.

JFB: Heb 10:7

Rather, "I am come" (see on Heb 10:5). "Here we have the creed, as it were, of Jesus: 'I am come to fulfil the law,' Mat 5:17; to preach, Mar 1:38; to call sinners to repentance, Luk 5:32; to send a sword and to set men at variance, Mat 10:34-35; I came down from heaven to do the will of Him that sent me, Joh 6:38-39 (so here, Psa 40:7-8); I am sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, Mat 15:24; I am come into this world for judgment, Joh 9:39; I am come that they might have life, and might have it more abundantly, Joh 10:10; to save what had been lost, Mat 18:11; to seek and to save that which was lost, Luk 19:10; compare 1Ti 1:15; to save men's lives, Luk 9:56; to send fire on the earth, Luk 12:49; to minister, Mat 20:28; as "the Light," Joh 12:46; to bear witness unto the truth, Joh 18:37. See, reader, that thy Saviour obtain what He aimed at in thy case. Moreover, do thou for thy part say, why thou art come here? Dost thou, then, also, do the will of God? From what time? and in what way?" [BENGEL]. When the two goats on the day of atonement were presented before the Lord, that goat on which the lot of the Lord should fall was to be offered as a sin offering; and that lot was lifted up on high in the hand of the high priest, and then laid upon the head of the goat which was to die; so the hand of God determined all that was done to Christ. Besides the covenant of God with man through Christ's blood, there was another covenant made by the Father with the Son from eternity. The condition was, "If He shall make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed," &c. (Isa 53:10). The Son accepted the condition, "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God" [BISHOP PEARSON]. Oblation, intercession, and benediction, are His three priestly offices.

JFB: Heb 10:7

Literally, "the roll": the parchment manuscript being wrapped around a cylinder headed with knobs. Here, the Scripture "volume" meant is the fortieth Psalm. "By this very passage 'written of Me,' I undertake to do Thy will [namely, that I should die for the sins of the world, in order that all who believe may be saved, not by animal sacrifices, Heb 10:6, but by My death]." This is the written contract of Messiah (compare Neh 9:38), whereby He engaged to be our surety. So complete is the inspiration of all that is written, so great the authority of the Psalms, that what David says is really what Christ then and there said.

JFB: Heb 10:8

Christ.

JFB: Heb 10:8

The oldest manuscripts read, "Sacrifices and offerings" (plural). This verse combines the two clauses previously quoted distinctly, Heb 10:5-6, in contrast to the sacrifice of Christ with which God was well pleased.

Clarke: Heb 10:1

The law, having a shadow of good things to come - A shadow, σκια, 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 σωμα, 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: Ὁτι σκια και ονειρατα αἱ ἡδοναι πασαι· 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.

Clarke: Heb 10:1

And not the very image - Εικων, image, signifies

1.    A simple representation, from εικω, 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, αυτην την εικονα των πραγματων

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

Clarke: Heb 10:1

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.

Clarke: Heb 10:2

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).

Clarke: Heb 10:4

For it is not possible - Common sense must have taught them that shedding the blood of bulls and goats could never satisfy Divine justice, nor take away guilt from the conscience; and God intended that they should understand the matter so: and this the following quotation from the Psalmist sufficiently proves.

Clarke: Heb 10:5

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

Clarke: Heb 10:5

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. David’ s words are, אזנים כרית לי oznayim caritha li , 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 אזנים oznayim , ears, which has been written through carelessness for אז גוה az gevah , Then a Body. The first syllable אז, Then, is the same in both; and the latter נים, which joined to אז, makes אזנים oznayim , might have been easily mistaken for גוה gevah , Body; נ nun , being very like ג gimel ; י yod , like ו vau ; and ה he , like final ם 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 כרה 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: אז גוה כרית לי az gevah caritha li , σωμα δε κατηρτισω μοι, 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, זבח zebach , θυσια·

Offering, מנחה minchah , προσφορα·

Burnt-Offering, עולה olah , ὁλοκαυτωμα·

Sin-Offering, חטאה chataah , περι ἁμαρτιας

Of all these we may say, with the apostle, it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats, etc., should take away sin.

Clarke: Heb 10:6

Thou hast had no pleasure - Thou couldst never be pleased with the victims under the law; thou couldst never consider them as atonements for sin; as they could never satisfy thy justice, nor make thy law honorable.

Clarke: Heb 10:7

In the volume of the book - במגלת ספר bimgillath sepher , "in the roll of the book."Anciently, books were written on skins and rolled up. Among the Romans these were called volumina, from volvo , I roll; and the Pentateuch, in the Jewish synagogues, is still written in this way. There are two wooden rollers; on one they roll on, on the other they roll off, as they proceed in reading. The book mentioned here must be the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses; for in David’ s time no other part of Divine revelation had been committed to writing. This whole book speaks about Christ, and his accomplishing the will of God; not only in, The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent, and, In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, but in all the sacrifices and sacrificial rites mentioned in the law

Clarke: Heb 10:7

To do thy will - God willed not the sacrifices under the law, but he willed that a human victim of infinite merit should be offered for the redemption of mankind. That there might be such a victim, a body was prepared for the eternal Logos; and in that body he came to do the will of God, that is, to suffer and die for the sins of the world.

Calvin: Heb 10:1

1.=== 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 Col 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 Greeksσκιαγραφία, which you might call in Latin, “ umbratilem “, shadowy. The Greeks had also theεἰκὼν, 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 Lev 16:1, 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

Calvin: Heb 10:3

3.=== 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.

Calvin: Heb 10:4

4.=== 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.”

Calvin: Heb 10:5

5.=== Wherefore, when he cometh, === etc. This entering into the world was the manifestation of Christ in the flesh; for when he put on man’s nature that he might be a Redeemer to the world and appeared to men, he is said to have then come into the world, as elsewhere he is said to have descended from heaven. (Joh 6:41.) And yet the Psa 41:6, which he quotes, seems to be improperly applied to Christ, for what is found there by no means suits his character, such as, “My iniquities have laid hold on me,” except we consider that Christ willingly took on himself the sins of his members. The whole of what is said, no doubt, rightly accords with David; but as it is well known that David was a type of Christ, there is nothing unreasonable in transferring to Christ what David declared respecting himself, and especially when mention is made of abolishing the ceremonies of the Law, as the case is in this passage. Yet all do not consider that the words have this meaning, for they think that sacrifices are not here expressly repudiated, but that the superstitious notion which had generally prevailed, that the whole worship of God consisted in them, is what is condemned; and if it be so, it may be said that this testimony has little to do with the present question. It behaves us, then, to examine this passage more minutely, that it may appear evident whether the apostle has fitly adduced it.

Everywhere in the Prophets sentences of this kind occur, that sacrifices do not please God, that they are not required by him, that he sets no value on them; nay, on the contrary, that they are an abomination to him. But then the blame was not in the sacrifices themselves, but what was adventitious to them was referred to; for as hypocrites, while obstinate in their impiety, still sought to pacify God with sacrifices, they were in this manner reproved. The Prophets, then, rejected sacrifices, not as they were instituted by God, but as they were vitiated by wicked men, and profaned through unclean consciences. But here the reason is different, for he is not condemning sacrifices offered in hypocrisy, or otherwise not rightly performed through the depravity and wickedness of men; but he denies that they are required of the faithful and sincere worshippers of God; for he speaks of himself who offered them with a clean heart and pure hands, and yet he says that they did not please God.

Were any one to except and say that they were not accepted on their own account or for their own worthiness, but for the sake of something else, I should still say that unsuitable to this place is an argument of this kind; for then would men be called back to spiritual worship, when ascribing too much to external ceremonies; then the Holy Spirit would be considered as declaring that ceremonies are nothing with God, when by men’s error they are too highly exalted.

David, being under the Law, ought not surely to have neglected the rite of sacrificing. He ought, I allow, to have worshipped God with sincerity of heart; but it was not lawful for him to omit what God had commanded, and he had the command to sacrifice in common with all the rest. We hence conclude that he looked farther than to his own age, when he said, Sacrifice thou wouldest not. It was, indeed, in some respects true, even in David’s time, that God regarded not sacrifices; but as they were yet all held under the yoke of the schoolmaster, David could not perform the worship of God in a complete manner, unless when clothed, so to speak, in a form of this kind. We must, then, necessarily come to the kingdom of Christ, in order that the truth of God’s unwillingness to receive sacrifice may fully appear. There is a similar passage in Psa 16:10, “Thou wilt not suffer thine holy one to see corruption;” for though God delivered David for a time from corruption, yet this was not fully accomplished except in Christ.

There is no small importance in this, that when he professes that he would do the will of God, he assigns no place to sacrifices; for we hence conclude that without them there may be a perfect obedience to God, which could not be true were not the Law annulled. I do not, however, deny but that David in this place, as well as in Psa 51:16, so extenuated external sacrifices as to prefer to them that which is the main thing; but there is no doubt but that in both places he cast his eyes on the kingdom of Christ. And thus the Apostle is a witness, that Christ is justly introduced as the speaker in this Psalm, in which not even the lowest place among God’s commandments is allowed to sacrifices, which God had yet strictly required under the Law.

===But a body hast thou prepared me, === etc. The words of David are different, “An ear hast thou bored for me,” a phrase which some think has been borrowed from an ancient rite or custom of the Law, (Exo 21:6;) for if any one set no value on the liberty granted at the jubilee, and wished to be under perpetual servitude, his ear was bored with an awl. The meaning, as they thinks was this, “Thou shalt have me, O Lord, as a servant forever.” I, however, take another view, regarding it as intimating docility and obedience; for we are deaf until God opens our ears, that is, until he corrects the stubbornness that cleaves to us. There is at the same time an implied contrast between the promiscuous and vulgar mass, (to whom the sacrifices were like phantoms without any power,) and David, to whom God had discovered their spiritual and legitimate use and application.

But the Apostle followed the Greek translators when he said, “A body hast thou prepared;” for in quoting these words the Apostles were not so scrupulous, provided they perverted not Scripture to their own purpose. We must always have a regard to the end for which they quote passages, for they are very careful as to the main object, so as not to turn Scripture to another meaning; but as to words and other things, which bear not on the subject in hand, they use great freedom. ¹⁶⁵

Calvin: Heb 10:7

7.=== In the volume or chapter of the book, === etc. Volume is properly the meaning of the Hebrew word; for we know that books were formerly rolled up in the form of a cylinder. There is also nothing unreasonable in understanding book as meaning the Law, which prescribes to all God’s children the rule of a holy life; though it seems to me a more suitable view to consider him as saying, that he deemed himself to be in the catalogue of those who render themselves obedient to God. The Law, indeed, bids us all to obey God; but David means, that he was numbered among those who are called to obey God; and then he testifies that he obeyed his vocation, by adding, I come to do thy will; and this peculiarly belongs to Christ. For though all the saints aspire after the righteousness of God, yet it is Christ alone who was fully competent to do God’s will.

This passage, however, ought to stimulate us all to render prompt obedience to God; for Christ is a pattern of perfect obedience for this end, that all who are his may contend with one another in imitating him, that they may together respond to the call of God, and that their life may exemplify this saying, Lo, I come. To the same purpose is what follows, It is written, that is, that we should do the will of God, according to what is said elsewhere, that the end of our election is, to be holy and unblamable in his sight. (Col 1:22.)

Defender: Heb 10:5

Heb 10:5-7 (supplemented by further quotes in Heb 10:8-10) are an interpretive quotation from Psa 40:6-8, confirming that Psalm 40 is an important Messianic psalm, probably depicting the thoughts of Christ as He was hanging on the cross.

Defender: Heb 10:5

"Mine ears hast thou opened" (Psa 40:6) is here translated as "a body hast thou prepared me." The openings in the ear of an indentured servant (Exo 21:6) indicated the intent of that servant to serve his master forever, as it were, hearing only the voice of his master and doing only his will henceforth. This was a type of Christ, who willingly became a bondservant (Phi 2:5-8), willing even to die in accord with His Father's will. But before He could do this, He had to have a human body, with human ears.

Defender: Heb 10:5

The word "prepared" here (Greek katartizo) is the same word translated "framed" in Heb 11:3. That is, God formed the human body of His Son with the same mighty power and wisdom with which He had formed the universe. This can only mean that the body of Jesus, like that of Adam, was a special creation, not formed by the normal process of genetic inheritance."

Defender: Heb 10:6

Compare Psa 51:16-19 and Mic 6:7, Mic 6:8."

Defender: Heb 10:7

The book of God had been written in heaven long before it was transmitted to men on earth, and this certainly included God's great plan of redemption (Psa 119:89; Psa 139:16; 1Pe 1:18-20; Rev 13:8).

Defender: Heb 10:7

The Lord Jesus Christ frequently confirmed the fact that He had come into the world specifically to do the will of His Father (Joh 4:34; Joh 5:30; Joh 6:38)."

TSK: Heb 10:1

having : Heb 8:5, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:11, Heb 9:23; Col 2:17

with : Heb 10:3, Heb 10:4, Heb 10:11-18, Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19, Heb 9:8, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:25

perfect : Heb 10:14

TSK: Heb 10:2

would they not have : or, they would have

once : Heb 10:17, Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14; Psa 103:12; Isa 43:25, Isa 44:22; Mic 7:19

conscience : Our translators use the word conscience here, as elsewhere, for consciousness.

TSK: Heb 10:3

a remembrance : Heb 9:7; Exo 30:10; Lev 16:6-11, Lev 16:21, Lev 16:22, Lev 16:29, Lev 16:30,Lev 16:34, Lev 23:27, Lev 23:28; Num 29:7-11; 1Ki 17:18; Mat 26:28

TSK: Heb 10:4

not : Heb 10:8, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:13; Psa 50:8-12, Psa 51:16; Isa 1:11-15, Isa 66:3; Jer 6:20, Jer 7:21, Jer 7:22; Hos 6:6; Amo 5:21, Amo 5:22; Mic 6:6-8; Mar 12:33

take : There were essential defects in these sacrifices. 1st - They were not of the same nature with those who sinned. 2nd - They were not of sufficient value to make satisfaction for the affronts done to the justice and government of God. 3rd - 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. Heb 10:11; Hos 14:2; Joh 1:29; Rom 11:27; 1Jo 3:5

TSK: Heb 10:5

when : Heb 10:7, Heb 1:6; Mat 11:3; Luk 7:19 *Gr.

Sacrifice : Psa 40:6-8, 50:8-23; Isa 1:11; Jer 6:20; Amo 5:21, Amo 5:22

but : Heb 10:10, Heb 2:14, Heb 8:3; Gen 3:15; Isa 7:14; Jer 31:22; Mat 1:20-23; Luk 1:35; Joh 1:14; Gal 4:4; 1Ti 3:16; 1Jo 4:2, 1Jo 4:3; 2Jo 1:7

hast thou prepared me : or, thou hast fitted me

TSK: Heb 10:6

burnt : Heb 10:4; Lev. 1:1-6:7

thou : Psa 147:11; Mal 1:10; Mat 3:17; Eph 5:2; Phi 4:18

TSK: Heb 10:7

Lo : Heb 10:9, Heb 10:10; Pro 8:31; Joh 4:34, Joh 5:30, Joh 6:38

in : Gen 3:15 *Gr.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Heb 10:1

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.

Barnes: Heb 10:2

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 man’ s 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.

Barnes: Heb 10:3

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.

Barnes: Heb 10:4

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.

Barnes: Heb 10:5

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.

\caps1 (1) t\caps0 o 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.

\caps1 (2) t\caps0 here 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.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 he 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.

\caps1 (3) t\caps0 he 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"- צון ̀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.

© 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.

\caps1 (4) t\caps0 he 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 - ὠτίον κατηρτίσω μοι ōtion katērtisō 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 σῶμα sōma , "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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat their version does not accord with the Hebrew;

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 hat the apostle has quoted their version as it stood, without attempting to correct it;

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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)\caps1     t\caps0 hat 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 - אזנים ‛aaznaayim - "ears,"the reading was אז גוף ‛aaz guwph - 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.

Barnes: Heb 10:6

In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure - This is not quoted literally from the Psalm, but the sense is retained. The reading there is, "burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required."The quotation by the apostle is taken from the Septuagint, with the change of a single word, which does not materially affect the sense - the word ὀυκ ἐυδόκησας ouk eudokēsas - "ouk eudokesas"- "thou hast no pleasure,"instead of ὀυκ ἠθέλησας ouk ēthelēsas - "ouk ethelesas"- "thou dost not will."The idea is, that God had no pleasure in them as compared with obedience. He preferred the latter, and they could not be made to come in the place of it, or to answer the same purpose. When they were performed with a pure heart, he was doubtless pleased with the offering. As used here in reference to the Messiah, the meaning is, that they would not be what was required of "him."Such offerings would not answer the end for which he was sent into the world, for that end was to be accomplished only by his being "obedient unto death."

Barnes: Heb 10:7

Then said I - "I the Messiah."Paul applies this directly to Christ, showing that he regarded the passage in the Psalms as referring to him as the speaker.

Lo, I come - Come into the world; Heb 10:5. It is not easy to see how this could be applied to David in any circumstance of his life. There was no situation in which he could say that, since sacrifices and offerings were not what was demanded, he came to do the will of God in the place or stead of them. The time here referred to by the word "then"is when it was manifest that sacrifices and offerings for sin would not answer all the purposes desirable, or when in view of that fact the purpose of the Redeemer is conceived as formed to enter upon a work which would effect what they could not.

In the volume of the book it is written of me - The word rendered here "volume "- κεφαλίς kephalis - means properly "a little head;"and then a knob, and here refers doubtless to the head or knob of the rod on which the Hebrew manuscripts were rolled. Books were usually so written as to be rolled up, and when they were read they were unrolled at one end of the manuscript, and rolled up at the other as fast as they were read; see notes on Luk 4:17. The rods on which they were rolled had small heads, either for the purpose of holding them, or for ornament, and hence, the name head came metaphorically to be given to the roll or volume. But what volume is here intended? And where is that written which is here referred to? If David was the author of the Psalm from which this is quoted Ps. 40, then the book or volume which was then in existence must have been principally, if not entirely, the five books of Moses, and perhaps the books of Job, Joshua, and Judges, with probably a few of the Psalms. It is most natural to understand this of the Pentateuch, or the five books of Moses, as the word "volume"at that time would undoubtedly have most naturally suggested that.

But plainly, this could not refer to David himself, for in what part of the Law of Moses, or in any of the volumes then extant, can a reference of this kind be found to David? There is no promise, no intimation that he would come to "do the will of God"with a view to effect what could not be done by the sacrifices prescribed by the Jewish Law. The reference of the language, therefore, must be to the Messiah - to some place where it is represented that he would come to effect by his obedience what could not be done by the sacrifices and offerings under the Law. But still, in the books of Moses, this language is not literally found, and the meaning must be, that this was the language which was there implied respecting the Messiah; or this was the substance of the description given of him, that he would como to take the place of those sacrifices, and by his obedience unto death would accomplish what they could not do.

They had a reference to him; and it was contemplated in their appointment that their inefficiency would be such that there should be felt a necessity for a higher sacrifice, and when he should come they would all be done away. The whole language of the institution of sacrifices, and of the Mosaic economy, was, that a Saviour would hereafter come to do the will of God in making an atonement for the sin of the world. That there are places in the books of Moses which refer to the Saviour, is expressly affirmed by Christ himself Joh 5:46, and by the apostles (compare Act 26:22, Act 26:3), and that the general spirit of the institutions of Moses had reference to him is abundantly demonstrated in this Epistle. The meaning here is, "I come to do thy will in making an atonement, for no other offering would expiate sin. That I would do this is the language of the Scriptures which predict my coming, and of the whole spirit and design of the ancient dispensation."

To do thy will, O God - This expresses the amount of all that the Redeemer came to do. He came to do the will of God:

(1)\caps1     b\caps0 y perfect obedience to his Law, and,

(2)\caps1     b\caps0 y making an atonement for sin - becoming "obedient unto death;"Phi 2:8.

The latter is the principal thought here, for the apostle is showing that sacrifice and offering such as were made under the Law would not put away sin, and that Christ came in contradistinction from them to make a sacrifice that would be efficacious. Everywhere in the Scriptures it is held out as being the "will of God"that such an atonement should be made. There was salvation in no other way, nor was it possible that the race should be saved unless the Redeemer drank that cup of bitter sorrows; see Mat 26:39. We are not to suppose, however, that it was by mere arbitrary will that those sufferings were demanded. There were good reasons for all that the Saviour was to endure, though those reasons are not all made known to us.

Barnes: Heb 10:8

Above when he said - That is, the Messiah. The word "above"refers here to the former part of the quotation. That is, "having in the former part of what was quoted said that God did not require sacrifices, in the latter part he says that he came to do the will of God in the place of them."

Sacrifice and offering, and burnt-offerings ... - These words are not all used in the Psalm from which the apostle quotes, but the idea is, that the specification there included all kinds of offerings. The apostle dwells upon it because it was important to show that the same remark applied to all the sacrifices which could be offered by man. When the Redeemer made the observation about the inefficacy of sacrifices, he meant that there was none of them which would be sufficient to take away sin.

Poole: Heb 10:1

Heb 10:1-4 The sacrifices of the law, being often repeated,

could not take away sins.

Heb 10:5-9 The abolition of them, and substitution of Christ’ s

body in their stead, foretold by the psalmist,

Heb 10:10-18 by the offering of which body once for all we obtain

perfect remission.

Heb 10:19-25 An exhortation to steadfastness in the faith, and to

love and good works.

Heb 10:26-31 The danger of a wilful relapse after having received

the knowledge of the truth,

Heb 10:32-39 and of forfeiting the reward of a good beginning for

want of perseverance.

For: this for is connecting this to the foregoing discourse, and is a further improvement of the argument laid down, Heb 9 , proving the necessity and excellency of the one sacrifice offered by Christ for sinners unto God, from the weakness of all the legal ones. For if all the multitude of them were not able to take away sins, and Christ’ s one offering is mighty to abolish them, and to perfect all who use it, then not these legal ones, but his is necessary to be valued by the Hebrews, and preferred to that end; the demonstration of which takes up from Heb 10:1-18 of this chapter.

The law the whole Mosaical economy given from God to Israel by him in the wilderness of Sinai; priesthood, covenant, sacrifices, and services, which that did contain.

Having a shadow of good things to come: see Heb 8:5 . A shadow is lower than an image, and of another kind from the reality or substance; a dark, obscure representation sentation of what was to fulfil them, viz. of Christ, with all his ministry and privileges attending his covenant, both for time and eternity; this the Mosaical law-real comprehended, but all in shadow-work.

And not the very image of the things they are not the very essence and substance themselves of these things, the pattern, or real sampler, but a shadowy representation; they lead their users to Christ and his matters, which they represented, but were not the substantial good things themselves. So image is read, 1Co 15:49 , we have borne the image of the earthy Adam, that is, his nature.

Can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect: the legal sacrifices are not only impotent in respect of their constitution, but of their very nature, being only shadows, so as they cannot render a soul complete, either in respect of justification or sanctification; they could not free any either from the guilt or punishment of sin at present, much less eternally: with all the renovation of them either on the day of atonement yearly, or those daily offered by them, though they should continue to be offered for ever, yet could they not perfect either the priests ministering, or those for whom they ministered, who were externally humbling themselves on the expiation day; they being designed only to point the people to this better sacrifice of Christ, which was to perfect them, that work being so noble, and above, the power of shadows to perform.

Poole: Heb 10:2

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? for proves the weakness of that shadowy service under the law, because it never ceased, which it would if it had perfected its users; and having reached its end, and done that work, have ceased; for these sacrifices would not of right have been repeated, neither needed they, if they could have justified and sanctified souls for ever.

Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins: for then this effect would have followed, the worshippers who were to be atoned for or expiated by these sacrifices, if they had perfected them, i.e. pardoned, justified, and acquitted them from guilt of sin and punishment, there would have nothing remained to have troubled, vexed, or tormented their souls, they being no further accused or condemned by their conscience about sin, God having justified and sanctified them, Heb 9:14,26,28 ; compare Rom 5:1,2,11 .

Poole: Heb 10:3

If the legal sacrifices could have perfected their offerers, there would have been no remembrance of sins; but there is a remembrance of sins yearly, therefore they are weak and cannot perfect. These shadowy-sacrifices yearly reiterated, still left sins in their guilt and killing power, loading and grinding the conscience by accusation and condemnation for them, as well as setting them in the light of God’ s countenance. For in the expiation day Aaron was to remember and to confess over the head of the scape-goat, laying his hands on it, all the church’ s sins of the past year and life, notwithstanding former expiatory sacrifices offered for them, Lev 16:22 . For as soon as that was done, their expiating virtue vanished, and so they renewed sacrifices without any spiritual profit by them, the guilt of past and present sins remaining still: whereas Christians now renewing sin, do renew their faith and repentance, but not their sacrifice for it; the virtue of which, in a full and final absolution, applied to them by the Spirit, makes them to have, upon their final accounts, no conscience of sin for ever.

Poole: Heb 10:4

For gives a reason of the precedent proof, that the legal sacrifices did keep sins in remembrance; for they were of such matter as could not have any causal power to take them away.

It is not possible: this is equivalent to a universal negative, the impossibility being absolute as to the things themselves in their very nature; they being corporeal, can have no influence upon a spiritual evil in the soul, Mic 6:6,7 ; and by God’ s constitution they were to lead them to better things, God being not pleased with flesh and blood, Psa 50:13 Isa 1:11 .

That the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins the blood of these were only carried into the holy of holiest on the atonement day, yearly, Lev 16:1-34 , to which this is chiefly applied; nor could the blood of all the other sacrifices by expiation pardon their offerers, nor by sanctification cleanse them, nor by removing the sense of them comfort the soul; they could neither pacify God, nor the sinner’ s conscience, having no virtue or power to satisfy God’ s justice, or merit his grace, only it had by his constitution a power to typify that blood which could do both.

Poole: Heb 10:5

WhereforeDio , introduceth the proof of the invalidity of legal sacrifices, and the efficacy of the one sacrifice of Christ, from Divine testimony about both of them.

He saith God the Son, who existed before his incarnation, bespeaketh God the Father, when he was coming into this world, to become a part of it, by uniting a holy human nature to the Divine, as David voucheth by the Spirit of God, Psa 40:6 .

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not: the bloody atoning sacrifices of bulls and goats, the peace-offerings, and thank-offerings, Lev 7:16 , and offerings of every sort without blood, required by the law of Moses, God did neither desire, require, nor delight in as in themselves propitiatory; for he never intended them to take away sins, or perfect the worshippers: see 1Sa 15:22 Isa 1:11-15 Jer 6:20 Amo 5:21,22 .

But a body hast thou prepared me: but, the Hebrew text reads, the ears hast thou bored for me. The apostle makes use here of the Greek paraphrase, a body hast thou fitted me; as giving in proper terms the sense of the former figurative expression, discovering thereby Christ’ s enitre willingness to become God’ s servant for ever, Exo 21:6 ; and that he might be so, which he could not as God the Son, simply, the Father by his Spirit did articulate him, and formed him joint by joint a body; that is, furnished him with a human nature, so as that he might perform that piece of service which God required, offering up himself a bloody sacrifice for sin, to which he was obedient, Phi 2:8 . Thus were his ears bored, which could not be if he had not been clothed with a body.

Poole: Heb 10:6

Two other sorts of sacrifices are added to the former, as whole burnt-offerings, which were all devoured by fire on God’ s altar, and no part of them came to the priests, Lev 1:3,9,10,13,14,17 ; and peace-offerings, which were not totally consumed, but part of them was the priests’ portion, Exo 29:27,28 . These four sorts of sacrifices comprehend all the Aaronical offerings for expiation. God did not require or desire any of these for themselves, or for the perfecting of sinners; he did not as to such an end approve them, or take any pleasure in them.

Poole: Heb 10:7

Then said I, Lo, I come: when the Father declared the sacrifices of beasts and birds would not please him, nor be accepted for expiating sins, then I said, I appeared in person, and declared, Lo, I come with a fit and proper sacrifice; I approach myself with my human nature, fully resolved to offer that to thee as a propitiatory sacrifice, Joh 12:27 ; compare Psa 40:7 .

In the volume of the book it is written of me: kefaliv , the head; our translators keep to the Hebrew, rpo tlumb the volume of the book, Psa 40:7 . Books, with the Hebrews, were rolls of parchment stitched at the top, and so rolled up. In this book was Christ every where written and spoken of, as he testifieth himself before his death, Joh 5:39 , after his resurrection, Luk 24:44-46 . The Septuagint render it, the head, as beiag in the top and beginning of the whole roll to wit, in the books of Moses; compare Luk 24:27 . And in the entrance of them the Spirit testifieth of his Deity, and of his union to the humanity, being to be conceived and born of a virgin, and offering himself a sacrifice to expiate sin, and reconcile sinners, Gen 3:15 ; compare Joh 5:46,47 .

To do thy will, O God to obey his Father’ s command, of dying an expiatory sacrifice for sinners. It was his Father’ s will that he should so offer himself for satisfying his justice, making way for his mercy, and so redeeming and recovering lost souls. This will of God was in his heart, he delighted to obey it, Psa 40:8 ; and his own natural will that would regret it, he would deny, and would not use his Divine power to deliver himself from it, Mat 26:39,46 Joh 18:11 .

Poole: Heb 10:8

In this verse the apostle repeats the whole testimony, produced out of the Psalm, only with a specification in a parenthesis,

which are offered by the law viz. such sacrifices, against which the apostle argueth, which could not purge away sin, nor procure righteousness, nor make no more conscience of sins. He observes from the Psalm, that the will of God was plainly signified by his Spirit to David under the law, about the nature, state, and design of his institution of sacrifices, that they were typical of, and leading to, a better sacrifice than themselves; and that for their own sake only they were no way acceptable to God, and so rejected by him.

PBC: Heb 10:1

Salvation: God’s Will or Man’s? Heb 10:1-18

In {Heb 10:1-18} the author begins to summarize the discussion of Christ as the " Priest of the New Covenant" that began in Heb 8:6. His priesthood is superior to the Levitical priesthood, we have learned, in terms of personal character (He is holy and eternal while the Levites were sinful and temporal), priestly function (He ministers in the reality of heaven while the Levites ministered in the shadows and symbolism of an earthly sanctuary), and sacrificial efficacy (He offered his own blood which actually cleanses the conscience while the Levites offered animal blood that could never take away sin). These final words {Heb 10:1-18} concerning Christ’s superior sacrifice as our Great High Priest contrast the finality of Christ’s offering with the inadequacy of Old Testament sacrifices. Notice the following contrasts:

Sacrifices Under Law

" year by year continually" {Heb 10:1}

" could not make perfect" {Heb 10:1}

" remembrance of sins" {Heb 10:3}

" priest standing" {Heb 10:11}

Christ’s Sacrifice

" once for all" Heb 10:10

" perfected forever" Heb 10:14

" sins remembered no more" Heb 10:17

" sat down" Heb 10:12

The Inadequacy of O.T. Sacrifices {Heb 10:1-4}

The first four verses affirm that the Law is incapable of making people " perfect" or taking away sins. It was a " shadow," not the substance. {Heb 10:1} It pointed to the instrument of salvation, but was not itself that instrument. What, then, was the use of the Law? Not to remove sins, but to bring them to " remembrance."  {Heb 10:3} The repetition of those sacrifices reminded people of their sins and their need for atonement, for the previous year’s sacrifice had not done the job.

God’s Sovereign Will {Heb 10:5-10}

It was never God’s will, consequently, to use the Law as His instrument of salvation. It was not designed for this purpose. Verse five says, " Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." " Wouldest" is the Greek word thelo (SGreek: 2309. thelo ) yelw. It means " to will something and then to press on to action." It speaks of " resolve + action." God never resolved or intended to provide salvation through the law. {Ga 3:21} He did purpose and design (synonyms for the verb " to will" ),however, to provide the sacrifice that would take away the sins of His people, and Jesus came, in the body the Father prepared (a reference to the human nature He assumed), to act on the Father’s will. Our salvation, in other words, is the product of the Father’s resolve + the Son’s action.

It is necessary, in other words for someone to make a decision in order for sinners to be saved. Furthermore, someone has to do some work. Salvation is by someone’s will and by someone’s works. This passage, together with many others in the New Testament, ascribe salvation to God’s sovereign decision and the Son’s obedience to that will. Jesus came " to do [i.e. obey; act upon; perform] the Father’s will."  {Joh 6:37-39} By that will, that is, the will of God, we are sanctified. {Heb 10:10}

The Finished Work of Christ {Heb 10:11-18}

So Christ’s obedience is the basis of our salvation. {Ro 5:19} Salvation is not by " works of righteousness which we have done," {Tit 3:5} but it is by the work of righteousness which Jesus has done {2Co 5:21} in our stead.

The posture of our Great High Priest declares the finality and success of His work. {Heb 10:11-14} He is not standing, but sitting, for His redemptive task is complete. By his once-for-all sacrifice for sins, he has " perfected forever them that are sanctified."  {Heb 10:14} If the final outcome of Christ’s redemptive work were left in question, could he have sat down? If anything remained to be done, could he have cried with a loud voice, " It is finished" ? {Joh 19:30} The message of the New Covenant is " Sin has been removed, once and for all!"  {Heb 10:15-18}

396

Haydock: Heb 10:1

The law having a shadow [1] of the good things to come. The apostle continues till the 19th verse to shew the insufficiency of the former law, as to the redemption and salvation of mankind. By the good things to come, some understand heaven itself, and the happiness of the elect there, of which the law was but a shadow, whereas we have a much more perfect image and knowledge of heaven in the new law, than they who were under the former law. Others by good things to come, understand the blessings of interior graces, with a remission of our sins in the sight of God, and true sanctification, of which all the sacrifices and sacraments of the old law, without faith in Christ, were but a shadow: and now in the new law we have an express image of them, i.e. we have these blessings themselves. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Umbram,...non ipsam imaginem rerum, Greek: skian, ouk auten ten eikona. It seems hard to take Greek: eikona for the things themselves represented; but only to signify, expressam imaginem.

Haydock: Heb 10:2

Then they would have [2] ceased to be offered. That is, if they could have made the worshippers perfect; to wit, in such a manner as the one sacrifice of Christ, who was the Lamb of God that took away the sins of the world, by making a full reparation to the divine justice for the sin of Adam, and of all his offspring. For we must take notice that he compares the sacrifice of Christ, which wrought a general redemption, with the sacrifices of the former law, which could never make any sufficient atonement to the majesty of God offended by sin, and which, by the decree of heaven, were to cease as soon as Christ's sacrifice of a general redemption was made: for then the worshippers would be so cleansed from sin, that they would stand in need of no more, but that the merits and satisfactions of Christ, their Redeemer, should be applied to them according to the order of God's providence; that is, by faith in Christ, by his sacraments, by a true repentance, and the practice of virtue and good works. (Witham) ---

If they had been of themselves perfect to all the intents of redemption and remission, as Christ's death is, there would have been no occasion of so often repeating them; as there is no occasion for Christ's dying any more for our sins. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Alioquin cessassent offerri. In the ordinary Greek copies, Greek: epei an ouk epausanto prospheromenai; but in other manuscripts Greek: ouk is left out.

Haydock: Heb 10:3-4

But in them a remembrance of sins is made every year. For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sins should be taken way. The sacrifices of the former law, even that great sacrifice on the day of expiation, when victims were offered for the ignorances or sins of the priests, and of all the people, were only types and figures of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, it was impossible that they themselves should take away sins, like that one oblation of Christ, though in them was made a remembrance of sins, and of the same sins for which so many victims had been offered. (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 10:5-9

Therefore, Christ as it were, coming into the world, he saith, by the psalmist, (Psalm xxxix. 7. 8.) Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not desire, &c. That is, such sacrifices as were offered in the former law, they could not please thee, appease thy anger, nor make a sufficient reparation for sin. ---

But a [2] body thou hast fitted to me. Thou didst decree I should be made man, to suffer and die upon a cross to redeem mankind. And I as willingly understood the work of man's redemption. ---

Behold I come: in the head of the book it is written of me. [3] That is, in the volumes of the Scriptures. ---

He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. That is, he taketh away what I first mentioned, the imperfect sacrifices of the law of Moses, that to them might succeed the sacrifice of Christ. (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 10:5

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Corpus autem aptasti mihi; Greek: soma de katartiso moi; i.e. according to the Septuagint but in the Hebrew aures perfodisti, or as in the Latin, (Psalm xxxix. 7.) perfecisti mihi. How these different expressions agree, see Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, &c.

Haydock: Heb 10:7

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In capite libri, Greek: en kephalidi bibliou. The Greek and Latin seems to signify no more than in the volume, or book itself; Greek: kephalis, says Suidas, Greek: oper tinos eilema, alicujus involucrum, ab Greek: eileo. No need of translating, in the front of the book.

Gill: Heb 10:1

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.

Gill: Heb 10:2

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.

Gill: Heb 10:3

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, בדבחא בהון, "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.''

Gill: Heb 10:4

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?''

Gill: Heb 10:5

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 חפץ, 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 decrees, and in the council and covenant of grace; and was curiously formed by the Holy Ghost in time, for the second Person, the Son of God, to clothe himself with, as the Syriac version renders it, "thou hast clothed me with a body"; and that he might dwell in, and in it do the will of God, and perform the work of man's redemption: in Psa 40:6 it is, "mine ears thou hast opened"; digged or bored, the ear being put for the whole body; for if he had not had a body prepared, he could not have had ears opened: besides; the phrase is expressive of Christ's assuming the form of a servant, which was done by his being found in fashion as a man, Phi 2:7 and of his being a voluntary servant, and of his cheerful obedience as such, the opening, or boring of the ear, was a sign, Exo 21:5. And thus by having a true body prepared for him, and a willing mind to offer it up, he became fit for sacrifice.

Gill: Heb 10:6

In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin,.... Which were the principal kinds of offerings under the law:

thou hast had no pleasure; not only in comparison of moral duties, or spiritual sacrifices, such as those of praise and thanksgiving, Psa 69:30 but so as to accept of the offerers for the sake of them, and smell a sweet savour in them; for these could not satisfy his justice, appease his anger, or expiate sin; and when they were in full force, and offered in the most agreeable manner, they were no otherwise well pleasing to God, than as they were types of, and had respect unto the sacrifice of his Son. In the Hebrew text it is, "thou didst not require, or ask for"; for them, when the time was up that Christ should come into the world.

Gill: Heb 10:7

Then said I, lo, I come,.... Christ observing that legal sacrifices were not acceptable to God; that there was a body prepared for him; and that it was written of him in the book of God, that he should come; and the time being now come, with a note of attention and admiration, the matter being of great moment and concern, he cheerfully expresses his readiness to come, immediately, without any compulsion, even he himself, and not another.

In the volume of the book it is written of me; in the book of the law, as the, Targum and Kimchi on Psa 40:7 interpret it; and which may design the Bible in general, the whole book of the Scriptures of the Old Testament: so ספר, "the book", is used for the whole Bible ^r, and it is said ^s, all the whole law, that is, all Scripture, is called מגילה, "a volume"; accordingly there are things written of Christ in all the writings of the Old Testament, in the law, and in the prophets, and in the psalms. Jarchi interprets it of the law of Moses, and so it may design the pentateuch, or the five books of Moses; and there are several places therein, in which it is written of Christ, and particularly in Genesis, the first of these books, and in the head, the beginning, the frontal piece, the first part of that book; namely, Gen 3:15 which may be principally designed. Books were formerly written in rolls of parchment, and hence called volumes; See Gill on Luk 4:17, See Gill on Luk 4:20. The end of his coming is next expressed by him,

to do thy will, O God; which, when he came, he set about with the utmost delight, diligence, and faithfulness, in preaching the Gospel, performing miracles, doing good to the bodies and souls of men, and in finishing the great work of man's redemption, which was the main part of his Father's will he came to do; and which he did, by fulfilling the law in its precept and penalty; by offering himself a sacrifice to God; by suffering death, the death of the cross; by destroying all his and our enemies, and so working out everlasting salvation.

Gill: Heb 10:8

Above when he said, .... In the afore cited place, Psa 40:7

Sacrifice and offering, and burnt offerings, and offering for sin thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein; this is a recapitulation of what is before said; and all kind of sacrifices are mentioned, to show that they are all imperfect, and insufficient, and are abolished; and the abrogation of them is expressed in the strongest terms, as that God would not have them, and that he took no pleasure in them:

which are offered by the law; according as that directs and enjoins: this clause is added, to distinguish these sacrifices from spiritual ones, under the Gospel dispensation, and which are well pleasing to God; and to prevent an objection against the abolition of them, taken from hence, that they are according to the law; and yet, notwithstanding this, God will not have them, nor accept of them.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Heb 10:1

¹ tn Grk “those who approach.”

NET Notes: Heb 10:2

¹ tn Grk “the worshipers, having been purified once for all, would have.”

NET Notes: Heb 10:3

¹ tn Grk “in them”; the referent (those sacrifices) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

NET Notes: Heb 10:4

¹ tn Grk “for it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”

NET Notes: Heb 10:7

¹ tn Grk “behold,” but this construction often means “here is/there is” (cf. BDAG 468 s.v. ἰδού 2).

² sn A quotation from Ps 40:6-8 (LXX). The phrase a body you prepared for me (in v. 5) is apparently an interpretive expansion of the HT reading “ears you have dug out for me.”

NET Notes: Heb 10:8

¹ sn Various phrases from the quotation of Ps 40:6 in Heb 10:5-6 are repeated in Heb 10:8.

Geneva Bible: Heb 10:1

For ^{( 1 )} the law having a shadow of good things to ^{( a )} come, [and] not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

^{( 1 )} He prevents a private objection. Why then were those sacrifices offered? The apostle answers, first concerning the yearly sacrifice which was the solemnest of all, in which (he says) there was made every year a remembrance again of all former sins. Therefore that sacrifice had no power to sanctify: for to what purpose should those sins which are purged be repeated again, and why should new sins come to be repeated every year, if those sacrifices abolished sin?

^{( a )} Of things which are everlasting, which were promised to the fathers, and exhibited in Christ.

Geneva Bible: Heb 10:5

^{( 2 )} Wherefore when he ^{( b )} cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a ^{( c )} body hast thou prepared me:

^{( 2 )} A conclusion following those things that went before, and encompassing also the other sacrifices. Seeing that the sacrifices of the law could not do it, therefore Christ speaking of himself as of our High Priest manifested in the flesh, witnesses plainly that God rests not in the sacrifices, but in the obedience of his Son our High Priest, in whose obedience he offered up himself once to his Father for us.

^{( b )} The Son of God is said to come into the world, when he was made man.

^{( c )} It is word for word in the Hebrew text, "You have pierced my ears through" that is, "you have made me obedient and willing to hear".

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Heb 10:1-39

1 The weakness of the law sacrifices.

10 The sacrifice of Christ's body once offered,

14 for ever hath taken away sins.

19 An exhortation to hold fast the faith with patience and thanksgiving.

Combined Bible: Heb 10:1-4

Typical Sacrifice   

(Hebrews 10:1-4)   

The 10th chapter of our epistle has two main divisions: the first is occupied with a setting forth of the sufficiency of Christ’ s sacrifice unto those who believe, verses 1-20; the second is devoted to the making of a practical application of the doctrine of the first section unto faith, obedience, and perseverance, verses 21-39. The principal design of the Spirit therein is to exhibit the excellency and efficacy of Christ’ s satisfaction, and this, not so much God-wards, as saint-wards, showing the inestimable blessings which it has procured for the favored members of the household of faith. The method which the apostle was inspired to follow in carrying out this design, was to, once more, set in antithesis the typical sacrifices of the Mosaic dispensation with the one Sacrifice of Christianity, contrasting the shadow with the Substance, and this, in order to bring out the inadequacy of the one and the sufficiency of the other to provide a perfect standing before God, with the resultant privilege of drawing near to Him as accepted worshippers.  

Because the sacrifices under the old covenant were incapable, in and of themselves, to satisfy the claims of a holy God, they were also unable to meet the needs of those who brought them. Because that, of themselves, they could not make peace with God, neither could they give peace to the conscience of the offerer. Because they failed to make real atonement for sin, they could not cleanse the sinner. Therefore does the apostle point out that the Aaronic offerings were but "shadows," that the repetition of them intimated their insufficiency, that the fact of unexpiated sin was recalled to memory each time a victim was slain, and that inasmuch as it was merely the blood of beasts which was shed, it was impossible that such a medium or offering could either placate the wrath of God or procure His blessing upon those who presented such sacrifices.  

The connection between Hebrews 10 and what immediately precedes is very blessed. In the closing verse of chapter 9 two things are joined together: the cross of Christ and His second coming. And what intervenes between Calvary and the actual entrance into Glory of those who were there redeemed and reconciled to God? This: the Christian-life on earth, and it is this which is mainly in view in the closing chapters of our epistle. It is the present status, privileges, walk, discipline and responsibilities of the saints which are therein set forth. That which is exhibited in the first twenty verses of Hebrews 10 is the perfect standing before God which the regenerated believer now has, and his blessed privilege as a worshipper of entering in spirit within the Heavenly courts while waiting down here for the promised return of his Savior. Having shown in chapter 9 that atonement has been accomplished, that the heavenly places were purified when the Redeemer entered the Holiest, the Spirit now emphasizes the fact that the believer has been fitted to draw nigh unto God Himself as a purged and accepted worshipper.  

In previous sections the apostle has contrasted the priests of the Levitical dispensation with our great High Priest, he has opposed the vastly different covenants or economies to which each belonged, he has shown the immeasurable superiority of Christ’ s one offering of Himself over the many sacrifices of old, he has placed in antithesis the respective "tabernacles" in which Aaron and Christ officiated. Each and all of these was designed to press upon the wavering Hebrews the deficiency of Judaism and the excellency of Christianity. Now he shows that not only are the two systems with all that pertains to them as different as a flickering candle and the shining of the sun, but that the privileges enjoyed by the individuals belonging to the one and the other are as widely separated as is light from darkness. The Mosaic system, as such, was neither able to impart permanent peace to the conscience nor give access into the presence of God, but the Satisfaction of Christ has procured these precious blessings unto those who flee to Him for refuge.  

The order of thought which is followed in the first main division of our present chapter ought not to be difficult to grasp. First, we have an affirmation and demonstration of the deficiency of the legal sacrifices to "perfect" the worshipper: verses 1-4. Second, we have a manifestation and exemplification of the sufficiency of Christ’ s sacrifice to "perfect forever" (verse 14) those for whom He made satisfaction unto God: verses 5-20. Thus the apostle proves again the imperative need for the supplanting of all the unefficacious offerings of Judaism by the all-sufficient offering of Christ. In the developing of the first point, an assertion is made of the inadequacy of the Levitical sacrifices to expiate sin and meet the dire needs of the offerer (verse 1). A confirmation of the truth of this assertion is drawn from the frequency of their repetition (verse 2). It is shown that the annual typical propitiation was only a constant re-opening of the question of sin (verse 3). From these facts the inevitable conclusion is drawn that it was impossible for such sacrifices to remove sins.  

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect" (verse 1). Three questions are suggested to the thoughtful reader of this verse. First, exactly what is the contrast pointed by "shadow" and "image"? Second, what is meant by the comers being made "perfect"? Third, why did God appoint sacrifices that were so unefficacious? These shall be our points of focus as we endeavor to expound this verse.  

"For the law having a shadow of good things to come." The opening "For" intimates that what is introduced thereby is an inference drawn from what had previously been stated. Having shown that the sacrifice of Christ had met all the demands of God and had confirmed the new covenant, the apostle concludes from thence that, inasmuch as the Levitical sacrifices could not effect those ends which had been accomplished by Christ’ s, they must be taken out of the way. The "law" here is not to be restricted to the ceremonial, as the words "having a shadow" warn us; still less is it the moral law, which, absolutely considered, had no sacrifices belonging to it. No, the reference is to the whole of the Mosaic economy, or more specifically, to the covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai, with all the institutions of worship belonging thereto.  

"Shadow is put first emphatically; only a shadow or outline of the substantial and eternal blessings promised. A shadow has no substance; but brings before the mind the form of the body from which it is projected! The ‘ image’ itself is given to us in Christ, a full and permanent embodiment of the good things to come" (Adolph Saphir). We believe this presents the correct idea: it is clearly borne out by Colossians 2:17, "which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." The apostle is there speaking of the same things as he treats of here in Hebrews 10:1: the Mosaic economy, with all its ordinances and institutions of worship, gave only an earthly adumbration or representation, and did not possess the substance, reality, or "body": that is found only in Christ Himself, to whom the Old Testament shadows pointed. A "shadow" gives a representation of a body, a more or less just one of its form and size, yet only an obscure and imperfect one— compare our remarks on Hebrews 8:5.  

The "good things to come" (future, not when this epistle was written, but at the time that the Mosaic economy was instituted) has reference to all those blessings and privileges which have come to the church in consequence of the incarnation of Christ and the discharge of His office. Well might they be designated "good things," for there is no alloy or mixture of evil with them; other things are "good" relatively, but these things absolutely. The "image" or substance of them is found in Christ, and set forth in His Gospel: for a similar use of the term "image" cf. Romans 8:29. "This therefore is that which the apostle denies concerning the law. It had not the actual accomplishment of the promise of good things; it had not Christ exhibited in the flesh; it had not the true real sacrifice of perfect expiation: it represented these things; it had a shadow of them, but enjoyed not, exhibited not the things themselves. Herein was its imperfection and weakness, so that by none of its sacrifices could it make the Church perfect" (John Owen).  

"Can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect." In these words we have the inference or conclusion for which the "For" at the beginning of the verse prepares us: if the law contained in it nothing better than a "shadow," it is obvious that its sacrifices could not possibly make perfect those who offered them. John Owen has most helpfully pointed out that the Greek word here rendered "continually’’ signifies "forever," occurring elsewhere in this epistle only in Hebrews 7:3, 10:12, 14 (Bagster’ s Interlinear gives "in perpetuity") and that it should be connected not with the clause preceding, but with the one following, thus: "the law by its sacrifices could not perfect forever, or unto the uttermost, the comers thereto."  

Three things are affirmed in the second half of our verse. First, the impotency of the "law" or old covenant, or Mosaic economy. It could never "make perfect." It could by no means, in no way do so; it was impossible that it should. This is stated so emphatically in order to remove from the minds of the Hebrews all expectations of perfection with Judaism. Second, that with respect unto which this impotency of the law is here ascribed was its "sacrifices," which was the very thing in which most of the Jews had chiefly placed their hopes. But not only is that affirmed of the sacrifices in general, but also in particular of the great sacrifice on the day of atonement, which was offered "year by year": if that was ineffectual, how much more so the minor offerings! Third, that wherein its impotency lay was its inability to "perfect" the "comers."  

Concerning the meaning of "perfect" here, we would refer back to our exposition of Hebrews 7:11. For the benefit of those who do not have access to the August 1930 issue, we would point out that the term "perfect" is one of the key-words of this epistle, close attention needing to be paid to its contexts. It has to do more with relationship than experience. It concerns the objective side of things rather than the subjective. It looks to the judicial and vital aspect, more than to the practical. "Perfection" means the bringing of a thing to that completeness of condition designed for it. Doctrinally it refers to the producing of a satisfactory and final relationship between God and His people. It speaks of that unchanging standing in the favor and blessing of God which Christ has secured for His saints. See also our notes on Hebrews 2:10; 5:9; 6:1.  

That "perfection" which God requires is absolute conformity to His moral law, so that not only is there no guilt of transgression resting upon us, but a full, flawless, and rewardable obedience to our account. How impossible it was for the slaying of beasts to secure this is self-evident. The "comers thereunto" are defined in verse 2 as "the worshippers": it was those who made use of the Levitical sacrifices in the worship of God. This term "come" in the Hebrews’ epistle has its root in the "bring" of Leviticus 1:2, the Hebrew word there signifying those who "draw nigh" with an oblation, coming thus to the altar. Though the slaying of beasts procured a temporary expiation, it did not secure an eternal forgiveness, it did not perfect "continually" or "for ever." Hence, the effect produced on the conscience of the offerer was only a transient one, for a sense of sin returned upon him, forcing him unto a repetition of the same sacrifices, as the apostle declares in the next verse. This brings us to our third question: Why did God appoint unto Israel sacrifices so ineffectual?  

Many answers might be returned to this question. Though the Levitical offerings failed to procure an eternal redemption, yet were they by no means useless and without value. First of all, they served to keep in the minds of Israel the fact that God is ineffably holy and will not tolerate evil. They were constantly reminded that the wages of sin is death. They were taught thereby that a constant acknowledgement of their sins was imperative if communion with the Lord was to be maintained. In the second place, by means of these types and shadows God was pointing out to them the direction from which true salvation must come, namely, in a sinless Victim enduring in their stead the righteous penalty which their sins called for. Thereby God instructed them to look forward in faith to the time when the Redeemer should appear, and the great Sacrifice be offered for the sins of His people. Third, there was an efficacy in the Old Testament sacrifices to remove temporal judgment, to give ceremonial ablution, and to maintain external fellowship with Jehovah. They who despised the sacrifices were "cut off" or excommunicated; but those who offered them maintained their place in the congregation of the Lord.  

Ere passing on to the next verse let us seek to make practical application unto ourselves of what has been before us. In coming to God, that is, drawing nigh unto Him as worshippers, the first qualification in us is that we are legitimately assured of the perfect expiation (cancellation) of our sins. When this foundation is not laid in the soul and conscience, all attempts to approach God as worshippers are highly presumptuous, for no guilty person can stand before Him. To offer thanksgiving and praise to him before we know we have been forgiven and accepted by Him, is to repeat the high-handed sin of Cain. The very first things proposed to us in the Gospel are that we own our undone condition, judge ourselves unsparingly, turn from our sins, and appropriate to our deep need the grace of God as it is tendered to us in Jesus Christ. Only as the heart is truly contrite and faith lays hold of the atoning blood of the Lamb, is any sinner entitled to draw nigh unto the Holy One.  

"For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins" (verse 2). The contents of this verse enable us to grasp more clearly the particular aspects of Truth which our present chapter is dealing with. It is not so much what the sacrifices effected God-wards, as man-wards: it is their purifying effects upon the worshipper which is mainly in view. This is quite evident from the expressions "once purged" and "no more conscience of sins." In like manner, the principal thing in the verses which follow is the setting forth of what Christ’ s atonement has secured for His people: see verses 10, 14, 19.  

"For then would they not have ceased to be offered?" "This verse is added as a proof of the reason concerning the impotency of the foresaid legal sacrifices. The reason was taken from the reiteration of those sacrifices, whereby it was made manifest that they could not make perfect. The argument may be framed thus: That which makes perfect ceaseth when it hath made perfect; but the sacrifices which were offered year by year, ceased not; therefore they could not have made perfect" (William Gouge). In reply it might be opposed: The repetition of the sacrifice was not through any inherent defect in it, but because the offerer had acquired fresh guilt; the offering expiated all sin up to the time it was offered, but new sins being committed, another sacrifice became necessary. Let us face this difficulty.  

There was a defect in the sacrifices themselves, as will be seen more plainly when we reach verse 4; they were altogether inadequate for meeting the infinite demands of God, they were altogether insufficient to compensate for the wrong done to God’ s manifestative glory and could not repair the loss of His honor. None save a sacrifice which possessed intrinsic merits, having an infinite value, could make real and final satisfaction. That Sacrifice has been offered, and so perfect is it that it stands in no need of addition. The Atonement of Christ is of perpetual efficacy unto God, and is ever available to faith. No matter how often application be made unto it, its power never wanes and its preciousness never diminishes.  

"Because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins." The final words fix for us the meaning, or rather scope, of the "once purged" here. That sacrificial term may denote either (or both) the removal of the guilt of sin or the pollution thereof: the one is taken away by justification, the other by sanctification. The one is the effect of the sacerdotal actings of Christ toward God, in making atonement for sin; the other is by the Spirit’ s application of the virtues of that Sacrifice to our souls and consciences, whereby they are cleansed, renewed, and changed. It is the former only which is before us here, namely, such a purging of sin as takes away its condemning power from the conscience on account of the guilt of it. But this the Levitical sacrifices failed to do, as the next verse shows.  

"No more conscience of sins." This does not mean that the one who has been "purged" or justified has no further consciousness of sins, for no one is more painfully aware of them and of the indwelling "flesh" than is a regenerated soul. That is his great burden and sorrow. No, the one who is insensible to the evil and demerit of indwelling sin is a deluded soul: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). Nor do the last words of Hebrews 10:2 in anywise intimate that there is no need for a Christian’ s being deeply exercised over his sins and that God does not require him to repent of and confess them, and make repeated application to the Throne of Grace for "mercy" through the sacrifice of Christ. "He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy" (Prov. 28:13): this holds good in every dispensation.  

"No more conscience of sins" signifies freedom from an apprehensive or terrifying sense of what they deserved. It means complete deliverance from the fear of God’ s ever imputing them to us. It is the blessed recognition that "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). Faith has laid hold of the precious testimony of God unto the efficacy of the blood of Christ as having satisfied His every demand. If we really believe that the wages of sin were paid to our sinless Substitute, how can we be fearful that they will yet be paid to us! The word "conscience" is compounded from two words meaning "with knowledge," that is, a joint-knowledge of good and evil. Conscience is the eye of the soul, discerning right from wrong, yet is it dependent— as the eye is— on light. To and through the conscience God speaks as Light (1 John 1:5). When His light first breaks in and shows me what I am, I get a bad conscience; when it is purged by blood (through faith laying hold of its efficacy) I obtain a cleansed one.  

It is important to observe that our verse does not say the worshipper should have "no conscience of sins," but "no more conscience" of them. This confirms the idea that the "continually" ("for ever") of the previous verse is to be connected not with the "sacrifices," but with "perfect." It would be a great mistake to suppose that the Levitical sacrifices altogether failed to remove sins from before God: Leviticus 4:2, 31; 16:11, 22 show otherwise. Nor was it that those sacrifices failed to remove the load of conscious guilt from those who offered them: in such case we should never have read of them rejoicing before God. No, what the apostle is here insisting upon is that those sacrifices only gave peace of conscience pro tern: they were unable to lay a foundation for permanent rest and abiding peace.  

But what of the sins of the Christian after he has been "purged" or justified? John 13:10 makes answer: "he that is washed (Greek, "has been bathed") needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every wit." By the blood of Christ the Christian has been completely cleansed once for all, so far as the judicial and eternal consequences of sin are concerned: "By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Heb. 10:14), thereby providing for them such stable peace and consolation as that they need not a fresh sacrifice to be made for them day by day. The Gospel makes known how those who sin every day may enjoy peace with God all their days, and that is by a daily confession of sins to God (judging themselves for them and truly repenting of them) and a daily appropriation to themselves of the cleansing power of Christ’ s precious blood for the defilements of their daily walk.  

"But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again of sins every year" (verse 3). The first word of this verse denotes the nature of the argument insisted upon. In the second verse it had been pointed out that, had the worshippers been legally perfected they would have had no more conscience of sins; but, says the apostle, it was not so with them: God appointed nothing in vain, and He had not only prescribed the repetition of those sacrifices, but also that in each offering there should be a "remembrance" made of sin, as of that which was to be expiated. It was by God’ s own institution (Lev. 16:21, 22) that there should be an "express remembrance,’’ or a remembrance expressed by acknowledgement: See Genesis 41:9; 42:21. By an appeal to this patent fact did the apostle confirm what had been declared in verses 1, 2.  

But at this point a real difficulty confronts us: the first four verses of this chapter are designed as a background to bring out more plainly the glorious truth presented in what follows: in other words, a contrast is pointed by showing what the Levitical sacrifices could not procure, Christ’ s has— "By one offering He hath perfected forever them that are sanctified" (verse 14). Yet, notwithstanding, the fact remains that Christians ought not only once a year, but every day, call to remembrance and penitently confess the same, yea, our Lord Himself has taught us to pray every day for the pardon of our sins: Luke 11:3, 4. Wherein, then, lies the difference between the Levitical sacrifices and Christ’ s, seeing that after both of them there is equally a remembrance of sin again to be made? Though the problem seems intricate, yet is its solution simple.  

Those under the Mosaic economy confessed their sins preparatory for and in order to a new atonement of them; not so the Christian. Our "remembrance" and confession respects only the application of the efficacy and virtue of that perfect Atonement which has been made once for all. With them, their remembrance looked to the curse of the law which was to be answered, and the wrath of God which was to be appeased; with us, that which is involved is the imparting of the benefits of Christ’ s sacrifice unto our conscience, whereby we have assured peace with God. Confession of sin is as necessary under the new covenant as under the old, but with an entirely different end in view: it is not as a part of the compensation for the guilt of it, nor as a means of pacifying the conscience so that we may still go on in sin; but to fill us with self-abasement, to induce greater watchfulness against sin, to glorify God for the mercy available, and to obtain a sense of His pardon in our own souls.  

"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" (verse 4). Here the apostle brings to a head that which has been set forth in the preceding verses: seeing that the law contained only a "shadow" of real redemption and could not perfect unto perpetuity the worshippers (verse 1), and seeing that "conscience of sins" remained (verse 2) as was evidenced by the very design of the annual and typical propitiation (verse 3), it therefore inevitably followed that it was "impossible" such sacrifices should "take away" or properly expiate sins. Such, we take it, is the force of the opening "For" here.  

There is a necessity of sin being "taken away," both from before the Governor of the world and from the conscience of His people. But this, the blood of beasts could not effect. Why not? First and foremost because God had not instituted animal sacrifices for that purpose. All the virtues and efficacy of the ordinances of Divine worship depend upon the end unto which God has instituted them. The blood of animals offered in sacrifice was designed of God to represent the way in which sin was to be removed, but not by itself to effect it. Nor did it comport with the Divine will and wisdom that it should. God had declared His severity against sin, with the necessity of its punishment to the glory of His righteousness and sovereign rule over His creatures. A most solemn demonstration of this was made at Sinai, in the giving of the fiery law: Exodus 19:16-24: but what consistency had there been between that and the satisfying of God’ s awful justice, and the removal of sin by such beggarly means as that of the blood of bulls and goats? In such case there had been no manner of proportion manifested between the infinite demerits of sin and the feeble instruments of its expiation.  

It was impossible for any mere creature to satisfy the demands of the all-mighty Governor of the universe. The highest angel could never have adequately made compensation for the tremendous wrong which sin had done God, nor repair the loss of His manifestative glory; yea, had not Christ’ s sinless and holy humanity— in which He performed the stupendous work of redemption— been united in His deity, that could not have met the claims of God nor merited eternal salvation for His people. Far less could the blood of beasts vindicate the honor of an infinite Majesty, pacify His righteous wrath, meet the requirements of His holy law, nor even cleanse the conscience and heart of man. "The blood of bulls and goats were external, earthly, and carnal things; but to take away sin was an internal, Divine, and spiritual matter" (William Gouge). Though the Levitical sacrifices possessed, by God’ s institution, an efficacy to remove an outward and ceremonial defilement, they could not take away an inward and moral pollution.  

This 4th verse enunciates and illustrates a deeply important principle which exposes the great error of Ritualists. As we have pointed out above, all ordinances of Divine worship derive their value from God’ s institution: they can only effect that which He has appointed, they have in them no inherent efficacy. While they may usefully represent spiritual truths, they have no spiritual virtue of their own, and cannot of and by themselves secure spiritual results. The offerings of Judaism had a Divinely appointed meaning and value, but they could not take away sins. The same holds good of the two ordinances of Christianity. Baptism and the Lord’ s Supper have been ordained of God. They have a symbolical significance. They represent blessed realities. But they have no inherent power either to remove sin, regenerate souls, or impart spiritual blessing. It is only as faith looks beyond the symbol to Him who is symbolized that the soul receives blessing.  

Ere closing, perhaps we ought to anticipate a question which is likely to have arisen in the minds of the readers. In view of what is affirmed in the verses which have been before us, are we to conclude that none of the Old Testament saints had a perfect and permanent standing before God? No, indeed, for such an inference would manifestly clash with many plain Old Testament passages and with the promises which the Church had under the old covenant. The apostle is not here denying absolutely that no one had spiritual access to God and real peace of conscience before Him, but is merely affirming that such blessings could not be secured by means of the Levitical sacrifices. But those who belonged to the "remnant according to the election of grace" (Rom. 11:5) had faith given them to look beyond the shadow to the Substance: see Job 19:25; Psalm 23:6; Song of Solomon 2:16; Isaiah 12:2; Daniel 12:2, etc.  

  

  

Combined Bible: Heb 10:5-7

Divine Incarnation   

(Hebrews 10:5-7)   

In the first four verses of our present chapter the apostle was moved to press upon the Hebrews the insufficiency of the Levitical sacrifices to bring about those spiritual and eternal effects that were needed in order for poor sinners being fitted to stand before God as accepted worshippers. His design in so doing was to pave the way for setting before them the dire need for and the absolute sufficiency of Christ’ s sacrifice. First, he affirmed that the old covenant provided a "shadow" of the future "good things," but not the substance itself (verse 1). Under the Mosaic economy men were taught that ceremonial guilt, acquired through breaking the ceremonial law, severed from ceremonial fellowship with God, and that the offering of the prescribed sacrifices procured ceremonial forgiveness (Lev. 4:20) and restored to external fellowship, and thereby temporal punishment was averted. In this way there was adumbrated in a lower sphere what Christ’ s sacrifice was to accomplish in a higher.  

That there was an insufficiency to the typical sacrifices was plainly intimated by their frequent repetition (verse 2). Had the offerer been so "purged" as to have "no more conscience of sins," that is, had his moral guilt been fully and finally expiated, then no further offering had been needed. Even though God’ s people continually commit fresh sins a new sacrifice is not required. Why? Because the one perfect Sacrifice has made complete satisfaction unto God, and is of perpetual efficacy before Him: therefore is it ever available to penitence and faith, for application unto fresh pardons. But no such sufficiency pertained to the typical sacrifices: a temporary and outward cleansing they could effect, but nothing more. "For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, thine iniquity is marked before Me, saith the Lord God" (Jer. 2:22).  

There was no proportion between the infinite demerits of sin, the demands of God’ s justice, and the slaying of beasts. Whether the matter be viewed in the light of God’ s nature, of man’ s soul, or of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, it was obvious that the blood of bulls and goats could not possibly make atonement (verse 4). Nor was this fact altogether unknown in Old Testament times: did not one of Jehovah’ s prophets declare, "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves that are a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" (Mic. 6:6, 7)! But later this light was lost to the carnal Jews, who, like the darkened Gentiles, came to believe that a real and efficacious atonement was made by the offering of animal blood unto God.  

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices" (Heb. 9:23). Yet patent as this now is to any renewed mind, it was an exceedingly difficult matter to convince the Jews of it. The Levitical sacrifices were of Divine institution and not of human invention. Their fathers had offered them for fifteen centuries; thus, to affirm at this late date that they were set aside by God made a big demand upon their faith, their prejudices, their affections. Nevertheless, the logic of the apostle was invincible, the force of his arguments unanswerable. But it is blessed to observe that he did not rest his case here; instead, he referred once more to an authority against which no appeal could be allowed.  

As we have passed from chapter to chapter, and followed the inspired unfolding of the pre-eminency of Christianity over Judaism, we have been deeply impressed by the fact that, at every crucial point, proof has been furnished from the Old Testament Scriptures. When affirming the excellency of the Son over angels (Heb. 1:4), appeal was made to Psalm 97:7 (Heb. 1:6). When insisting on the exaltation of the humbled Messiah over all the works of God’ s hands (Heb. 2:6-9), Psalm 8:4-6 was cited. When declaring the superiority of Christ’ s priesthood over Aaron’ s, Psalm 110:4 was given in substantiation of it (Heb. 6:20). When pointing out the superseding of the old covenant by the new, Jeremiah 31:31 was shown to have taught that very thing (Heb. 8:8). And now that the all-important point has been reached for showing the imperative necessity of the abolition of the Levitical offerings, another of their own Scriptures is referred to as announcing to the Hebrews this identical fact. How all this demonstrates the inestimable worth and the final authority of Holy Writ!  

"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me: In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of Me), to do Thy will, O God" (verses 5-7). These verses contain a direct quotation from the 40th Psalm, which, equally with the 2nd, 16th, 22nd, 10th, etc., was a Messianic one. In it the Lord Jesus is heard speaking, speaking to His Father; and well does it behooves us to give our utmost attention to every syllable that He here utters.  

The citation which is here made from the Old Testament Scriptures is introduced with, "Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith." The precise force of the opening "Wherefore" is not easily determined: it seems to signify, In accord with the facts pointed out in the first four verses; or, in proof thereof, listen to the prophetic language of Christ Himself. John Owen suggested: ‘ It doth not give an account why the words following were spoken, but why the things themselves were so ordered and disposed." The "Wherefore" is a logical particle intimating that by virtue of the impotency of the Old Testament sacrifices, Christ came not to offer those fruitless sacrifices, but to do the will of God in their room. The Mosaic worship, with all its complicated ritual, was superseded by something better coming in its stead. Christ took away the first, that He might establish the second.  

The passage which is here before us calls for a whole book to be written thereon, rather than a single article: so blessed, so wondrous, so important are its contents. In it we behold the amazing grace and wisdom of the Father, the matchless love and obedience of the Son, and the federal agreement which was between the Father and the Son with reference to the work of redemption and the salvation of the Church. In it too we see demonstrated again the perfect harmony which exists between the old and the New Testament and the declaration of these things. In it we are taken back to a point before the foundation of the world, and are permitted to learn something of the august counsels of the Eternal Three. In it we are shown the means which the Divine wisdom appointed for the carrying out of those counsels. It is both our duty and privilege to prayerfully inquire and diligently search into the mind of the Holy Spirit therein.  

"Wherefore when He cometh into the world." The One who is here before us is the second person in the Holy Trinity. It is He who had been in the Father’ s delight from all eternity. It is none other than the One by whom and for whom all things were created "that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible" (Col. 1:16); who is "over all, God blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5). This ineffably blessed and glorious One condescended not merely to behold, or even to send an ambassador, but to personally come into this world. And, wonder of wonders, He came here not "in the form of God," bearing all the manifested insignia of Deity, nor even in the appearance of an angel, as occasionally He did in Old Testament times; but instead, He came in "the form of a servant," and was actually "made under the law." May our hearts be truly bowed in wonderment and worship at this amazing and unparalleled marvel.  

"When the fullness of the time was come" (Gal. 4:4), when the sinfulness of man and his utter helplessness to extricate himself from his dreadful misery had been completely demonstrated; when the insufficiency of Judaism and the powerlessness of the Levitical sacrifices had been made manifest; then it pleased the Son to become incarnate, execute the eternal purpose of the Godhead, fulfill the terms of the everlasting covenant, make good the prophecies and promises of the Old Testament Scriptures, and perform that stupendous work which would bring an incalculable revenue of praise to the Triune God, glorify Him above all His other works, put away the sins of His people, and provide for them a perfect and everlasting righteousness which would entitle and fit them to dwell forever in the Father’ s House. So transcendent are these things that only those whom the Spirit of Truth deigns to illuminate and instruct are capable, in any measure, of apprehending and entering into their ineffable meaning and preciousness. May it please Him, in His sovereign grace, to shine now upon the hearts and understandings of both writer and reader.  

"Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me." Here we behold the perfect intelligence of the Son concerning the mind and will of the Father. In the eternal purpose of the Triune God, Christ, as Mediator had been "set up from everlasting" (Prov. 8:23). The Lord had "possessed Him," He was "by Him, as One brought up with Him" (Prov. 8:22, 30). As such, nothing was concealed from Him; all the counsels of Deity were made known to Him. Therefore did He declare, after His incarnation, "The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things" (John 5:20). An illustration of this fact is before us in our present passage.  

"He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldst not, but a body hast Thou prepared Me." But here a difficulty presents itself: the Levitical sacrifices had been instituted by God Himself, how then could it be said that He willed them not? The solution is simple: the language here (as is not infrequently the case in Scripture) is to be taken relatively, and not absolutely. There was one real sense in which the Old Testament sacrifices were acceptable to God, and another in which they were not so. The reference here is not to the actual appointment of the sacrifices, for Hebrews 10:8 tells us they were "offered according to the law" which God had given to Israel. Nor is the reference to the obedience of the people concerning them during the Mosaic economy, for God both required and approved them at their hands. Nor is it that the apostle is merely speaking from the present viewpoint (as some have superficially supposed), i.e., that the sacrifices were no longer pleasing to Him. No, our text strikes much deeper: God willed not those sacrifices for the ends which He ordained the Sacrifice of Christ to effect.  

"But a body hast Thou prepared Me." The first word of this clause serves to define the preceding one: the body of Christ is placed over against, substituted in the stead of, replaces, the Levitical offerings. Let the reader recall the whole context: there the Holy Spirit has shown the utter inadequacy of the blood of bulls and goats, the impossibility of its meeting the highest claims of God and the deepest need of sinners. God had not appointed animal sacrifices for those ends: He never took pleasure in them with reference thereto; according to the will of God they were altogether insufficient for any such purpose. From all eternity it was Christ, the "Lamb," who had been "foreordained" to make satisfaction unto God for His people (1 Pet. 1:20). The Levitical sacrifices were never designed by God as anything more than a temporary means to shadow forth the great Sacrifice. This, the Mediator Himself was fully cognizant of from before the foundation of the world.  

"But a body hast Thou prepared Me." The term "a body" is a synedochial expression (a part put for the whole, as when we say a farmer has so many "head" of cattle, or a manufacturer employs so many "hands") of the whole human nature of Christ, consisting of spirit and soul and body. As to some of the reasons why the Holy Spirit here threw the emphasis on Christ’ s "body" rather than on His "soul" (as in Isaiah 53:10) we would humbly suggest the following. First , to emphasize the fact that the offering of Christ was to be by death, and this the body alone was subject to. Second , because the new covenant was to be confirmed by the offering of Christ, and this was to be by blood, which is contained in the body alone. Third , to make more evident the conformity of the Head to His members who were "partakers of flesh and blood." Fourth , to remind us that Christ’ s whole human nature (that "holy thing," Luke 1:35) was not a distinct person.  

"But a body hast Thou prepared Me." The verb has a double force: the humanity of Christ was both foreordained and created by the Father. The first reference in the "prepared" here is the same as in Isaiah 30:33. "Tophet is ordained of old, for the king it is prepared"; "the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him" (1 Cor. 2:9); "the vessels of mercy, which He hath afore prepared unto glory" (Rom. 9:23). In His eternal counsels, God has resolved that the Son should become incarnate; in the everlasting covenant the Father had proposed and the Son had agreed that, at the appointed time, Christ should be made in the likeness of men. The second reference in the word "prepared" is to the actual creating of Christ’ s humanity, that it might be fitted for the work unto which it was designed.  

"But a body hast Thou prepared Me." Commentators have needlessly perplexed themselves and their readers by discovering a discrepancy between these words and Psalm 40:6 which reads, "Mine ears hast Thou opened" or "digged" (margin). Really, there is no discord whatever between the two expressions: one is figurative, the other literal; both having the same sense. They refer to an act of the Father towards the Son, the purpose of the action being designed to make Him meet to do the will of God in a way of obedience. The metaphor used by the Psalmist possessed a double significance. First, the "ear" is that member of the body whereby we hear the commands we are to obey, hence nothing is more frequent in Scripture than to express obedience by hearing and hearkening. Here too the part is put for the whole. In His Divine nature alone, it was impossible for the Son, who was co-equal with the Father, to come under the law; therefore did He prepare for Him another nature, in which He could render submission to Him.  

It is impossible that anyone should have ears of any use but by having a body, and it is through the ears that instruction unto obedience is received. It is to this the incarnate Son made reference when, in the language of prophecy, He declared, "He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth Mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath opened Mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back" (Isa. 50:4, 5). Thus the figure used in Psalm 40:6 intimated that the Father did so order things toward the Messiah that He should have a nature wherein He might be free and able to be in subjection to the will of God; intimating, moreover, the quality of it, namely, in having ears to hear, which belong only to a "body."  

The second significance of the figure used in Psalm 40:6 may be discovered by a comparison with Exodus 21:6, where we learn of the provision made by the law to meet the case of a Hebrew servant, who chose to remain in voluntary servitude rather than accept his freedom, as he might do, at the seventh year of release. "Mine ears hast Thou digged" announced the Savior’ s readiness to act as God’ s "Servant:" Isaiah 42:1, 53:11. Only it is to be duly noted that in Exodus 21:6 it is "ear," whereas in Psalm 40:6 it is "ears"— in all things Christ has the "pre-eminence!" There was never any devotion either to Master or Spouse which could be compared with His: there was (so to speak) an over-plus of willingness in Him. "A body hast Thou prepared Me" presents the same idea, only in another form: His human nature was assumed for the very purpose of being the vehicle of service. Christ came here to be the substance of all the Old Testament shadows, Exodus 21:1-6 not excepted. In becoming Man, the Son took upon Him "the form of a servant" (Phil. 2:7).  

"A body hast Thou prepared Me." "The origin of the salvation of the Church is in a peculiar manner ascribed unto the Father— His will, His grace, His wisdom, His good pleasure, His love, His sending of the Son, are everywhere proposed as the eternal springs of all acts of power, grace and goodness, tending unto the salvation of the Church. And therefore doth the Lord Christ on all occasions declare that He came to do the Father’ s will, seek His glory, make known His name, that the praise of His grace might be exalted" (John Owen). It was by the Holy Spirit that the human nature of the Redeemer was created. His body was "prepared" not by the ordinary laws of procreation, but by the supernatural power of the third person of the Trinity working upon and within Mary. There is thus a clear allusion here to the Virgin-birth of the Lord Jesus.  

"He prepared Him such a body, such a human nature, as might be of the same nature with ours, for whom He was to accomplish His work therein. For it was necessary that it should be cognate and allied unto ours, that He might be meet to act on our behalf, and to suffer in our stead. He did not form Him a body out of the dust of the earth, as He did that of Adam, whereby He could not have been of the same race of mankind with us; nor merely out of nothing, as He created the angels whom He was not to save (Heb. 2:14-16). He took our flesh and blood proceeding from the loins of Abraham. He so prepared it, as that it should be no way subject unto that depravation and pollution, that came on our whole nature by sin. This could not have been done, had His body been prepared by carnal generation— the way and means of conveying the taint of original sin, which ,befell our nature, unto all individual persons— for this would have rendered Him every way unmeet for His whole work of mediation (Heb. 7:26) . . . This body or human nature, thus prepared for Christ, was exposed unto all sorts of temptations from outward causes. But yet was it so sanctified by the perfection of grace, and fortified by the fullness of the Spirit dwelling therein, that it was not possible it should be touched with the least taint or guilt of sin" (John Owen).  

Summing up this important point: though the actual operation in the production of our Savior’ s humanity was the immediate work of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), nevertheless, the preparation thereof was also the work of the Father in a real and peculiar manner, namely, in the infinitely wise and authoritative contrivance of it, and so ordering of it by His counsel and will. The Father originated it in the decrective disposition of all things, the Holy Spirit actually wrought it, and the Son Himself assumed it. Not that there was any distinction of time in these separate actings of the Holy Three in this matter, but only a disposition of order in Their operation. In the same instant of time the Father authoritatively willed that holy humanity into existence, the Holy Spirit efficiently created it, and the Son personally took it upon Him as His own.  

"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure" (verse 6). These words amplify and define the central portion of the preceding verse. There we hear the Son, just prior to His incarnation saying to the Father, "Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not." Against this a carping objector might reply, True, God never willed those sacrifices and offerings which our idolatrous fathers presented to Baal, nor those which the heathen gave to their gods; but that is a very different thing from saying that no animal sacrifice satisfied Jehovah. Such an objection is here set aside by the plain declaration that even the Levitical offerings contented God not.  

"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure." In these words Christ comprehended all the sacrifice under the Mosaic economy which had respect to the expiation of sin and also the worship of God. In verse 5 the term "sacrifice" includes all those offerings which the Israelites brought to the Lord for the purpose of obtaining His pardon; under the word "offering" was embraced all the gifts which they brought with the object of expressing thanksgiving for blessings received at His hands. Here in verse 6 the latter are, by a synedoche, referred to by "burnt offerings,’’ and the former by sacrifices "for sin." Concerning both of them Christ said to the Father "Thou wouldest not" (verse 5) and "Thou hast had no pleasure."  

The difference between "Thou wouldest not" and "Thou hast had no pleasure" is, the former declares that God had never designed the Levitical offerings should make a perfect satisfaction unto Himself; the latter, that He delighted not in them. Such language is to be understood relatively and not absolutely. God had required sacrifices at the hands of Israel: He had "imposed" them "until the time of reformation" (Heb. 9:10). Absolutely they could neither be said to be wholly nugatory in themselves nor displeasing to God, but as they could not produce any real atonement for sin, they did not correspond in the proper sense of the term either to the Divine pleasure nor to the law of God, but only foreshadowed what was to come. God had ordained a satisfaction possessing such moral obedience and personal excellency that there would need no more repetition thereof. These words "in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure" serve as a background to bring out in more vivid relief the blessedness of "This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17)!  

Once more we would point out how that the teaching of these verses supply a timely warning against our making a wrong use of symbolic ordinances. "Whatever may be the use or efficacy of any ordinances of worship, yet if they are employed or trusted unto for such ends as God hath not designed them unto, He accepts not of our persons in them, nor approves of the things themselves. Thus He declares Himself concerning the most solemn institutions of the Old Testament. And those under the New have been no less abused in this way, than those of old" (John Owen).  

"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of Me), to do Thy will, O God" (verse 7). Those words express the readiness and willingness of the Son to do all that had been ordained unto the making of a full satisfaction to God and the salvation of His people. They contain the second branch of the antithesis pointed in the quotation which is here made from the Messianic Psalm. They record the response of the Son’ s mind and will to the design and purpose of the Father. They conduct us back to the eternal counsels of the Godhead, in which the Father had expressed His determination to have an adequate compensation for the insult to His honor which sin should give, His disapproval of animal sacrifices as the names thereof, His decision that the Son should become incarnate and in human form magnify the law and make it honorable; with the Son’ s free and perfect acquiescence therein.  

"Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God." That "will" was not only to "take away sins" (verse 4), which the Levitical offerings had not effected, but was also to make His people "perfect" (verse 1 and cf. Hebrews 5:14). It was the gracious design of God not only to remove all the effects of sin, original and personal, which provoked His judicial hatred of us (Eph. 2:3), but also to provide for and give to them such a righteousness as would occasion Him more cause to love us than ever, and loving to delight in us. His "will" meant not only peace and pardon to us, but grace and favor: as the angels announced to the Bethlehem shepherds, the coming of Christ meant not only "glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace," but also "good will toward men." He had predestinated not only to forgive us, but to have us adopted and graciously "accepted," and that "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (Eph. 1:5, 6).  

The "will" of God which the Son came here to execute was that "eternal purpose which He had purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph. 3:11). Had He so pleased, God could have "taken away sin" by taking away sinners, and so made a short work of it, by removing them both at one stroke— as Ezekiel speaks (Ezek. 12:3, 4). But instead, He purposed to take away sins in such a way that favored sinners should stand justified before Him. Again, had He so pleased, God could have taken off the sins of His people by a sole and sovereign act of pardon. To hate sin is an act of His nature, but to express His hatred by punishing sin is an act of His will, and therefore might be wholly suspended. Were it an act of the Divine nature to punish sin, then whosoever sinned would die for it immediately; but being an act of His will, He oftentimes suspends the punishment. Seeing He is prepared to forebear for a while, He could have foreborne forever. But His wisdom— the "counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11) deemed it best to require an adequate satisfaction.  

What has just been said receives plain confirmation in the words used by the suffering Savior in Gethsemane: "And He said, Abba, Father all things are possible unto Thee: take away this cup from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt." Here the incarnate Son lets us know that the reason why it was not possible for the awful cup of wrath to pass from Him was because God had ordained that He should drink it, and not because there was no other alternative. We indeed can perceive none other, and relatively speaking there was none other after the everlasting covenant had been sealed; yet absolutely considered, speaking from the viewpoint both of God’ s infinite wisdom and sovereign pleasure, He could, had He so pleased, have saved us in another way. Never allow the thought that sin has produced a situation which in anywise limits or restrains the Almighty. It was by His will that sin entered!  

Had God so pleased, He could have accepted the blood of beasts as a full and final atonement for our sins. The only reason why He did not was because He had decreed that Christ should make atonement. He determined in Himself that if He had satisfaction it should be a full and perfect one. Everything must be resolved into and traced up to the sovereign pleasure of Him who "worketh all things after the counsel of His own will" (Eph. 1:11). It is in the light of what has just been said that we must interpret Hebrews 10:4: it was "not possible" because of the eternal purpose of the Triune Jehovah. God would have satisfaction to the full, or none at all. This the Son knew, and to it He fully consented.  

The Son was in perfect accord with the will of the Father from before the foundation of the world. As Zechariah 6:13 tells us "and the covenant of peace shall be between Them Both": the reference being to the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20). The "counsel of peace" signifies the compact or agreement which was between the Father and the Son. It was, then, by His own voluntary consent that the Son was made "Surety of a better covenant" (Heb. 7:22), a title which necessarily imports a definite undertaking on His part, namely, His agreeing to yield that obedience to the law which His people owed, to make reparation to Divine justice on behalf of their sins, and thus discharge the whole of their debt. By a free act of His own will, the Son consented to execute that stupendous work which the Father had proposed unto Him.  

This consent of the Son to His Father’ s proposal to Him before the foundation of the world, was, renewed by Him at the moment of His incarnation: "Wherefore when He cometh into the world, He saith... a body hast Thou prepared Me... Then said I, Lo, I come.., to do Thy will O God." He freely acquiesced in assuming to Himself a human nature, to take on Himself the "form of a servant," to be "made under the law," to become "obedient unto death." He told the Father so in the above words, which are recorded for His glory and for our instruction, wonderment and joy. The further consideration of them, as well as the meaning of "in the volume of the book it is written of Me" we must defer (D.V.) till our next article.  

  

  

Combined Bible: Heb 10:8-10

s Dedication   

(Hebrews 10:7-10)   

"As in all our obedience there are two principal ingredients to the true and right constitution of it, namely, the matter of the obedience itself, and the principle and fountain of it in us: whereof the one, the apostle calls the ‘ deed,’ the other ‘ the will’ (2 Cor. 8:11)— which latter God accepts in us, oftentimes without, always more than, the deed or matter of obedience itself even so in Christ’ s obedience, which is the pattern and measure of ours, there are those two eminent parts which complete it. First, the obedience itself, and the worth and value of it in that it is His— so great a person’ s. Second, the willingness, the readiness to undertake and the heartiness to perform it. The dignity of His person gave the value and merit to the obedience performed by Him. But the will, the zeal in His performance gives the acceptance, and hath besides a necessary influence into the worth of it, and the virtue and efficacy of it to sanctify us. All of which you have in Hebrews 10:7-10.  

"The ‘ offering of the ,body of Jesus Christ:’ there is the matter, His becoming ‘ obedient unto death’ (Phil. 2:8). Then there is the readiness by which He did so, ‘ Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,’ This calls for not only a distinct but a more eminent consideration, both necessarily concurring to our sanctification and salvation. Now the story of His willingness to redeem and save is of four parts. 1. His actual consent and undertaking to the work, made and given to the Father from everlasting. 2. The continuance of His will to stand to it from everlasting unto the time of His incarnation. 3. The renewal of this consent when He came into the world. 4. The steadfast continuance of that will all along in the performance, from the cradle to the cross.  

"It was necessary that Christ’ s consent should be then given, even from everlasting, and that as God made a promise to Him for us, so also that He should give consent unto God. Yea; and indeed it was one reason why it was necessary that our Mediator should be God, and existent from eternity, not only to the end that He might be privy to the first design and contrivement of our salvation, and know the bottom of God’ s mind and heart in it, and receive all the promises of God from God for us, but also in this respect, that His own very consent should go to it from the first, even as soon as His Father should design it. And it was most meet it should be so; for the performance and all the working part of it was to be His, to be laid upon His shoulders to execute, and it was a hard task, and therefore reasonable He should both know it from the first, seeing He was extant together with His Father. It was fit that both His heart and head should be in it from the first. And you have all in one Scripture, Isaiah 9:6, where, when Christ is promised, ‘ Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given,’ observe under what titles He is set for unto us:  

"‘ Wonderful Counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father,’ where everlastingness, which is affixed to one, is yet common to those other two. The ‘ everlasting Counselor,’ as well as ‘ everlasting Father,’ for He was both Counselor and Father, in that He was the Mighty God, and all alike from everlasting. For, being God, and with His Father as a Son from everlasting, He must needs be a Counselor with Him, and so privy unto all God meant to do, especially in that very business, for the performance of which He is there saint to be given as a Son, and born as a Child, and the effecting of which is also said to be laid wholly on His shoulder. Certainly in this case, if God could hide nothing from Abraham He was to do, much less God from Christ, who was God with Him from everlasting. And as He was for this cause to be privy to it for the cognizance of the matter, so to have given His actual consent likewise thereunto; for He was to be the Father and Founder of all that was to be done in it. And in that very respect and in relation to that act of will, then passed, whereby He became a ‘ Father’ of that business for us, it is He is styled the ‘ everlasting Father.’ For it is in respect of that everlastingness He is God, and so ‘ Father’ from everlasting, as well as God from everlasting; a ‘ Counselor’ for us with God, a ‘ Father’ of us in our salvation. God’ s ‘ Counselor,’ because His wisdom was jointly in that plot and the contrivement of it: and ‘ Father’ both of us and this design, because of His will in it, and undertaking to effect it. In that His heart and will were in it as well as the Father’ s He was therefore the ‘ Father’ of it as well as God, and brought it to perfection" (Adopted, with slight variations, from T. Goodwin, 1600-1680).  

Concerning the continuance of the Son’ s willingness to the Father’ s purpose, from everlasting to the time when His humanity was conceived in the Virgin’ s womb, we have more than a hint in that remarkable passage found in Proverbs 8. There (by the Spirit of prophecy) we are permitted to hear Him say of the Father, "Then I was by Him, as One brought up with him." But not only so, He added, "And I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him; rejoicing in the habitable part (that portion where His tabernacle was to be placed) of His earth; and My delights were with the sons of men" (verses 30, 31). Thus we see how His heart was more set upon the redeeming of His people than all other works. The theophanic manifestations which He made of Himself from time to time during the O.T. period, illustrated the same fact: see Genesis 12:7, Exodus 3:2-9, Daniel 3:25 etc.  

But it is the renewing of His consent when Christ came into the world which we would particularly contemplate. This may well be called the will of consecration of Himself by a vow to this great work, then solemnly made and given. This was the dedication of His holy "Temple" (John 2:19), foreshadowed of old by Solomon in the dedication of the temple which he erected unto God. This took place at the moment that His humanity was conceived by the Virgin: "When He cometh into the world, He saith... a body (a vehicle of service) hast Thou prepared Me,... Lo, I come, to do Thy will, O God." How truly marvellous and blessed that it pleased the Holy Spirit (the Divine Secretary of Heaven, and Recorder of the everlasting covenant) to write down for our learning the very words which the Son uttered to His Father at the moment when He condescended to take our nature and become incarnate! Equally wonderful is it that we are permitted to hear the very words which the Father addressed to the Son on His return to Heaven: "The Lord said to My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Ps. 110:1).  

"When He cometh into the world, He saith." The Speaker is none other than the second person in the Divine Trinity. He was the One who took that "body" into everlasting union with Himself— an infinitely greater condescension than for the noblest king to marry the meanest servant-girl. The ineffably glorious Son of God was personally humbled far more and gave much more away than did that humanity when it was humiliated by being nailed to the cross. Therefore was His willingness to this tremendous stoop eminently requisite and recorded for our comfort and praise. Thus, at the very moment that the human nature was amaking, and not yet capable of giving its own consent, He who was the Brightness of the Father’ s glory and the express Image of His person, announced His readiness. Inexpressibly blessed is this; may the contemplation thereof bow us in worship before Him. "Worthy is the Lamb!"  

"Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of Me), to do Thy will, O God" (verse 7). There is a double reference (as is so often the case with the words of God) in the parenthetical clause. The "book" He mentioned primarily regarded the archives of God’ s eternal counsels, the scroll of His decrees Secondarily, it concerned the Holy Scriptures, which are a partial transcript of that record of the Divine will which is preserved on High (Ps. 119:89). In that "book," drawn up by the Holy Spirit, it is written of Christ, the God-man Mediator for He is the Sum and Substance of all the Divine counsels (Eph. 3:11), as well as the Depository of all the Divine promises (2 Cor. 1:20). The Son was perfectly cognisant of all that was written in that book, for He had been "Counselor" with the Father. The term "volume" is the right translation of the Hebrew word "magillah" in Psalm 40:7, but the Greek word "kephalis" ought most certainly to be rendered "head"— "kephale" occurs seventy-six times in the N.T., and is always rendered "head" elsewhere.  

A most wondrous and blessed revelation is here made known to us: "in the head of the book" of God’ s decrees, at the beginning thereof, it is "written of" Christ! In that book is recorded the names of all God’ s favored children: Luke 10:20, Hebrews 12:23; but at the head of them is Christ’ s, for "in all things" He must have the "pre-eminence" (Col. 1:18). Thus, the first name on that heavenly scroll of the Divine decrees is that of the Mediator Himself! So too in the Holy Scriptures, which give us a copy, in part, the first name in the O.T. is that of Christ as Creator (Gen. 1:1 cf. John 1:1-3), and the first name in the N.T. is "Jesus Christ" (Matthew 1:1)! Yes, "in the head of the Book" it is written of Him.  

The Man Christ Jesus was the first one chosen of God; chosen to be taken into everlasting union with the second person of the Trinity. Therefore does the Father say to us, "Behold My Servant, whom I uphold, Mine Elect in whom My soul delighteth" (Isa. 42:1). The Church was chosen in Christ (Eph. 1:4) and then given to Christ (Heb. 2:13). The Man Christ Jesus, taken into union with God the Son, was appointed to be the Head of the whole election of grace, and they to be members of His mystical Body (Eph. 1:22, 23; 5:30). "Christ be My first elect He said; Then chose our souls in Christ our Head."  

Precious too is it to discover that the human nature of Christ also consented to the terms of the everlasting covenant, for it was something distinct from the Divine nature of God the Son, and so had a distinct will, and was directly concerned in the Great Transaction, for it was to be made the subject of all the sufferings and was to be the sacrifice offered up. The fundamental consent was the Divine Person’ s, and this He gave when assuming our nature; but there was also an accessory consent of the human nature, now married into one person with the Divine. How soon then, when was it that the human nature gave its consent? No doubt many will deem this a question which it is impossible for us to answer, and that any effort so to do would be a prying into "secret things." Not so: it belongs to those things which are revealed.  

Ere turning to the consideration of this marvelous detail, we must not overlook the willingness of the virgin Mary to be— in such an unprecedented manner, and in a way which (humanly speaking) seriously endangered her own moral reputation— the mother of our Lord’ s sacred humanity. This is most blessedly shown us in the inspired record of Luke’ s Gospel. There we learn that this amazing honor, yet sore trial, was proposed to her (not forced upon her, for God never violates human accountability!) by the angel: "Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name Jesus" (1:31). Mark now her meek response: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord"— I give myself up to Him— "be it unto me according to thy word" (1:38). Not until after she had herself acquiesced, did she "conceive"— note the word "before" in Luke 2:21 and compare with Luke 1:31-38. Thus does God make His people "willing" in the day of His power (Ps. 110:3).  

Returning now to the willingness of our Lord’ s humanity in consenting to God’ s eternal purpose: "This may safely be affirmed, that as soon as, or when first He began to put forth any acts of reason, that then His will was guided to direct its aim and intentions to God as His Father, from Himself as the Mediator. And look, as in infant’ s hearts, if they had been born in innocency, there would have been sown the notion of God, whom they should first have known, whatever else they knew; and the moral law being written in their hearts, they should have directed their actions to God and His glory, through a natural instinct and tendency of spirit. Thus it was in Christ when an infant, and such holy principles guided Him to that, which was that will of God for Him, and to be performed by Him; and which was to sway and direct all His actions and thoughts, that were to be the matter of our justification, which were to be exerted more and more according to the capacity of reason as it should grow" (T. Goodwin).  

There was a meetness, yea a needs-be for this. For what Christ did as a Child had a meritoriousness in it, as much as what He did when a full-grown Man. So too what He suffered, even in His very circumcision, is made influential unto the sanctification of His people through the virtue of it, equally with what He suffered on the cross. His coat was "without seam" (John 19:23): the righteousness He wrought out for His Church was a unit— beginning at Bethlehem’ s manger, consummated at Calvary. It is the 22nd Psalm which furnishes a definite answer to our question, and reveals how early the Savior was dedicated to God. Hear His gracious and unique words: "Thou art He that took Me out of the womb: Thou didst make Me hope upon My mother’ s breasts. I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art My God from My mother’ s belly" (verses 9, 10). O my brethren and sisters, prostrate your souls in adoration before this Holy One, who from the very first instant after He entered this world was unreservedly dedicated and consecrated to God, owning Him, relying wholly upon Him.  

In this we may behold the fulfillment of a lovely and striking type, namely, that of the Nazarite, to which Matthew 2:23 directly, though not exclusively, refers. The "Nazarite" was one who, voluntarily, separated and devoted himself entirely unto the Lord (Num. 6:12). Samson is the outstanding illustration of this in the O.T.: the parallels between him and Christ are remarkable. 1. An angel announced to his mother her conception (Judg. 13:2-3). 2. The prophecy of the angel is recorded. 3. He was sent to a woman utterly barren, to show her conception was extraordinary. 4. Her son was to be a Nazarite, that is, "holy to the Lord" (Num. 6:8). 5. He was to be "a Nazarite unto God from the womb" (Judg. 13:5). 6. It was declared that her son should be a deliverer of Israel (verse 5). 7. Israel was then subject to the Gentiles (the Philistines), as the Jews were to the Romans when Christ was born. 8. It was in his death that he wrought his mightiest victory!  

Equally striking, equally blessed, are the first words which the N.T. records as being uttered by our Savior: "know ye not that in the (affairs) of My Father it behooves to be Me" (Bagster Interlinear). The Greek is very emphatic, the last word before "Me" signifying to be completely and continuously given up to it, and is rendered "wholly" in 1 Timothy 4:15. The reader is familiar with the context of Luke 2:49. The Savior’ s mother appears to have chided Him, and, in substance, He said: True you are My earthly parent, and I have been subject to you hitherto in your particular province, but do you not know that I have another Father, far higher than you, who hath commanded Me, by virtue of My office of Mediator, other manner of business? I am the Christ, devoted to the Father’ s interests; His will and law is written in My heart; I am not Mine own!  

Let us revert for a moment to the 40th Psalm. There we hear the Savior saying, "Mine ears hast Thou digged" (verse 6): that figurative language applied only to His humanity. The metaphor employed is taken from Exodus 21:1-6. The Hebrew servant was entitled to, "go out free" at the end of the sixth year, but an exception was allowed for: "If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then... his master shall bore his ear through with an aul, and he shall serve him for ever" (verses 5, 6). The antitype of this is seen in Christ. As creatures, we are necessarily born "under the law," subjects of the government of God. With the Man Christ Jesus, it was otherwise. His humanity, having been taken into union with the second person in the Trinity, was altogether exempt from any servile subjection, just as a woman ceases to be a subject when married to a king. It was an act of unparalleled condescension, by His own voluntary will, that the God-man entered the place of service; and love, love to His God, to His Church, His people, was the moving-cause.  

Observe another thing in the prophetic language of the Mediator in Psalm 40: "Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of Me; I delight to do Thy will, O My God: yea, Thy law is within My heart" (verses 7, 8). When the appointed hour arrived the Son volunteered to fulfill every jot and tittle which had been recorded of Him in the Book of God’ s decrees— transcribed (in part) on the pages of Holy Writ. He carried all of it written in His heart. This was even more than to have His ear "bored"— to give free consent to the Father’ s purpose; it was, as it would have been if infants had been born in innocency, to have God’ s law (the expression of His will!) as the molding principle and controlling factor of His human nature, dwelling in the very center of His affections. Thus could He say, "My meat (My very sustenance and substance) is to do the will of Him that sent Me, and to finish His work" (John 4:34) i.e. actualize what the Father had ordained.  

Our theme is exhaustless; eternity will be too short to contemplate it. Bear with the writer, dear reader, as he endeavors to follow it a step further. "But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50). What words were those! The Lord Jesus knew the unspeakable bitterness of that baptism, a baptism such as no mere creature could have endured; nevertheless, He panted after it. His very heart was contracted by the delay. Never woman desired more to be delivered than did He to finish His travail, to pass over that "brook" (Ps. 110:7), that sea of wrath into which He should be immersed. Note His remarkable word to Judas: "that thou doest do quickly" (John 13:27).  

Again, mark how when He first announced to His disciples His forthcoming sufferings and death (Matthew 16:21), and Peter "took Him (aside as a friend out of natural affection) and began to rebuke Him, saying, Pity thyself, Lord"— Thou who art going about doing good, ministering to the needy, allow not Thyself to suffer such indignities, such an ignominious end. And how did Christ receive this word? Did He appreciate it? No, never did He take any word so ill; never did His holy zeal flash forth more vividly than then. He turned and said unto Peter, "Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art an offense unto Me." Never such word was spoken unto saint, before or since. The word "offense" means an occasion of stumbling; Peter’ s counsel had that tendency in it— to turn Him aside from that great work upon which His heart was so fully set.  

There is a remarkable word in the "Pascal Discourse" which it is impossible to explain or account for except on the ground of that holy impatience or zeal which consumed the Savior to make an end of the work the Father had assigned Him. After Judas had gone out to betray Him, the Savior redeemed the time by speaking at length to the Eleven, and in the midst of so doing He said, "But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence" (John 14:31). He was in haste to be gone, lest the band headed by the betrayer should miss Him in the garden. Then He looked (as it were) at the hour-glass of His life, and seeing that the sands of time had not yet completely run out, He resumed and completed His address.  

The closer he drew to the final conflict, the more blessedly did appear the perfectness of His consecration to God. When the moment of arrest arrived, and Peter drew his sword and attempted resistance, the Savior exclaimed, "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11). When conducted to the hall of judgment, He was not dragged, as an unwilling victim, but was "led as a sheep to the slaughter" (Acts 8:32). Hear His own words— spoken centuries before by the Spirit of prophecy— "The Lord God hath opened Mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back. I gave My back to the smiters, and My cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not My face from shame and spitting" (Isa. 50:5, 6). That (excepting the cross itself) was the hardest part of what had been assigned Him, yet He rebelled not. O blessed Savior grant us more of Thy spirit.  

He never showed the slightest sign of reluctancy till Gethsemane was reached, when He took (as it were) a more immediate look into the awful cup which He was to drink, and saw in it the wrath of God and His being made a "curse." Then, to exhibit the holiness of His nature, shrinking from being "made sin" (2 Cor. 5:21), to demonstrate the reality of His humanity— trembling, horrified, in anguish at what awaited Him; and to manifest His unquenchable love to us, by making known more clearly what He suffered on our behalf, He cried, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." Yet instantly He was quieted: "Nevertheless, not My will be done, but Thine." Thus we are shown again His full and perfect acquiesence to the Father’ s purpose, and that the one and only object before Him was the doing of the Father’ s will.  

Yet one more thought on this precious subject: "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God." Weigh well the verb. It was not merely that the Son consented to passively endure whatever the Father was pleased to lay upon Him, but also that He desired to actively perform the work which had been allotted to Him. Though that work involved immeasurable humiliation, untold anguish, though it entailed not only Bethlehem’ s manger but Calvary’ s cross, He hesitated not. As a child, as a Man, in life and in death, He was "obedient" to His God. Our disobedience was voluntary, so the satisfaction which He made for us was voluntary. Though what He did was done out of love for us, yet chiefly in subjection to God’ s will and out of love to Him. "I love the Father; and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do" (John 14:31)!  

Let us pause long enough to make one word of application. In view of all that has been before us, of what surpassing value must be such obedience! When we remember that the One we have been contemplating is none other than the Almighty, who, "hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand and meted heaven with a span" (Isa. 40:12), then is it not obvious that this humiliation and consecration must possess a dignity and efficacy which has more than compensated God for all the dreadful disobedience of His people! It was the Divine excellency of Christ’ s person which gave infinite worth to all that He did as the God-man-Mediator; therefore is He able to "save unto the uttermost them that come unto God by Him." O Christian reader look away from self with its ten thousand failures, to Him who is "Altogether Lovely." No matter how black and foul thy sins, the precious blood of such an One cleanseth from them all. And what wholehearted devotion is due unto Him from us! O may His love truly constrain us to obey and please Him.  

"Above when He said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hast pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; Then said He, Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second" (verses 8, 9). In these words we have the apostle’ s inspired comment upon the remarkable quotation given from Psalm 40. Repetition is here made that the conclusion drawn might the more plainly appear. That to which attention is now directed is to the order of statement, and what that order necessarily intimated. The first word of verse 8 ("Above") and the first of verse 9 ("Then") are placed in opposition and it is to them that the "first" and the "second" at the end of verse 9 looks.  

Granting that the Levitical sacrifices were "offered by the law," nevertheless, God rejected them as the means of making real expiation of sin and the saving of His church. This He had made known as far back as the days of David; nor was it a new decision that God formed then, for what He spoke through His prophets in time was but the revelation of what He had decreed in eternity. This the Son, the Mediator, was cognizant of, therefore did He say, "Lo I come to do Thy will, O God." "Lo" Behold! a word signalizing what a glorious spectacle was then presented to God, to angels, and to men. "I come" from Heaven to earth, from the "form of God" to the "form of a servant;" come forth like the rising of the sun, with light and healing in his wings, or as a giant rejoicing to run his race. To "do Thy will," to perform Thy counsels, to execute what Thou requirest, to render that entire service of love which Thy people owed unto the law, to perform the great work of redemption. Thus, the perfect obedience of Christ is placed in direct contrast from the whole of the Levitical offerings: His accomplishing what theirs could not.  

"He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second." This inference is patent; no other conclusion could be drawn. The Levitical offerings were unefficacious to accomplish the purpose of God; the satisfaction of the incarnate Son had. The Greek word for "taketh away" is even stronger than the term applied to the old covenant— "made old" and "vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). It is usually applied to the taking away of life (Acts 16:27). Dead things are not only useless, but prove harmful carrion, fit only to be buried! Thus it was with the Mosaic shadows. So also an equally emphatic and final word is used in connection with the one offering of our Lord’ s: it has "established" the will of God concerning the Church. That is, it has placed it on such an immutable foundation that it shall never be moved or altered.  

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (verse 10). This is a commentary upon the whole passage. "By," or better "in which will" refers not to Christ’ s, for the preceding verse speaks of the will of the Father, purposing that Christ should offer the perfect and acceptable sacrifice. Moreover, the "will" is distinguished from the "offering" of the Redeemer. The "Thy will" of verse 9 refers to the eternal agreement between the Father and the Son in connection with the covenant of redemption, the performing of His "commandment" (John 10:18). "In which will" gives the sphere or element in which the great sacrifice was offered and in which the elect are "sanctified."  

"In the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." "Sanctified" positionally, restored to God’ s favor, standing accepted before Him. The death of Christ was a "sacrifice" (7:27, 9:23), by which He put away sin (Heb. 9:26) and provided for the purging of our conscience (Heb. 9:14) and the setting apart of our persons unto God (Heb. 10:14). All these passages affirm that the death of Christ was a sacrifice by which the elect are separated as a peculiar people unto the worship of the living God. It is important to see the type realized in the Antitype. "As the ancient sacrifices, as symbols in the lower sphere, freed the worshipper from merited (temporal) punishment, because the guilt passed over to the victim, so the death of Christ, in a higher sphere, not only displayed the punishment due to us for sin, but the actual removal of that punishment. It puts us in the position of a people near to God, a holy people, as Israel were in a typical (or ceremonial) sense" (G. Smeaton).  

"In the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." "Sanctified is here to be taken in its widest latitude, as including a full expiation of sin, a complete dedication to God, a real purification of our natures, a permanent peace of conscience unto which belongs the privilege of immediate access to God. Faith is the instrumental cause, whereby we enter into the good of it. The Spirit’ s work within is the efficient cause, whereby we are enabled to believe and lay hold of it. The redemptive work of Christ is the meritorious cause, whereby He earned for us the gift of His Spirit to renew us. But the sovereign and eternal will of the Father is the supreme and originating cause. All that the will of God ordained for the good of His Church is communicated to us through the satisfaction or offering of Christ, but this is only apprehended by an understanding enlightened and a heart opened by the Holy Spirit.  

  

  

MHCC: Heb 10:1-10

The apostle having shown that the tabernacle, and ordinances of the covenant of Sinai, were only emblems and types of the gospel, concludes that the sacrifices the high priests offered continually, could not make the worshippers perfect, with respect to pardon, and the purifying of their consciences. But when " God manifested in the flesh," became the sacrifice, and his death upon the accursed tree the ransom, then the Sufferer being of infinite worth, his free-will sufferings were of infinite value. The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must of his own will place himself in the sinner's stead: Christ did so. The fountain of all that Christ has done for his people, is the sovereign will and grace of God. The righteousness brought in, and the sacrifice once offered by Christ, are of eternal power, and his salvation shall never be done away. They are of power to make all the comers thereunto perfect; they derive from the atoning blood, strength and motives for obedience, and inward comfort.

Matthew Henry: Heb 10:1-6

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.

III. 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.

IV. 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.

Matthew Henry: Heb 10:7-18

Here the apostle raises up and exalts the Lord Jesus Christ, as high as he had laid the Levitical priesthood low. He recommends Christ to them as the true high priest, the true atoning sacrifice, the antitype of all the rest: and this he illustrates,

I. From the purpose and promise of God concerning Christ, which are frequently recorded in the volume of the book of God, Heb 10:7. God had not only decreed, but declared by Moses and the prophets, that Christ should come and be the great high priest of the church, and should offer up a perfect and a perfecting sacrifice. It was written of Christ, in the beginning of the book of God, that the seed of the woman should break the serpent's head; and the Old Testament abounds with prophecies concerning Christ. Now since he is the person so often promised, so much spoken of, so long expected by the people of God, he ought to be received with great honour and gratitude.

II. From what God had done in preparing a body for Christ (that is, a human nature), that he might be qualified to be our Redeemer and Advocate; uniting the two natures in his own person, he was a fit Mediator to go between God and man; a days-man to lay his hand upon both, a peace-maker, to reconcile them, and an everlasting band of union between God and the creature - " My ears hast thou opened; thou has fully instructed me, furnished and fitted me for the work, and engaged me in it,"Psa 40:6. Now a Saviour thus provided, and prepared by God himself in so extraordinary a manner, ought to be received with great affection and gladness.

III. From the readiness and willingness that Christ discovered to engage in this work, when no other sacrifice would be accepted, Heb 10:7-9. When no less sacrifice would be a proper satisfaction to the justice of God than that of Christ himself, then Christ voluntarily came into it: " Lo, I come! I delight to do thy will, O God! Let thy curse fall upon me, but let these go their way. Father, I delight to fulfil thy counsels, and my covenant with thee for them; I delight to perform all thy promises, to fulfil all the prophecies."This should endear Christ and our Bibles to us, that in Christ we have the fulfilling of the scriptures.

IV. From the errand and design upon which Christ came; and this was to do the will of God, not only as a prophet to reveal the will of God, not only as a king to give forth divine laws, but as a priest to satisfy the demands of justice, and to fulfil all righteousness. Christ came to do the will of God in two instances. 1. In taking away the first priesthood, which God had no pleasure in; not only taking away the curse of the covenant of works, and canceling the sentence denounced against us as sinners, but taking away the insufficient typical priesthood, and blotting out the hand-writing of ceremonial ordinances and nailing it to his cross. 2. In establishing the second, that is, his own priesthood and the everlasting gospel, the most pure and perfect dispensation of the covenant of grace; this is the great design upon which the heart of God was set from all eternity. The will of God centers and terminates in it; and it is not more agreeable to the will of God than it is advantageous to the souls of men; for it is by this will that we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, Heb 10:10. Observe, (1.) What is the fountain of all that Christ has done for his people - the sovereign will and grace of God. (2.) How we come to partake of what Christ has done for us - by being sanctified, converted, effectually called, wherein we are united to Christ, and so partake of the benefits of his redemption; and this sanctification is owing to the oblation he made of himself to God.

V. From the perfect efficacy of the priesthood of Christ (Heb 10:14): By one offering he hath for ever perfected those that are sanctified; he has delivered and will perfectly deliver those that are brought over to him, from all the guilt, power, and punishment of sin, and will put them into the sure possession of perfect holiness and felicity. This is what the Levitical priesthood could never do; and, if we indeed are aiming at a perfect state, we must receive the Lord Jesus as the only high priest that can bring us to that state.

VI. From the place to which our Lord Jesus is now exalted, the honour he has there, and the further honour he shall have: This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down at the right hand of God, henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool, Heb 10:12, Heb 10:13. Here observe, 1. To what honour Christ, as man and Mediator, is exalted - to the right hand of God, the seat of power, interest, and activity: the giving hand; all the favours that God bestows on his people are handed to them by Christ: the receiving hand; all the duties that God accepts from men are presented by Christ: the working hand; all that pertains to the kingdoms of providence and grace is administered by Christ; and therefore this is the highest post of honour. 2. How Christ came to this honour - not merely by the purpose or donation of the Father, but by his own merit and purchase, as a reward due to his sufferings; and, as he can never be deprived of an honour so much his due, so he will never quit it, nor cease to employ it for his people's good. 3. How he enjoys this honour - with the greatest satisfaction and rest; he is for ever sitting down there. The Father acquiesces and is satisfied in him; he is satisfied in his Father's will and presence; this is his rest for ever; here he will dwell, for he has both desired and deserved it. 4. He has further expectations, which shall not be disappointed; for they are grounded upon the promise of the Father, who hath said unto him, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool, Psa 110:1. One would think such a person as Christ could have no enemies except in hell; but it is certain that he has enemies on earth, very many, and very inveterate ones. Let not Christians then wonder that they have enemies, though they desire to live peaceably with all men. But Christ's enemies shall be made his footstool; some by conversion, others by confusion; and, which way soever it be, Christ will be honoured. Of this Christ is assured, this he is expecting, and his people should rejoice in the expectation of it; for, when his enemies shall be subdued, their enemies, that are so for his sake, shall be subdued also.

VII. The apostle recommends Christ from the witness the Holy Ghost has given in the scriptures concerning him; this relates chiefly to what should be the happy fruit and consequence of his humiliation and sufferings, which in general is that new and gracious covenant that is founded upon his satisfaction, and sealed by his blood (Heb 10:15): Whereof the Holy Ghost is a witness. The passage is cited from Jer 31:31, in which covenant God promises, 1. That he will pour out his Spirit upon his people, so as to give them wisdom, will, and power, to obey his word; he will put his laws in their hearts, and write them in their minds, Heb 10:16. This will make their duty plain, easy, and pleasant. 2. Their sins and iniquities he will remember no more (Heb 10:17), which will alone show the riches of divine grace, and the sufficiency of Christ's satisfaction, that it needs not be repeated, Heb 10:18. For there shall be no more remembrance of sin against true believers, either to shame them now or to condemn them hereafter. This was much more than the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices could effect.

And now we have gone through the doctrinal part of the epistle, in which we have met with many things dark and difficult to be understood, which we must impute to the weakness and dulness of our own minds. The apostle now proceeds to apply this great doctrine, so as to influence their affections, and direct their practice, setting before them the dignities and duties of the gospel state.

Barclay: Heb 10:1-10

To the writer to the Hebrews the whole business of sacrifice was only a pale copy of what real worship ought to be. The business of religion was to bring a man into a close relationship with God and that is what these sacrifices could never do. The best that they could do was to give him a distant and spasmodic contact with God. He uses two words to indicate what he means. He says that these things are a pale shadow. The word he uses is skia (4639), the Greek for a shadow, and it means a nebulous reflection, a mere silhouette, a form without reality. He says that they do not give a real image. The word he uses is eikon (1504), which means a complete representation, a detailed reproduction. It actually does mean a portrait, and would mean a photograph, if there had been such a thing in those days. In effect he is saying: "Without Christ you cannot get beyond the shadows of God."

He brings proof. Year by year the sacrifices of the Tabernacle and especially of the Day of Atonement go on. An effective thing does not need to be done again; the very fact of the repetition of these sacrifices is the final proof that they are not purifying men's souls and not giving full and uninterrupted access to God. Our writer goes further--he says that all they are is a reminder of sin. So far from purifying a man, they remind him that he is not purified and that his sins still stand between him and God.

Let us take an analogy. A man is ill. A bottle of medicine is prescribed for him. If that medicine effects a cure, every time he looks at the bottle thereafter, he will say: "That is what gave me back my health." On the other hand, if the medicine is ineffective, every time he looks at the bottle he will be reminded that he is ill and that the recommended cure was useless.

So the writer to the Hebrews says with prophetic vehemence: "The sacrifice of animals is powerless to purify a man and give him access to God. All that such sacrifices can do is to remind a man that he is an uncured sinner and that the barrier of his sin is between himself and God." So far from erasing his sin, they underline it.

The only effective sacrifice is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. To make his point and to explain what is in his mind, Hebrews takes a quotation from Psa 40:6-9. In the Revised Standard Version, which is close to the original Hebrew, the passage runs:

"Sacrifice and offering thou dost not desire;

but thou hast given me an open ear.

Burnt-offering and sin-offering thou hast not required.

Then I said: Lo I come;

In the roll of the book it is written of me.

I delight to do thy will, O my God."

The writer to the Hebrews quotes it differently and in the second line he has:

"A body you have prepared for me."

The explanation is that he was not quoting from the original Hebrew but from the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. About 270 B.C. the task of translating the Old Testament into Greek was begun in Alexandria in Egypt. Obviously far more people in the ancient world read Greek than Hebrew. It is very likely that the writer to the Hebrews did not know any Hebrew at all and therefore it is the Septuagint that he uses. In any event the meaning of the two phrases is the same. "Thou hast given me an open ear," means, "You have so touched me that everything I hear I obey." It is the obedient car of which the psalmist is thinking. "A body you have prepared for me," really means, "You created me that in my body and with my body I should do your will." In essence the meaning is the same.

The writer to the Hebrews has taken the words of the psalm and put them into the mouth of Jesus. What they say is that God wants not animal sacrifices but obedience to his will. In its essence sacrifice was a noble thing. It meant that a man was taking something dear to him and giving it to God to show his love. But human nature being what it is it was easy for the idea to degenerate and for sacrifice to be thought of as a way of buying God's forgiveness.

The writer to the Hebrews was not saying anything new when he said that obedience was the only true sacrifice. Long before him the prophets had seen how sacrifice had degenerated and had told the people that what God wanted was not the blood and the flesh of animals but the obedience of a man's life. That is precisely one of the noblest thoughts of the Old Testament men of God.

"And Samuel said, has the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings

and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to

obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of

rams" (1Sa 15:22).

"Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving; and pay your vows to

the Most High" (Psa 50:14).

"For thou bast no delight in sacrifice; were I to give a burnt

offering, thou wouldst not be pleased. The sacrifice acceptable to

God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou

wilt not despise." (Psa 51:16-17).

"For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge

of God, rather than burnt offerings." (Hos 6:6).

"What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord;

I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed

beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of

he-goats.... Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an

abomination to me.... When you spread forth your hands. I

will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers,

I will not listen; your hands are full of blood.... Cease to do

evil, learn to do good" (Isa 1:11-20).

"With what shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself

before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,

with calves a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands

of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my

first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin

of my soul?" He has showed you, O man, what is good; and what

does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love

kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." (Mic 6:6-8).

Always there had been voices crying out for God that the only sacrifice was that of obedience. Nothing but obedience could open the way to God; disobedience set up a barrier that no animal sacrifice could ever take away. Jesus was the perfect sacrifice because he perfectly did God's will. He took himself and said to God: "Do with me as you will." He brought to God for men what no man had been able to bring--the perfect obedience, that was the perfect sacrifice.

If we are ever to have fellowship with God, obedience is the only way. What man could not offer, Jesus offered. In his perfect manhood he offered the perfect sacrifice of the perfect obedience. Through that the way was once and for all opened up for us.

Constable: Heb 5:11--11:1

III. The High Priestly Office of the Son 5:11--10:39

The transition from exposition (4:15-5:10) to exhortation (5:11-6:20) marks the beginning of a new division in this sermon. The structure of this division is as follows.¹⁵⁸

a Preliminary exhortation (5:11-6:20)

A The priest like Melchizedek (7:1-28)

B The single, personal sacrifice for sins (8:1-9:28)

C The achievement of eternal salvation (10:1-18)

a' Concluding exhortation (10:19-39)

A central theme of Hebrews, redemptive sacrifice, comes into prominence in this section of the text.

Constable: Heb 7:1--10:19

C. The Son's High Priestly Ministry 7:1-10:18

The great resource of Christians when tempted to apostatize is our high priest, Jesus Christ. The writer therefore spent considerable time and space expounding His high priesthood to enable his readers to benefit from their resource. This section of the book continues to glorify Jesus Christ so the readers would appreciate Him sufficiently and not turn from. Him.

"In Hebrews 7, the writer argued that Christ's priesthood, like Melchizedek's, is superior in its order. In Hebrews 8, the emphasis is on Christ's better covenant; in Hebrews 9, it is His better sanctuary; and Hebrews 10 concludes the section by arguing for Christ's better sacrifice."²¹¹

Constable: Heb 10:1-18

3. The accomplishment of our high priest 10:1-18

This section on the superior high priestly ministry of Christ (7:1-10:18) concludes with this pericope in which the writer emphasized the perfecting effect of Jesus Christ's sacrifice on New Covenant believers. He wrote this to impress his readers further with the superiority of their condition compared with that of Old Covenant believers.

As pointed out previously, 7:1-10:18 constitutes an exposition of distinctive features of the high priestly office of the Son. These are its similarity to the priesthood of Melchizedek (ch. 7), the fact that it involved a single, personal sacrifice for sins (chs. 8-9), and its achievement of eternal salvation (10:1-18).

". . . in 10:1-18 the writer elaborates the subjective' effects of Christ's offering for the community that enjoys the blessings of the new covenant. Christ's death is considered from the perspective of its efficacy for Christians."²⁹⁰

The argument is again chiastic.

A The inadequacy of the Old Covenant: repeated sacrifices were necessary (vv. 1-4)

B The one sacrifice of Christ: supersedes the repeated sacrifices (vv. 5-10)

B' The priesthood of Christ: supersedes the Levitical priesthood (vv. 11-14)

A' The adequacy of the New Covenant: no more sacrifice for sins is necessary (vv. 15-18)

10:1 The very nature of the Mosaic Law made it impossible to bring believers into intimate relationship with God since it dealt with externals.

"Both Paul and our author speak of the law as a shadow'; but whereas Paul in Col. 2:17 has in mind the legal restrictions of Old Testament times (food-laws and regulations about special days), our author is thinking more especially of the law prescribing matters of priesthood and sacrifice in relation to the wilderness tabernacle and the Jerusalem temple."²⁹¹

"The shadow' [Gr. skia] then is the preliminary outline that an artist may make before he gets to his colors, and the eikon [lit. image, "form"] is the finished portrait. The author is saying that the law is no more than a preliminary sketch. It shows the shape of things to come, but the solid reality is not there."²⁹²

"Make perfect" does not mean to make sinless but to make perfect in our access to God. Jesus Christ provided perfect cleansing for us by His death, as the following verses show.

"This verse (and in fact the whole chapter) continues our writer's argument regarding the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ over the Mosaic rites."²⁹³

10:2-4 The Israelites never enjoyed the extent of freedom from sin's guilt that we do. The Day of Atonement reminded them yearly that their sins needed covering so they could continue to have fellowship with God. We do not have a yearly reminder since Jesus Christ's sacrifice made us acceptable to God (cf. John 13:10; Acts 15:9).

"Take away' (aphaireo) is used of a literal taking off, as of Peter's cutting off the ear of the high priest's slave (Luke 22:50), or metaphorically as of the removal of reproach (Luke 1:25). It signifies the complete removal of sin so that it is no longer a factor in the situation. That is what is needed and that is what the sacrifices could not provide."²⁹⁴

"Some one has well said: The blood of animals cannot cleanse from sin because it is non-moral. The blood of sinning man cannot cleanse because it is immoral. The blood of Christ alone can cleanse because it is moral.'"²⁹⁵

10:5-7 This writer liked to clinch his argument by appealing to Scripture.

"His argument up till now has been the negative one that the animal sacrifices of the old covenant were unavailing. Now he says positively that Christ's sacrifice, which established the new covenant, was effectual. It really put away sin. And it was foreshadowed in the same passage from Jeremiah."²⁹⁶

The passage he quoted first (Ps. 40:6-8) expresses Messiah's commitment to offer His body as a sacrifice to God (at His first advent) because animal sacrifices were inadequate. God's will was the perfection (i.e., thorough cleansing) of believers. Jesus was not some dumb animal that offered its life unthinkingly. He consciously and deliberately offered His life in obedience to God's will.

"The psalmist's words, Lo, I am come to do thy will, O God,' sum up the whole tenor of our Lord's life and ministry, and express the essence of that true sacrifice which God desires."²⁹⁷

The "role of the book" is the written law (torah) of God.

10:8-10 God took no delight in sacrifices as such if they were not the product of a proper attitude. He took away the first Mosaic Covenant and its sacrifices to establish the second New Covenant. Psalm 40 announced the abolition of the old sacrificial system. This was God's will, and it satisfied Him. The writer's view of sanctification here, as elsewhere in this epistle, is positional rather than progressive. God sets aside all believers to Himself at conversion. That is what is in view here.

"Indeed it can be said that sanctification in Hebrews is almost equivalent to justification in Romans, both referring to our position, not to our condition. But there is this vital difference of standpoint: that justification deals with position in relation to God as Judge, while sanctification deals with position in relation to our fellowship with God and our approach to Him in fellowship."²⁹⁸

". . . we must be on our guard lest we read this epistle with Pauline terminology in mind."²⁹⁹

10:11-14 The writer stressed the finality of Jesus Christ's offering further with the contrast in these verses.³⁰⁰ The Levitical priests never sat down because they never finished their work, but Jesus Christ sat down beside His Father because He finished His work.

"A seated priest is the guarantee of a finished work and an accepted sacrifice."³⁰¹

He now awaits the final destruction of His enemies. Those who "are sanctified" (v. 14) are those whom Jesus Christ has perfected and are consequently fully acceptable to God (i.e., all believers).³⁰²

Jesus Christ's sacrifice has accomplished three things for us. It has cleansed our consciences from guilt, it has fitted us to approach God as worshippers, and it has fulfilled what the Old Testament promised.

10:15-18 The Holy Spirit testified through Jeremiah (Jer. 31:33-34; cf. Heb. 8:8-12), and continues to testify, the writer said, that final forgiveness meant the end of sacrifices for sin. God promised this forgiveness in the New Covenant. Consequently no more sacrifices for sin are necessary.

"In Ch. 8 the oracle of Jer. 31:31-34 was quoted in order to prove the obsolescence of the old economy; now it is quoted again in order to establish the permanence of the era of perfection' inaugurated under the new covenant. God has spoken in His Son'; and He has no word to speak beyond Him."³⁰³

The statement that God will remember sins no more (v. 17) means that He will no longer call them back to memory with a view to condemning the sinner (cf. Rom. 8:1). Since God is omniscient He remembers everything, but He does not hold the forgiven sinners sins against him or her. This verse has been a great help to many sinners who have found it hard to believe that God has really forgiven them.

The long section on the high priestly ministry of Jesus ends here (7:1-10:18). The writer showed that Jesus is a superior priest compared with the Levitical priests and that His priesthood supersedes the Levitical priesthood. He also pointed out that Jesus serves under the New Covenant that is superior to the Old Covenant. Furthermore His sacrifice is superior to the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. Finally Jesus' priesthood brings the believer into full acceptance with God, something the former priesthood could not do. Therefore the readers would be foolish to abandon Christianity to return to Judaism.

College: Heb 10:1-39

HEBREWS 10

F. OLD COVENANT SACRIFICES COULD NOT TAKE AWAY SIN (10:1-4)

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. 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. ³ But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, ⁴ because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

10:1 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.

The conjunction "for" (gaΙr , gar ) connects this chapter to the end of chapter 9 although the NIV does not render it. To complete his discussion of the superiority of Christ's sacrifice, our writer returns to another part of the Jewish heritage, last mentioned in 8:4-5 and before that in 7:19 - "the law." In 7:19 we read, in a parenthetical statement, that "the law made nothing perfect," necessitating a better hope by which we could draw near to God. Our writer now enters into a fuller explanation of this truth.

The problem with the law - along with the sacrifices it prescribed - was that it was not this reality. It was "only a shadow" (lit., "The law has a shadow," see 8:5 on skiav , skia ) of "the realities themselves." Eijkwvn (eikôn , "reality") appears only here in Hebrews but is the word Paul uses in Colossians to describe Jesus as "the image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15). By this Paul meant that in Jesus the very "fullness" of God dwelt in bodily form (Col 1:19; 2:9). Christ was not just a "likeness" or "similarity" but the "reality" itself. Similarly, though a shadow may resemble the form which casts it, it is not the reality (cf. use of skia with sw'ma [sôma ], "body," in Col 2:17). And so those sacrifices prescribed by the law could not clear the conscience of the worshiper because they could not perfect him. Because the worshiper could become clean from sin in neither fact nor conscience, he could not draw near to God. This is why we had need for the introduction of "a better hope . . . by which we draw near to God" (7:19).

There is a progressive relationship between (1) the believer's perfection, (2) the believer's conscience, and (3) the believer's ability to draw near to God. The word translated "perfect" (teleiovw , teleioô , v. 1) is the same word which has figured so prominently into our writer's description of the believer's salvation (which has past, present and future dimensions). In its past sense (justification), it describes the removal of sin's guilt from our lives. In its present sense (sanctification), it describes the gradual removal of sin's power from our lives as we grow daily to become more like Jesus. In its future sense (glorification), it describes the eschatological consummation of our holiness and hope.

10:2 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.

While "perfection" terminology in Hebrews most consistently refers to the fact of sin and the real guilt which it incurs for us (in an objective sense), our writer also recognizes the impact of such sin upon our "consciences" (9:9, 14) or the subjective level at which we "feel guilty" for our sins (10:2). The word translated "cleansed" (of worshipers) in v. 2 (kaqarivzw , katharizô ) is the same word used of the conscience in 9:14. However, in 9:9, when we read in the NIV about gifts and sacrifices which "were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper," we noted that the word translated "clear" was teleioô (usually translated "perfect"). This is not mere coincidence. The lack of a real removal of the fact and guilt of sin is still felt in the conscience of the one who would "draw near to worship." Only a sacrifice which accomplishes real forgiveness can truly cleanse the conscience as well.

10:3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,

The argument for the inadequacy of the law and its sacrificial system is framed by an inclusio in the Greek text. The endless repetition of the sacrifices is offered as one sign of their inadequacy. If they had removed sin once for all, they would not have had to be repeated, but they were. Another sign of their inadequacy was the testimony of conscience. In their own hearts and minds, worshipers knew that they were not truly clean. As a result, the most that could be said for the Day of Atonement was that it was "an annual reminder of sins." Paul made the same observation about the Law itself (Rom 3:20; Gal 3:21-22). This is not an insignificant purpose for we need to become aware of our sin and our true situation before God. But it provides no remedy for the guilt and power of sin.

10:4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

In its literal sense, ajfairevw (aphaireô , "take away") is the same word used in the Gospels when we read that Peter drew his sword and "cut off" the ear of the high priest's servant (Matt 26:51; Mark 14:27; Luke 22:50). Here, of course, the word is clearly used in a metaphoric sense but may well retain a forceful sense of finality which is reinforced by the present tense of the verb which could be translated, "to ever take away sin."

G. CHRIST OFFERED HIS BODY TO MAKE US HOLY (10:5-10)

⁵ Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,

but a body you prepared for me;

⁶ with burnt offerings and sin offerings

you were not pleased.

⁷ Then I said, 'Here I am - it is written about me in the scroll -

I have come to do your will, O God.'" ^a

⁸ First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). ⁹ Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. ¹⁰ And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

^a 7 Psalm 40:6-8 (see Septuagint)

10:5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 10:6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 10:7 Then I said, 'Here I am - it is written about me in the scroll - I have come to do your will, O God.'"

To accomplish what the sacrifices prescribed by the law of the old covenant could not ("therefore"), "Christ came into the world." To describe his mission, our writer appeals to Psalm 40:6-8 (actually the LXX of Psalm 39:7-8). Whereas the Hebrew MT refers to "ear," the word "body" appears in the LXX. Many regard the LXX as an interpretive rendering in which what is true of the part (ear) is extended to the whole (body). This interpretive rendering caused little concern for our writer, however, for the word "body" is precisely what he seizes upon to make his point from this passage (see v. 10 below).

The NIV supplies "Christ" as the subject - which is not explicitly identified in the Greek text. There is little reason to question this choice, however. Christ is clearly the one who "came into the world." Our writer clearly applies the words of the text, spoken in first person, to Christ (v. 10). As in other Messianic Psalms, the words of David prefigure those of the Messiah (cf. also the use of Ps 22:22 and Isa 8:18 in Heb 2:12-13). Ellingworth suggests that it is in this sense that Christ "speaks" these words, noting our writers use of present tense forms which can be taken as timeless. Alternatively, there is no indication elsewhere in the New Testament that Christ ever spoke these words during his incarnation but this does not rule out the possibility.

10:8 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 10:9 Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second.

The legal requirements for sacrifices and offerings are described in Leviticus 1-7. Here our writer is not concerned with particular details about them or fine distinctions between them but with their collective inability to satisfy God. The prophets had upbraided Israel for permitting a false confidence in their ritualistic cleanness to erode their sense of guilt or need for repentance (Hos 6:6; Isa 1:11-14; Micah 6:6-8; etc.). Jesus similarly criticized the Pharisees (Matt 9:13; 12:7, cf. Mark 12:32-33). Why would readers want to return to a system which was not only ineffective in dealing with their sin but could well contribute to a spiritual apathy and false confidence which might blind them to their true spiritual condition?

The terms "first" and "second" are the same terms used throughout the letter to contrast the old and new covenants and they reveal our writer's method with the Psalm. He distinguishes between the sacrifices required by the law and the body prepared for the Messiah who came to do God's will. The first, identified with the older covenant, are "set aside." =Anairevw (anaireô , "set aside"), a strong term which is almost always used of "killing" in the NT (of the attempt by Herod to kill the Christ-child, of the crucifixion of Jesus, of the martyrdom of James, etc.). Hence, a stronger translation such as "destroy" could well be justified. In the papyri, i{sthmi (histçmi ) was commonly used in financial transactions, such as when a weighing was done to establish payment, and for the "setting up" of edicts in full view to be read by the public.

10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Two words in the passage provide the basis for our writer's conclusion: "will" and "body." God's will had never been for believers to depend perpetually upon the repeated sacrifices offered under the old covenant. They were ineffective for removing sin and served only to remind us of our guilt (10:3-4). As in 7:11ff., we have read of yet another prophecy which indicated that, all along, God had planned for something better.

His plan was that the sacrifice of Christ's body would do what the other sacrifices could not - make us "holy" (aJgiavzw , hagiazô ). This same word was used in 9:13 to describe how the blood of the animal sacrifices "sanctified" those who were ceremonially unclean. What Christ has done for us is more than ceremonial, however, for we also read in 9:14 that his offer of his "unblemished" self to God was able to "cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death." His sacrifice accomplished in truth and reality what the others could accomplish only in ceremony.

Our author now employs ejfavpax ( ephapax , "once for all") for the third time (7:27; 9:12). More specifically, the word denotes "once for all time" (see 9:12) and here it occupies an emphatic position in the sentence.

H. OUR HIGH PRIEST NOW REIGNS (10:11-14)

¹¹ Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. ¹² But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. ¹³ Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, ¹⁴ because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

10:11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

In chapter 5 (5:1ff.), our writer reasoned from what was true of "every high priest" to what is similarly true of Jesus our great high priest. Here he also begins by describing what is true of "every priest" but his point will rest in yet another significant difference between Jesus and every other priest. The other priests stand while Jesus sits . This frames the comparison.

The phrase "performs his religious duties" renders the same word which elsewhere is simply translated "serve" (the verb leitourgevw [leitourgeô ]; the noun leitourgov" [ leitourgos ] appears in 1:7 and 8:2; the adjective leitourgikov" [ leitourgikos ] in 1:14). The term denotes a service performed in some official capacity, whether political or religious. The verb tenses suggest continuous, repeated action - "stands" renders a perfect tense (past action carrying into the present) and "performs his religious duties" a present tense participle (action simultaneous to the main event, i.e., also continual). The sacrifices are made again and again and they are always "the same." They can "never" take away sin. This last expression is emphatic (oujdevpote , oudepote , "never" followed by a present tense infinitive) and may even be translated, "never, ever take away sin."

10:12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

But after Jesus offered his one sacrifice (here an aorist tense participle, rather than a present) which was for all time , he "sat" (aorist tense - a decisive event of the past). The sacrifice of Jesus was singular, sufficient, permanent and decisive. Where he sat is significant as well, for he sat "at the right hand of God," by his throne which is in heaven (8:1). He was thus able to "draw near" to God, to enter his presence.

10:13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,

Verse 13 actually completes the main clause of verse 12 (the NIV breaks up the sentence, although the rendering still captures the sense). Having completed this aspect of his priestly service, there are no more sacrifices to be made. He now reigns. Only the final victory awaits for the outcome has been determined. That victory is described with terms from a passage that by now is quite familiar to the readers - Psalm 110 ( v. 4 figured prominently into chapter 5 and 7; here, our writer echoes v. 1, quoted in 1:13). At least some of the readers had suffered at the hands of persecutors (10:32-34). For them, the "enemies" of Christ had faces and names and to know that they would be one day made his footstool was a promise of redemption and deliverance that was both physical and spiritual.

10:14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

In this verse we read why Jesus is able to sit and reign - the results of his "one sacrifice." The wording of the NIV may seem a bit confusing to us because it is actually more form-literal than the other major translations. Close attention to the verb forms employed by our writer and to the ways in which the terms have been used to this point in the letter are the key.

NIV Greek Verb Tense Form Significance "has made teleiovw Perfect Past, Completed Action with perfect forever" continuing consequences "are being aJgiavzw Present Durative, Incomplete Action made holy" of an event in progress The significance of teleioô in our writer's theology of salvation has been described in detail elsewhere (7:11; 10:1 most recently) and the present verse is instructive as well. It could be argued that, elsewhere in the chapter, hagiazô is used in a manner roughly synonymous to his use of teleioô in reference to justification (10:10, 29).

Yet, throughout, it has been clear that the salvation of the believer is both an accomplished fact, an ongoing event, and a promise for the future. In the last section of chapter five and the first section of chapter six, "perfection" terminology figured prominently into our writer's challenge for his readers to "go on to maturity" (the ongoing dimension of our salvation in which our condition of life grows toward the holiness we have by virtue of being "in Christ"). We see here a similar use of hagiazô - i.e., our writer seems to use it in a manner similar to teleioô in this sense as well.

Only here, with the terms juxtaposed and formed in different tenses it seems clear that each describes a different dimension of the believer's salvation. In one sense, we "are being made holy" (we "are being saved" as daily our lives become in fact more like Christ). Nevertheless, at the same time, we have already "been made perfect forever" (i.e., Jesus' sacrifice has purchased the forgiveness of our sins and our salvation does not depend on anything we could possibly add to God's plan by our own efforts). In this verse teleioô , then, describes our justification (the forgiveness for sin which we have as a result of our covenant relationship with God - the removal of sin's guilt) while hagiazô describes our sanctification (the process of spiritual growth through which, with the aid of God's Spirit, we someday attain to the fullness of the stature of Christ - the removal of sin's power).

I. THE WITNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

THROUGH JEREMIAH (10:15-18)

¹⁵ The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

¹⁶"This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord.

I will put my laws in their hearts,

and I will write them on their minds." ^a

¹⁷ Then he adds:

"Their sins and lawless acts

I will remember no more." ^b

¹⁸ And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

^a 16 Jer. 31:33 ^b 17 Jer. 31:34

10:15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:

For further "testimony" as to the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, our author returns to Jeremiah 31 which was first introduced in chapter 8 because it described the new covenant and proved that God had planned for this covenant from the beginning. There we read that "God said" these words (8:8) and here that the "Holy Spirit also testifies" through them. Though they have come to us through the prophet Jeremiah, our author clearly recognizes the divine inspiration of Scripture, all of which is "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16; qeovpneusto" [ theopneustos ], a compound word joining qeov" [theos], "God" and pneuvma [ pneuma ], "spirit," "breath" or "wind"). Elsewhere Peter tells us that "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20-21). Whether our author was acquainted with these letters we cannot know but he certainly held to the same view of Scripture. On this use of marturevw (martyreô ) see comments on 7:8 and 7:17.

10:16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds." 10:17 Then he adds: "Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more." 10:18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

In comparison to his citation in chapter 8, our writer is now more selective in quoting from Jeremiah 31, citing only those portions of the passage which suit his purpose here. The first portion (from Jer 331:33 in Heb 1v. 16) identifies the new covenant as topic of the passage while the second portion (from Jer 331:34 in Heb 1v. 17) emphasizes a particular feature of that covenant - its provision for complete forgiveness of sin. Verse 18 frames this half of the chapter before the major transition in verse 19 by inverting the sign argument of 10:1-4. In the first four verses of the chapter, the endless repetition of the offerings of the old covenant are a sign of their inadequacy. Here, the absence of any further sacrifices within the new covenant is a sign of the sufficiency of the single sacrifice of Christ.

J. LET US DRAW NEAR TO GOD AND

SPUR ONE ANOTHER ON (10:19-25)

¹⁹ Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, ²⁰ by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, ²¹ and since we have a great priest over the house of God, ²² let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. ²³ Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. ²⁴ And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. ²⁵ Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another - and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

The "therefore" which introduces verse 19 marks a major transition not only in this chapter but in the letter. As our author turns toward the faith and endurance which God expects from the new covenant community, he begins to address in a more specific manner the exigencies which have moved him to write his "short letter" - the suffering and persecution endured by his readers and their need for a "word of exhortation" which might encourage them to persevere (13:22). Though the burden of chapter 11 will be a definition of and illustration of faith, it is nevertheless set in the context of a stage of the document that becomes much more hortatory than doctrinal. In this section, our writer addresses three commands or exhortations to his readers.

The first of these three commands or exhortations is found in v. 22: "let us draw near to God." In 7:19 our writer first referred to a "better hope . . . by which we draw near to God." Then in 7:25 we read that Jesus is able to "save completely those who come to God." Earlier in this chapter we read the opposite about the sacrifices of the old covenant - they "can never . . . make perfect those who draw near to worship" (10:1). Here, now, we are encouraged - even ordered - to "draw near" to him. In one lengthy and complicated Greek sentence, we can identify the motive, manner and means of our approach to God within the new covenant.

10:19 Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus,

Our motive (i.e., that which would give us a reason to approach him) is twofold: "since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus" (v. 19) and "since we have a great priest over the house of God" (v. 21). Both phrases translate objects of a present tense adverbial participle - the conditions described exist simultaneously with the act commanded by the main verb.

The necessity and efficacy of Christ's blood sacrifice was described in detail in chapter 9 and the reference to "blood" here should be understood in the light of that discussion. The "Most Holy Place" was where Jesus went on our behalf (6:19-20), by his own blood (9:12), and its use here is a typological reference to heaven (4:16; 8:1; 9:24). The statement in v. 19 echoes the command of 4:16, with its connection between that blood and the confidence of the believer, and signals the conclusion of this great discourse on the high priestly ministry of Jesus. "Confidence," however, may be a weak translation of parrhsiva (parrçsia ) which can also mean "courage," "boldness," or "fearlessness." Lane suggests that the word lacks the subjective dimension suggested by "confidence" and suggests "authorization" or "permission" on the basis that the access to God was secured by Christ's sacrifice. Our writer has, however, addressed both the objective and subjective dimensions of sin's guilt (i.e., the clearing and cleansing of "conscience," 9:9,14; 10:2), and so Lane is also correct to point out that the subjective element is not completely absent here (although, he argues, it should not obscure the "objective character of the word." Along the same lines, Ellingworth prefers either the TEV ("complete freedom") or the Jerusalem Bible ("right to enter").

10:20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body,

The reference to Jesus' "blood" is supplemented with a reference to his "body" (savrx , "flesh"). Earlier, we read that Christ entered "behind" the curtain (6:19) but here a specific typological significance is accorded to the curtain itself. Our writer may thus have been acquainted with that element of the passion narratives which noted that, at the moment of Christ's death, "the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" (Matt 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45).

10:21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God,

The reference to Jesus here as "great priest" closely parallels the reference to him as "great high priest" in 4:14. The "house of God" is not a reference to the tabernacle or any other building. Our author has used this same phrase to refer to the community of believers in 3:6 ("Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast"). Not only is he a son over God's house by virtue of who he is (1:2, 3, 5), not only our brother by virtue of his incarnation (2:11, 14), but now priest over us by virtue of his sacrifice and resurrection. Our sin notwithstanding, we have every reason to enter the presence of God with confidence.

10:22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.

Verse 22 describes the manner in which we are to draw near to God. First, we draw near "with a sincere heart." "Sincere" translates ajlhqinov" (alçthinos ), the same word used in reference to the "true" tabernacle (8:2; 9:24). The word may also be translated "dependable," hence Ellingworth's suggestion that it suggests "faithfulness and stability." Kardiva ( kardia ) often means "heart" in the sense of "the seat of physical, spiritual and mental life" or "the center and source of the whole inner life." Our writer seems to use the word in this sense in chapters 3 and 4 when, in several places, he warned his readers not to "harden" their hearts (3:8, 15; 4:7), to see to it that none had "a sinful unbelieving heart" (3:12). In 3:12, he observed that the word of God judges "the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." This fits the present context as well, although the recent references to "conscience" (9:9, 14 and perhaps 10:2) and the joining of "heart" with "conscience" later in this same verse suggest that this is the particular significance of the image here.

See also "draw near to God . . . in full assurance of faith." Plhroporiva (plçroporia , "full assurance," or "certainty," also appeared in 6:11 where the NIV translated it "to make [your hope] sure" (lit., "to the full assurance of the hope"). See comments on 6:11 for more on this word and the relationship between faith, hope and assurance. Here, the genitive ("of faith") is one of source or origin. Our assurance of our salvation - and hence our access to the presence of God - stems from our trust in what Jesus has done for us at the cross. We have confidence to approach God because we have confidence in the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice.

The remainder of this verse describes means by which we draw near to God (i.e., what makes our approach possible). Two perfect tense participles describe events which precede our drawing near but the effects of which continue into the present, making our approach possible.

First, we draw near "having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience." rJantivzw (rhantizô , "sprinkle, purify") is the same word used in chapter 9 in reference to the application of the blood of the old covenant sacrifices to unclean people (9:13, 19), the scroll (9:19), the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies (9:21). The purpose was to make them outwardly and ceremonially clean (9:13). It remained for the sacrifice of Christ to provide the true and inner cleansing (9:14; 10:2) which has both objective and subjective dimensions (see comments on 10:1-4). The blood of Jesus, applied to our lives, removes from us the guilt of sin and the need for any guilty feelings which might cause us to refrain from entering the presence of God.

Second, we draw near "having our bodies washed with pure water." This complements the first means. The first statement refers to an inner cleansing of conscience. This statement refers to an outward act of purification. The word here translated "pure" (kaqarov" , katharos ) is a cognate of the word used to describe the "cleansing" or "purification" (kaqarivzw , katharizô ) wrought by Christ's sacrifice of himself upon the conscience of the believer (9:14), by the blood of the animal sacrifices upon the tabernacle and its tools (9:22) and then that wrought by both (9:23). The blood used for cleansing under the old covenant was mixed with water and hyssop (9:21, cf. Num 19). The pairing of "body" with "heart," however, suggests an outward act of washing which coincides with the inner cleansing that takes place. Our writer has recognized the foundational role which baptism plays in initiating the new covenant relationship with God (6:1), and the New Testament includes clear evidence that immersion was practiced for the remission of sin (Acts 2:38). Paul, for one, had been baptized to "wash away" his sins (Acts 22:16). Both external (guilt) and internal (feelings of guilt) barriers to drawing near to God are removed by his sacrifice when it is applied to our lives and we trust in its sufficiency.

10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful.

Here is the second of the two commands or exhortations in the section. A quite literal translation might read, "hold on to the unwavering profession of the hope." The use of katevcw (katechô , "hold fast, retain faithfully") echoes its appearance in 3:6 where the readers were exhorted to "hold on" to the courage and hope of which they boasted. A literal translation of 3:6 might well read, "hold on to . . . the boast of the hope" (hence 10:23 mirrors the syntax as well). Whereas 3:6 refers to the "boast" (kauvchma , kauchçma ) of the hope, the present verse mentions the "profession" (oJmologiva , homologia ) of the hope. Our author has used the word in 3:1 and 4:14 in the sense of "confession" or an "acknowledgment that one makes" - i.e., with a stress upon the content of what is professed rather than upon professing as an act. Our "hope" is the object of our confession. In Hebrews, ejlpiv" ( elpis ) likewise tends to refer to the thing expected/hoped for rather than the act of expecting (see comments on 6:11). This profession is to be "without wavering" (ajklinhv" , aklinçs ). This word does not occur elsewhere in the NT. It occurs in the papyri in reference to the "impartial" ears of one in authority. The reason we are given for retaining an unchanging profession of what we hope for is that "he who promised is faithful."

On the whole, this verse reiterates from chapter 3 (3:1-6) the exhortation to courage and faithfulness in light of the faithfulness of Jesus, the apostle and high priest who is also God's Son. Now, however, his readers have received a more complete picture of that faithfulness - of the suffering which it demanded and of the victory which resulted. He has been faithful to us. We should be faithful to him. His victory is also ours. No threat of danger can cost us more or take away what we hope for - and already possess - in Christ Jesus.

10:24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another - and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

The NIV gives the impression that there are two separate commands in these verses yet there is only a single command in the single Greek sentence which comprises these two verses. The command is (literally), "consider one another." This same verb (katanoevw , katanoeô ) was translated "fix your thoughts upon" in 3:1. The specific matter we are to "fix" ourselves upon is "how we may spur one another on." Ellingworth notes that paroxusmov" ( paroxysmos ) refers to "intense emotion" and this is reflected in Acts 15:39 where it is used of the "sharp contention" which arose between Paul and Barnabas. Although it can be used in a negative sense ("irritation"), this does not seem to fit the present context. However, the intensity is probably not lacking and so our writer is probably encouraging his readers to take strong action to see that the results in mind are obtained.

Two ends, or results, are specified for this act of "spurring on." One is love. The other is "good works." The two are not unrelated, however. =Agavph (agapç , "love") appears only one other time in the letter - in 6:10 when our readers were offered this assurance: "God . . . will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them." Works which help God's people are the expression of love - love for them and love for God. Our writer will soon refer to some of those works performed by the readers (vv. 32-34). They may be described as "good works" (kalw'n e[rgwn , kalôn ergôn ) to contrast them with the "acts that lead to death" (nekrw'n e[rgwn , nekrôn ergôn , lit., "dead works") referred to previously (6:1; 9:14).

What the NIV renders as a separate exhortation is actually a modal participle, i.e., one which describes the means by which the "spurring on" is carried out. Verse 25 might well begin, "by not giving up meeting together." Although the present tense of the participle need not carry the continual aspect, some see it here - i.e., "don't ever give up meeting together." =Episunagwghv (episynagogç ) is "scarcely to be differentiated from sunagwghv ." The latter was the technical term for the Jewish assembly (synagogue) and never appears in Hebrews. Perhaps our writer, in his effort to dissuade his readers from reverting to Judaism, avoids this term purposely. Even so, assembling with others of like faith had enabled the Jewish faith to survive the dispersion and the importance of the public assembly would have been deeply embedded in their heritage. Nevertheless "some were in the habit of" neglecting meeting together. We are not told why. Perhaps it was for many of the same reasons that people in our own day fail to make and/or keep the same commitment.

What is stated negatively is then repeated in an affirmative manner. Instead, we are to encourage each other ("let us encourage" translates another modal participle which parallels the first). If people today fail to make or keep commitments to the public assembly for reasons similar to those of "some" in the early church, it is also true that the reasons identified here for making and keeping that commitment are also valid today. It is God's plan for "spurring his people on" to love and good works. It is God's plan for providing the encouragement that his people need to remain faithful in a world which not only often fails to provide such encouragement but aggressively seeks to discourage it.

And there is one more reason that should be as important to us as it was to the first readers. We should do it "all the more" as we "see the Day drawing near." In the NT, "the Day" often refers to "the day of God's final judgment." The reference to judgment and raging fire which will consume the enemies of God in v. 27 justifies understanding the term in an eschatological sense. On that day when Jesus appears a second time he will "bring salvation to those who are waiting for him" (9:28). But for those who "keep on sinning" he will bring judgment (10:26-27). How will we be found when Jesus returns? Whether we choose to avail ourselves of the encouragement of the assembly in the present will be a significant factor in whether we will remain faithful until that Day.

K. THE JUDGMENT OF GOD ON THOSE

WHO KEEP SINNING (10:26-31)

²⁶ If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, ²⁷ but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. ²⁸ Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. ²⁹ How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? ³⁰ For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," ^a and again, "The Lord will judge his people." ^{b 31} It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

^a 30 Deut. 32:35 ^b 30 Deut. 32:36; Psalm 135:14

10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left,

Having exhorted his readers to (1) draw near to God, (2) hold unswervingly to their hope and (3) spur one another on, our author now contemplates the alternative possibility. His description of the alternative includes two elements. First, "we deliberately keep on sinning." The NIV attributes the durative sense to the present tense participle here (just as some suggest the present participle in v. 25 should be translated; see comments on 10:25 above). As a result, it is not simply "sin" that threatens to disrupt our covenant relationship with God - forgiveness deals with this contingency. As shown by the context of 10:25, the author does not have in mind the Christian who becomes guilty of this or that particular sin. The person in view is the apostate who "gives up meeting" with the church and "deliberately keeps on sinning." Having abandoned the church, having purposely chosen a lifestyle of continual sin, the apostate spurns Jesus and his blood (10:29). Thus the apostate willfully forfeits the only source of salvation. As before, our writer may have in mind the same kind of "defiant sin" described in Numbers 15:30, which, in the case of the old covenant, caused one to be "cut off" from the covenant community.

As to the second element, this purposeful choice has been made "after we have received the knowledge of the truth." Bauer suggests that the word is to be understood in the definite sense here, as "the content of Christianity as the absolute truth." This is what makes the deliberate and continual choice of sin so tragic - that it comes after our having understood and embraced what Christ has done for us. Calvin characterizes this as anyone who "knowingly and willingly throws away the grace which he had received." This verse is quite reminiscent of the more extended warning of 6:4-8 in which we read of those "who have tasted the word of God" but fall away and refuse to repent, crucifying the Son of God all over again to their own loss.

Our writer is specific about the consequences of this purposeful choice of a lifestyle of deliberate and continuous sin. His first description pertains to what is lost: "no sacrifice for sins is left." This statement is a stark contrast to that in v. 18: "there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." The statement of v. 18 means that no additional sacrifices are necessary because Christ's sacrifice has made forgiveness available. The statement in the present verse, however, means that the forgiveness once possessed is now unavailable - "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" (9:22). As Calvin noted, "If no salvation is to be found apart from Him, we should not be surprised that those who let go of Him of their own accord are deprived of every hope of pardon."

The condition is not inherently irreversible, however. As in 6:6, the condition ("keep on sinning") is described by a present tense adverbial participle which places it in a coordinate time relationship to the main verb ("no sacrifice is left"). "If" does not represent the presence of such a participle in the Greek text but an interpretation of the relationship between the participle and the main verb. Here, also, the verse could just as well read, "so long as we keep on sinning," suggesting the possibility of repentance and a restoration of the covenant relationship. So long as we persist in this choice of deliberate and continual sin, however, no fate but the one described can be expected. There is no "middle ground" in our standing before God.

10:27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

His second description pertains to what can be expected in its place. The expectation is "fearful." Foberov" ( phoberos ) could even be translated "terrible" or "frightful." The NIV renders the same word "terrifying" in 12:21 when describing how Moses trembled with fear when he saw the mountain burning with fire and when the people of Israel begged that God no longer speak to them for fear of their very lives (cf. Exod 20:19). What such people can expect is first described literally and then figuratively. In Hebrews, krivsi" ( krisis , "judgment") appears elsewhere only in 9:27 where the term seems to refer of God's final judgment of all people (cf. 12:23 where God is described as "the judge [krivth , kritç ] of all men"). Here, however, it carries the more frequent unfavorable sense of "sentence of condemnation . . . and the subsequent punishment."

Figuratively, that judgment is described as a "raging fire." In 12:29 our writer will describe God himself as "a consuming fire." Jesus regularly spoke of final judgment and punishment in terms of "fire," "the fire of hell," a "fiery furnace," "eternal fire" and "the fire that never goes out." Paul associates the second appearance of Jesus with "blazing fire" and the punishment of those who do not know God or obey the gospel (2 Thess 1:8). Peter observes that "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men" (2 Pet 3:7). Jude cites the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah "as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire" (7) and encourages his readers to "snatch others from the fire and save them" (23). In the book of Revelation, those who worship the beast "will be tormented with burning sulfur" (14:10) while the beast, the devil, death, and Hades are all thrown into "the lake of burning sulfur" (19:20; 20:9, 10, 14, 15) - it is the "second death" (21:8). Such will be the inescapable fate of all of those who are found to be "the enemies of God." And such will any of us be should we persist in a purposeful choice of deliberate and continual sin.

10:28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 10:29 How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Lest his readers doubt the absolute truth of his warning, the author offers a lesser to greater argument ("how much more") to further support the claim of vv. 26-27. The imposition of the death penalty on the testimony of at least two witnesses is recorded both in Numbers 35:30 (as punishment for murder) and in Deuteronomy 17:6 (as punishment for idolatry). These are particularly heinous acts but the purposeful choice of deliberate and continual sin is also described in the most horrific terms.

First, such people have "trampled the Son of God under foot." Jesus employed this same term (katapatevw , katapateô ) to describe the fate of salt which has lost its saltiness: "It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men" (Matt 5:13). On another occasion he warned his disciples not to "throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet" (Matt 7:6). Those who "deliberately keep on sinning" evidence the same attitude toward the Son of God. They regard him as not good for anything and life in complete disregard for his worth.

Second, such people have "treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant." Koinov" ( koinos , "unholy") was used of that which was "common," that is "unclean" (Mark 7:2; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; Rom 14:14). This is the exact opposite of what should be the case for that blood had "sanctified" (aJgiavzw , hagiazô , translated "make holy" in 10:10, 14) and "cleansed" him (kaqarivzw , katharizô , 9:14, 22, 23).

Finally, such people have "insulted the Spirit of grace." =Enubrivzw (enybrizô , "insult") is capable of a stronger translation such as "outrage." It appears only here in the NT. The cognate uJbrivzw (hybrizô ) was used by Luke to describe Jesus' scathing rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 11:45) and is elsewhere associated with violent behavior. The servants were "mistreated" and killed in Jesus' parable of the wedding banquet (Matt 22:6). Jesus predicted that he would be mocked, "insulted," spit on, flogged and killed when he went to Jerusalem (Luke 18:32). Leading Jews and Gentiles in Iconium plotted to "mistreat" and stone Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:5). And Paul was "insulted" in Philippi (1 Thess 2:2) where he was attacked by a crowd, stripped, flogged and thrown into prison (Acts 16:22-23). Bruce and Kistemaker see here a reference to the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, a sin which Jesus said would not be forgiven (Matt 12:32; Mark 3:29). As strong as the vocabulary of our writer here may be, both the use of the present participle in v. 26 (see comments above) and the specific blasphemous event in the Gospels to which Jesus made reference (attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan) may not fit well into this view. It may be that our writer (1) focuses on the Son, his blood, and the Spirit since they are the essential and defining features of the new covenant and/or (2) has in mind the language of 9:14 ("How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death").

The "greater" part of this lesser to greater argument is twofold. When the most extreme punishment under the old covenant is considered and compared to what people do to the Son, his blood and the Spirit when they "deliberately keep on sinning," it is clear that (1) they are even more deserving of punishment and (2) their punishment itself should be more severe. The syntax of v. 29 brings this out clearly. Quite literally, it might be translated, "by how much [more] do think they will be thought worthy of a worse punishment?" Since the "lesser" punishment was death, it is frightening to consider what punishment could possibly be worse than death itself (see "raging fire," v. 27). Again, the resemblance to 6:4-8 is striking.

10:30 For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." 10:31 It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

The lesser to greater argument is supplemented by an appeal to Scripture: Deuteronomy 32:35-36. These verses are not quoted in their entirety. Only the relevant phrases are cited. They amount to a promise of judgment which includes the punishment of evil. God himself claims the sole right to judge and our writer later refers to him as "the judge of all men" (12:23). And God himself will do the avenging and repaying.

The word translated "dreadful" is the same word translated "fearful" in v. 27 (see comments above). The terse statement of v. 31 is intimidating both because of what it conveys and the abruptness of the expression.

L. REMINDER OF EARLIER SUFFERING (10:32-34)

³² Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. ³³ Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. ³⁴ You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

10:32 Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering.

The persecutions faced by his readers are now introduced into the discussion and thus are set in the eschatological context of vv. 25-31. Christians may often wonder whether the present persecutions they endure for Christ's sake are a price they are willing to pay to remain faithful. However, evaluating the options requires an eternal frame of reference within which both the true rewards of perseverance and the frightening alternative can be considered. The readers must have had such a perspective on their sufferings for they accepted them "joyfully" (v. 34).

The author asks them to recall "those earlier days after [they] had received the light." The same word (fwtivzw , phôtizô ) appeared in 6:4 when our writer referred to those "who have once been enlightened." Here, as there, it probably refers to "instruction" or an "intellectual illumination that removes ignorance through . . . the preaching of the gospel" since it parallels the phrase "after we have received the knowledge of the truth" in v. 26 (see n. 36 on 6:4-8 regarding the KJV rendering "illumination").

Our writer provides his own summary description of their sufferings. It was a "great contest" (a[qlhsi" , athlçsis , which appears only here in the NT). The cognate ajqlhthv" (athlçtçs ) refers to a "contender" or "athlete" and the verb ajqlevw (athleô ) appears in 2 Timothy 2:5 when Paul encourages his readers to endure hardship and compares the believer to one "who competes as an athlete" to receive the victor's crown. The readers of Hebrews, just as all who endure suffering for the sake of Christ until his return, compete in the cosmic struggle which has already been decided. Whether we receive the victor's crown is conditioned only upon our ability to persevere in the struggle.

10:33 Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated.

Their sufferings included "insult" (ojneidismov" , oneidismos ). This is the same word used in 13:13 to the "disgrace" which Jesus bore as a result of his crucifixion. Yet Jesus had warned his disciples, "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first . . . If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also" (John 15:18-20). Yet we will soon read that Jesus "endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of God" (12:2-3). Only from such a standpoint can such "insults" be regarded as the compliments they in fact are. And no example can offer greater encouragement to endure than that of Jesus himself.

They also endured "persecution." Qlivyi" ( thlipsis ) literally means "pressing" or "pressure" - Morris suggests "severe pressure." How severe may be suggested by the fact that they were "publicly exposed" to both insult and persecution. The verb here is qeatrivzw (theatrizô ), a cognate of qevatron ( theatron , "theater") used for the place where public assemblies gathered. While 12:4 ("you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood") suggests that the readers had yet to endure the most severe of Nero's persecutions, they were probably experiencing the harbingers. Bruce draws from Tacitus' Annals and I Clement to describe the public persecutions which were on the horizon:

Their death . . . was made a matter of sport: they were covered in wild beasts' skins and torn to pieces by dogs; or were fastened to crosses and set on fire in order to serve as torches by night when daylight failed (Tacitus, Annals , xv.44).

[Christian women had to] enact the parts of Dirce and Danaus (I Clement 6:2).

10:34 You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

Lane cites several ancient sources which tell of false accusations of crime and vice, the impositions of heavy fines, confiscation of property and the looting of homes after their owners had been imprisoned or removed. None of these forms of persecution seem far removed from what we read in these verses.

The cause of his reader's joy was that they knew they had "better and lasting possessions" (v. 34). Their true, eternal inheritance which God had promised them (9:15) yet awaited them. No earthly power or authority could take it away from them. They had learned not to "be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul" and remained faithful to "the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt 10:28). Their treasure was in heaven, not on earth "where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal" (Matt 6:19-20).

M. THE NEED TO PERSEVERE (10:35-39)

³⁵ So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. ³⁶ You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. ³⁷ For in just a very little while,

"He who is coming will come and will not delay.

³⁸ But my righteous one ^a will live by faith.

And if he shrinks back,

I will not be pleased with him." ^b

³⁹ But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

^a 38 One early manuscript But the righteous ^b 38 Hab. 2:3,4

10:35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded.

"So" (ou , oun) could be translated "therefore" to convey what is probably a stronger connective. Because they "had better and lasting possessions" (10:35), "therefore" they are commanded not to "throw away" their confidence. =Apobavllw (apoballô ) may denote either "the (vigorous) action of throwing something away" or "a more passive process, as of a tree losing its leaves." A case could be made for either sense in the present context, although on three separate occasions our writer has issued lengthy warnings against either a hardening of heart (3:7-4:11) or a decisive turn away from Christ (6:4-8; 10:26-31).

The word translated "confidence" (parrhsiva , parrçsia ) was translated "courage" in 3:6, when the author encouraged his readers to "hold on to" (vs. "throw away" here) their courage and hope. It also appeared in 4:16 and 10:19 of the "confidence" or "boldness" (KJV) with which we can now enter into God's presence as a result of Christ's sacrifice. Thus the word does not so much convey the idea of "trust" - although their faith in God's faithfulness to his promise must certainly have been the source of their confidence - so much as it conveys the idea of "courage," "boldness" or even "fearlessness" in the face of the threats against them.

This "confidence" is the key to receiving the "rich reward" that has been promised. The Greek syntax actually suggests a stronger tie between the two for it contains not future tense language but that of the present tense (lit., "your confidence which has a great reward"). misqapodosiva ("reward") can be used in reference to "payment of wages." It was used earlier of the "just punishment" for violation and disobedience of that message spoken by angels (2:2). Whether the believer remains faithful or not, he will in either case receive his "just reward." It will be punishment for some and salvation for others.

10:36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.

"Perseverance" is needed to obtain the rich reward, however, and this is what the confidence enables. The use of the aorist participle ("when you have done the will of God") suggests a completion of this act - i.e., when one has persevered to the end in their obedience to the will of God. This is very similar to the lengthier discussion in chapter six pertaining to the relationship between our faith in God's promise, the patience with which we wait for it and the diligence which we must show to the very end to make our hope sure (6:11ff.).

10:37 For in just a very little while, "He who is coming will come and will not delay. 10:38 But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him."

As he has done on more than one occasion, the author ends his appeal by turning to Scripture. The essence of this quote is taken from Habbakuk 2:3-4 in the LXX but the author has done some rearranging and interpreting. Most significantly, the addition of a definite article before the participle "coming" offers a messianic reading of the passage (which now reads " He who is coming"). This was not a new idea. Morris mentions a rabbinic tradition which interpreted the passage messianically. Our writer merely makes the connection more explicit. Also, the order of the wording has been altered so that the citation ends with that part of the passage which the author will apply to his readers ("shrink back"). The use of a single key word in the passage to establish a point of application for his readers is one of the author's prominent hermeneutical strategies (see Introduction).

10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.

The thrust of the citation is that (1) his (second) coming is certain and (2) two alternatives are available to those who wait. One can "live by faith" or "shrink back" (and be destroyed, v. 39). As in 6:9, our writer gives his readers a vote of confidence for their encouragement. =Apwvleia (apôleia , "destruction") appears only here in Hebrews and might also be translated "annihilation" or "ruin." The word also appears in Revelation of the "destruction" of the beast (Rev 117:8, 11). The temptation to offer this verse in support an annihilation theory must be balanced against the use of "eternal" language to speak of the final punishment (see comments on 10:27).

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Critics Ask: Heb 10:6

HEBREWS 10:6-7 —How can we explain the distorted quotation of Psalm 40 ?

PROBLEM: Psalm 40:6 cites the Messiah as saying “My ears You have opened,” but the writer of Hebrews quotes it as “a body You have prepared for Me” ( 10:5 ). There is no similarity whatsoever in these quotations. The NT seems to totally distort this OT passage.

SOLUTION: The difficulty arises here from the fact that the writer of Hebrews cites a version of the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint), whereas Psalm 40 was originally written in Hebrew. However, this does not solve the difficulty for anyone who believes in the inspiration of the Bible, since once the NT cites a passage this guarantees its truthfulness. How, then, can this apparent misquotation be resolved?

The solution may lie in the fact that Hebrews is a loose rendition, and Psalms is a more literal translation of the same idea, namely “You have fitted me for obedient service.” The Psalm phrase, “My ears you have opened,” may be a figure of speech referring to the boring of a slave’s ear to signify his willing submission to his master. In which case, Hebrews actually clarifies the meaning of this now obscure figure of speech by its more “loose” rendition.

Others claim this is a synecdoche, in which one part stands for the whole. That is to say, if God is to “dig out the ears” (so that the Messiah can obey God and become a sacrifice for sin), then He must “prepare a body” for Him in which He can enter the world and accomplish His divine mission (cf. Heb. 10:5 ). Either way would satisfactorily resolve the difficulty and satisfy the principle that the NT citations need not be exact quotations as long as they are faithful to the truth contained in the OT text.   

Critics Ask: Heb 10:7

HEBREWS 10:6-7 —How can we explain the distorted quotation of Psalm 40 ?

PROBLEM: Psalm 40:6 cites the Messiah as saying “My ears You have opened,” but the writer of Hebrews quotes it as “a body You have prepared for Me” ( 10:5 ). There is no similarity whatsoever in these quotations. The NT seems to totally distort this OT passage.

SOLUTION: The difficulty arises here from the fact that the writer of Hebrews cites a version of the Greek translation of the OT (the Septuagint), whereas Psalm 40 was originally written in Hebrew. However, this does not solve the difficulty for anyone who believes in the inspiration of the Bible, since once the NT cites a passage this guarantees its truthfulness. How, then, can this apparent misquotation be resolved?

The solution may lie in the fact that Hebrews is a loose rendition, and Psalms is a more literal translation of the same idea, namely “You have fitted me for obedient service.” The Psalm phrase, “My ears you have opened,” may be a figure of speech referring to the boring of a slave’s ear to signify his willing submission to his master. In which case, Hebrews actually clarifies the meaning of this now obscure figure of speech by its more “loose” rendition.

Others claim this is a synecdoche, in which one part stands for the whole. That is to say, if God is to “dig out the ears” (so that the Messiah can obey God and become a sacrifice for sin), then He must “prepare a body” for Him in which He can enter the world and accomplish His divine mission (cf. Heb. 10:5 ). Either way would satisfactorily resolve the difficulty and satisfy the principle that the NT citations need not be exact quotations as long as they are faithful to the truth contained in the OT text.   

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

By Way of Introduction

Unsettled Problems

Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

The Picture of Christ

At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Heb_1:1-3), this Son who is God’s Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in Phi_2:5-11; Col_1:13-20; John 1:1-18. This high doctrine of Jesus as God’s Son with the glory and stamp of God’s nature is never lowered, for as God’s Son he is superior to angels (Heb 1:4-2:4), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Heb_2:5-18). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God’s Son over God’s house (Heb 3:1-4:13), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Heb 4:14-12:3). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Heb 4:14-7:28), works under a better covenant of grace (Heb_8:1-13), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Heb_9:1-12), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Heb 9:13-10:18), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Heb 10:19-12:3). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. So W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, High Priesthood and Sacrifice (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mar_10:46; Mat_20:28; Joh_10:17; Mat_26:28; Rom_8:32; 1Pe_1:18.; 1Jo_2:1.; Rev_5:9, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

The Style

It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: " It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" ( Light from the Ancient East , pp. 70f.). But Blass ( Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa , 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of " a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many " parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of " the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary Koiné rather than to the vernacular. Moulton ( Cambridge Biblical Essays , p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

The Author

Origen bluntly wrote: " Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul’s while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in Heb_11:32 ( me diēgoumenon ) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply Pros Hebraious as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

The Recipients

If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew) Christians in a local church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in his Commentary (pp. xv to xvii) challenges the title and insists that the book is written for Gentile Christians as truly as First Peter. He argues this largely from the author’s use of the lxx. For myself Dr. Moffatt’s reasons are not convincing. The traditional view that the author is addressing Jewish Christians in a definite locality, whether a large church or a small household church, is true, I believe. The author seems clearly to refer to a definite church in the experiences alluded to in Heb_10:32-34. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Heb_13:24), though " they of Italy" ( hoi apo tēs Italias ) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.

The Date

Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between a.d. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between a.d. 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written Heb_10:1.: " Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in Heb_8:13 " nigh to vanishing away" ( eggus aphanismou ) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in Heb_13:23 as being " set free" ( apolelumenon ) raises an inquiry concerning Paul’s last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Ti_4:11-13). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero’s own death (June 8, a.d. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 a.d. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Purpose

The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary aeons (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it " a profound homily."

JFB: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT OF ROME, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term "Scripture," which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles "apostle," as well as "angel," as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of Pantænus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the "apostle" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as "more Grecian," but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the "ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer" (that is, probably "transcriber" of the apostle's thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas. IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, NOVATIAN OF ROME, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, and VICTORINUS, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF POITIERS (A.D. 368), LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI (A.D. 371), AMBROSE OF MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, "Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style." Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his Hebræo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his Hebræo-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two (Heb 10:30; Heb 13:5), are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, Heb 9:15-17 would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek "diathece," a "covenant," or a "testament," whereas the Hebrew "berith" means only "covenant."

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare 2Co 3:6-18; Gal 3:23-25; Gal 4:1-9, Gal 4:21-31, wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in Heb 1:3, &c., as in other Epistles of Paul (Phi 2:6; Col 1:15-20), as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare Heb 2:9, with 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:7-8. Also His final exaltation, compare Heb 2:8; Heb 10:13; Heb 12:2, with 1Co 15:25, 1Co 15:27. The word "Mediator" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare Heb 8:6, with Gal 3:19-20. Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare Rom 3:22-26; 1Co 5:7, with Heb. 7:1-10:39. The phrase, "God of Peace," is peculiar to Paul, compare Heb 13:20; Rom 15:33; 1Th 5:23. Also, compare Heb 2:4, Margin, 1Co 12:4. Justification, or "righteousness by faith." appears in Heb 11:7; Heb 10:38, as in Rom 1:17; Rom 4:22; Rom 5:1; Gal 3:11; Phi 3:9. The word of God is the "sword of the Spirit," compare Heb 4:12, with Eph 6:17. Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare Heb 5:12-13; Heb 6:1, with 1Co 3:1-2; 1Co 14:20 Gal 4:9; Col 3:14. Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare Heb 10:19, with Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12. Afflictions are a fight, Heb 10:32; compare Phi 1:30; Col 2:1. The Christian life is a race, Heb 12:1; compare 1Co 9:24; Phi 3:12-14. The Jewish ritual is a service, Rom 9:4; compare Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6. Compare "subject to bondage," Heb 2:15, with Gal 5:1. Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity "to go off at a word" and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by "and again," compare Heb 1:5; Heb 2:12-13, with Rom 15:9-12. Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare Heb 2:8, with 1Co 15:27; Eph 1:22. Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition "saith the Lord," not found in the Hebrew, in Heb 10:30; Rom 12:19.

The supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth "to the Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews" (1Co 9:20). This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed, there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it as such.

The personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled "our brother," Heb 13:23; his being then in prison, Heb 13:19; his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to English Version reading, Heb 10:34; the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy, Heb 13:24. A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary address.

DESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which, even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode, with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.

HIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians, for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle, though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience and respect in relation to their rulers (Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17, Heb 13:24); a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them (Heb 13:22). So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction, Rom 12:9, literally, "Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring . . . evil, cleaving to . . . good," which is found nowhere else save Heb 13:5, literally, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being content with," &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute, suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would, "God spoke to our fathers," not, "it is written." So Heb 13:18, "We trust we have a good conscience" is an altogether Pauline sentiment (Act 23:1; Act 24:16; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; 2Ti 1:3). Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation, "Grace be with you all"; this "salutation with his own hand" he declared (2Th 3:17-18) to be "his token in every Epistle": so 1Co 16:21, 1Co 16:23; Col 4:18. The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles, and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing (whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul by the Spirit's gift of interpreting tongues, 1Co 12:10, transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his, and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem, their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the Novatian heresy (Heb 6:4-6), was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been written (Col 4:10), and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived), and thence to Alexandria. Moreover, 2Pe 3:15-16, written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle written by him, "the apostle of the circumcision," to the "Hebrew" Christians dispersed in the East, says, "As our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you" (2Pe 3:15), that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, "As also in all his Epistles" (2Pe 3:16), distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he further speaks of it as on a level with "other Scriptures," thus asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love; Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:7-14), fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13); and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the Gentiles (Act 10:1, &c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.

Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church.

It plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before, compare Heb 13:10; and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge of Christendom. Moreover, "the Epistle to the Alexandrians," mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly "the people of God" (Heb 2:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 13:12), "the seed of Abraham," that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile believers are grafted, to which Rom 11:16-24 corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:18-23; Heb 13:13).

The use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare 2Pe 3:15-16, explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively, addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and were settled in Asia Minor.

The notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify all earthly relations.

JFB: Hebrews (Outline)

• THE HIGHEST OF ALL REVELATIONS IS GIVEN US NOW IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS, AND WHO, HAVING COMPLETED REDEMPTION, SITS ENTHRONED AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND. (Heb 1:1-14)
• DANGER OF NEGLECTING SO GREAT SALVATION, FIRST SPOKEN BY CHRIST; TO WHOM, NOT TO ANGELS, THE NEW DISPENSATION WAS SUBJECTED; THOUGH HE WAS FOR A TIME HUMBLED BELOW THE ANGELS: THIS HUMILIATION TOOK PLACE BY DIVINE NECESSITY FOR OUR SALVATION. (Heb. 2:1-18)
• THE SON OF GOD GREATER THAN MOSES, WHEREFORE UNBELIEF TOWARDS HIM WILL INCUR A HEAVIER PUNISHMENT THAN BEFELL UNBELIEVING ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS. (Heb. 3:1-19)
• THE PROMISE OF GOD'S REST IS FULLY REALIZED THROUGH CHRIST: LET US STRIVE TO OBTAIN IT BY HIM, OUR SYMPATHIZING HIGH PRIEST. (Heb. 4:1-16)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD; NEEDED QUALIFICATIONS; MUST BE A MAN; MUST NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE DIGNITY HIMSELF, BUT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD; THEIR LOW SPIRITUAL PERCEPTIONS A BAR TO PAUL'S SAYING ALL HE MIGHT ON CHRIST'S MELCHISEDEC-LIKE PRIESTHOOD. (Heb 5:1-14)
• WARNING AGAINST RETROGRADING, WHICH SOON LEADS TO APOSTASY; ENCOURAGEMENT TO STEADFASTNESS FROM GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD AND OATH. (Heb 6:1-14)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC SUPERIOR TO AARON'S. (Heb. 7:1-28)
• CHRIST, THE HIGH PRIEST IN THE TRUE SANCTUARY, SUPERSEDING THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD; THE NEW RENDERS OBSOLETE THE OLD COVENANT. (Heb 8:1-13)
• INFERIORITY OF THE OLD TO THE NEW COVENANT IN THE MEANS OF ACCESS TO GOD: THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS OF NO REAL AVAIL: THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ALL-SUFFICIENT TO PURGE AWAY SIN, WHENCE FLOWS OUR HOPE OF HIS APPEARING AGAIN FOR OUR PERFECT SALVATION. (Heb. 9:1-28)
• PROOF OF AND ENLARGEMENT ON, THE "ETERNAL REDEMPTION" MENTIONED IN. Heb 9:12 (Heb. 9:13-28)
• CONCLUSION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT. THE YEARLY RECURRING LAW SACRIFICES CANNOT PERFECT THE WORSHIPPER, BUT CHRIST'S ONCE-FOR-ALL OFFERING CAN. (Heb. 10:1-39) Previously the oneness of Christ's offering was shown; now is shown its perfection as contrasted with the law sacrifices.
• DEFINITION OF THE FAITH JUST SPOKEN OF (Heb 10:39): EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD COVENANT FOR OUR PERSEVERANCE IN FAITH. (Heb. 11:1-40) Description of the great things which faith (in its widest sense: not here restricted to faith in the Gospel sense) does for us. Not a full definition of faith in its whole nature, but a description of its great characteristics in relation to the subject of Paul's exhortation here, namely, to perseverance.
• EXHORTATION TO FOLLOW THE WITNESSES OF FAITH JUST MENTIONED: NOT TO FAINT IN TRIALS: TO REMOVE ALL BITTER ROOTS OF SIN: FOR WE ARE UNDER, NOT A LAW OF TERROR, BUT THE GOSPEL OF GRACE, TO DESPISE WHICH WILL BRING THE HEAVIER PENALTIES, IN PROPORTION TO OUR GREATER PRIVILEGES. (Heb. 12:1-29)
• EXHORTATION TO VARIOUS GRACES, ESPECIALLY CONSTANCY IN FAITH, FOLLOWING JESUS AMIDST REPROACHES. CONCLUSION, WITH PIECES OF INTELLIGENCE AND SALUTATIONS. (Heb. 13:1-25)

TSK: Hebrews 10 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Heb 10:1, The weakness of the law sacrifices; Heb 10:10, The sacrifice of Christ’s body once offered, Heb 10:14. for ever hath taken away sins; Heb 10:19, An exhortation to hold fast the faith with patience and thanksgiving.

Poole: Hebrews 10 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 10

MHCC: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

This epistle shows Christ as the end, foundation, body, and truth of the figures of the law, which of themselves were no virtue for the soul. The great truth set forth in this epistle is that Jesus of Nazareth is the true God. The unconverted Jews used many arguments to draw their converted brethren from the Christian faith. They represented the law of Moses as superior to the Christian dispensation, and spoke against every thing connected with the Saviour. The apostle, therefore, shows the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of God, and the benefits from his sufferings and death as the sacrifice for sin, so that the Christian religion is much more excellent and perfect than that of Moses. And the principal design seems to be, to bring the converted Hebrews forward in the knowledge of the gospel, and thus to establish them in the Christian faith, and to prevent their turning from it, against which they are earnestly warned. But while it contains many things suitable to the Hebrews of early times, it also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of God; for the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the very marrow and kernel of all the Scriptures. The ceremonial law is full of Christ, and all the gospel is full of Christ; the blessed lines of both Testaments meet in Him; and how they both agree and sweetly unite in Jesus Christ, is the chief object of the epistle to the Hebrews to discover.

MHCC: Hebrews 10 (Chapter Introduction)

(v. 1-18) The insufficiency of sacrifices for taking away sin, The necessity and power of the sacrifice of Christ for that purpose.

(Heb 10:19-25) An argument for holy boldness in the believer's access to God through Jesus Christ, And for steadfastness in faith, and mutual love and duty.

(Heb 10:26-31) The danger of apostacy.

(Heb 10:32-39) The sufferings of believers, and encouragement to maintain their holy profession.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle to the Hebrews

Concerning this epistle we must enquire, I. Into the divine authority of it; for this has been questioned by some, whose distempered eyes could not bear the light of it, or whose errors have been confuted by it; such as the Arians, who deny the Godhead and self-existence of Christ; and the Socinians, who deny his satisfaction; but, after all the attempts of such men to disparage this epistle, the divine original of it shines forth with such strong and unclouded rays that he who runs may read it is an eminent part of the canon of scripture. The divinity of the matter, the sublimity of the style, the excellency of the design, the harmony of this with other parts of scripture, and its general reception in the church of God in all ages - these are the evidences of its divine authority. II. As to the divine amanuensis or penman of this epistle, we are not so certain; it does not bear the name of any in the front of it, as the rest of the epistles do, and there has been some dispute among the learned to whom they should ascribe it. Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul's name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavour it was to exalt Christ. Some think that the apostle Peter refers to this epistle, and proves Paul to be the penman of it, by telling the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, of Paul's having written to them, 2Pe 3:15. We read of no other epistle that he ever wrote to them but this. And though it has been objected that, since Paul put his name to all his other epistles, he would not have omitted it here; yet others have well answered that he, being the apostle of the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, might think fit to conceal his name, lest their prejudices against him might hinder them from reading and weighing it as they ought to do. III. As to the scope and design of this epistle, it is very evident that it was clearly to inform the minds, and strongly to confirm the judgment, of the Hebrews in the transcendent excellency of the gospel above the law, and so to take them off from the ceremonies of the law, to which they were so wedded, of which they were so fond, that they even doted on them, and those of them who were Christians retained too much of the old leaven, and needed to be purged from it. The design of this epistle was to persuade and press the believing Hebrews to a constant adherence to the Christian faith, and perseverance in it, notwithstanding all the sufferings they might meet with in so doing. In order to this, the apostle speaks much of the excellency of the author of the gospel, the glorious Jesus, whose honour he advances, and whom he justly prefers before all others, showing him to be all in all, and this in lofty strains of holy rhetoric. It must be acknowledged that there are many things in this epistle hard to be understood, but the sweetness we shall find therein will make us abundant amends for all the pains we take to understand it. And indeed, if we compare all the epistles of the New Testament, we shall not find any of them more replenished with divine, heavenly matter than this to the Hebrews.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews 10 (Chapter Introduction)

The apostle knew very well that the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, were strangely fond of the Levitical dispensation, and therefore he fills his mouth with arguments to wean them from it; and in order thereto proceeds in this chapter, I. To lay low the whole of that priesthood and sacrifice (Heb 10:1-6). II. He raises and exalts the priesthood of Christ very high, that he might effectually recommend him and his gospel to them (Heb 10:7-18). III. He shows to believers the honours and dignities of their state, and calls them to suitable duties (Heb 10:19 to the end).

Barclay: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS

God Fulfils Himself In Many Ways

Religion has never been the same thing to all men. "God," as Tennyson said, "fulfils himself in many ways." George Russell said: "There are as many ways of climbing to the stars as there are people to climb." There is a well-known saying which tells us very truly and very beautifully that "God has his own secret stairway into every heart." Broadly speaking, there have been four great conceptions of religion.

(i) To some men it is inward fellowship with God. It is a union with Christ so close and so intimate that the Christian can be said to live in Christ and Christ to live in him. That was Paulconception of religion. To him it was something which mystically united him with God.

(ii) To some religion is what gives a man a standard for life and a power to reach that standard. On the whole that is what religion was to James and to Peter. It was something which showed them what life ought to be and which enabled them to attain it.

(iii) To some men religion is the highest satisfaction of their minds. Their minds seek and seek until they find that they can rest in God. It was Plato who said that "the unexamined life is the life not worth living." There are some men who must understand or perish. On the whole that is what religion was to John. The first chapter of his gospel is one of the greatest attempts in the world to state religion in a way that really satisfies the mind.

(iv) To some men religion is access to God. It is that which removes the barriers and opens the door to his living presence. That is what religion was to the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews. With that idea his mind was dominated. He found in Christ the one person who could take him into the very presence of God. His whole idea of religion is summed up in the great passage in Heb_10:19-23 .

"Therefore, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith."

If the writer to the Hebrews had one text it was: "Let us draw near."

The Double Background

The writer to the Hebrews had a double background into both of which this idea came. He had a Greek background. Ever since the time of Plato, five hundred years before, the Greeks had been haunted by the contrast between the real and the unreal, the seen and the unseen, the temporal and the eternal. It was the Greek idea that somewhere there was a real world of which this was only a shadowy and imperfect copy. Plato had the idea that somewhere there was a world of perfect forms or ideas or patterns, of which everything in this world was an imperfect copy. To take a simple instance, somewhere there was laid up the pattern of a perfect chair of which all the chairs in this world were inadequate copies. Plato said: "The Creator of the world had designed and carried out his work according to an unchangeable and eternal pattern of which the world is but a copy." Philo, who took his ideas from Plato, said: "God knew from the beginning that a fair copy could never come into being apart from a fair pattern; and that none of the objects perceivable by sense could be flawless which was not modelled after an archetype and spiritual idea, and thus, when he prepared to create this visible world, he shaped beforehand the ideal world in order to constitute the corporeal after the incorporeal and godlike pattern." When Cicero was talking of the laws men know and use on earth, he said: "We have no real and life-like likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is a shadow and a sketch."

The thinkers of the ancient world all had this idea that somewhere there is a real world of which this one is only a kind of imperfect copy. Here we can only guess and grope; here we can work only with copies and imperfect things. But in the unseen world there are the real and perfect things. When Newman died they erected a statue to him, and on the pedestal of it are the Latin words: Ab umbris et imaginibus ad veritatem, "Away from the shadows and the semblances to the truth." If that be so, clearly the great task of this life is to get away from the shadows and the imperfections and to reach reality. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus Christ can enable us to do. To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been trying to get from the shadows to the truth. That is just what Jesus Christ can enable you to do."

The Hebrew Background

But the writer to the Hebrews also had a Jewish background. To the Jew it was always dangerous to come too near to God. "Man," said God to Moses, "shall not see me and live" (Exo_33:20 ). It was Jacobastonished exclamation at Peniel: "I have seen god face to face and yet my life is preserved" (Gen_32:30 ). When Manoah realised who his visitor had been, he said in terror to his wife: "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." The great day of Jewish worship was the Day of Atonement. That was the one day of all the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies where the very presence of God was held to dwell. No man ever entered in except the High Priest, and he only on that day. When he did, the law laid it down that he must not linger in the Holy Place for long "lest he put Israel in terror." It was dangerous to enter the presence of God and if a man waited too long he might be struck dead.

In view of this there entered into Jewish thought the idea of a covenant. God, in his grace and in a way that was quite unmerited, approached the nation of Israel and offered them a special relationship with himself. But this unique access to God was conditional on the observance by the people of the law that he gave to them. We can see this relationship being entered into and this law being accepted in the dramatic scene in Exo_24:3-8 .

So then Israel had access to God, but only if she kept the law. To break the law was sin, and sin put up a barrier which stopped the way to God. It was to take away that barrier that the system of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices was constructed. The law was given; man sinned; the barrier was up; the sacrifice was made; and the sacrifice was designed to open the closed way to God. But the experience of life was that this was precisely what sacrifice could not do. It was proof of the ineffectiveness of the whole system that sacrifice had to go on and on and on. It was a losing and ineffective battle to remove the barrier that sin had erected between man and God.

The Perfect Priest And The Perfect Sacrifice

What men needed was a perfect priest and a perfect sacrifice, someone who was such that he could bring to God a sacrifice which once and for all opened the way of access to him. That, said the writer to the Hebrews, is exactly what Christ did. He is the perfect priest because he is at once perfectly man and perfectly God. In his manhood he can take man to God and in his Godhead he can take God to man. He has no sin. The perfect sacrifice he brings is the sacrifice of himself, a sacrifice so perfect that it never needs to be made again. To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been looking for the perfect priest who can bring the perfect sacrifice and give you access to God. You have him in Jesus Christ and in him alone."

To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for the way from the shadows to reality; you will find it in Jesus Christ." To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for that perfect sacrifice which will open the way to God which your sins have closed; you will find it in Jesus Christ." Jesus was the one person who gave access to reality and access to God. That is the key-thought of this letter.

The Riddle Of The New Testament

So much is clear but when we turn to the other questions of introduction Hebrews is wrapped in mystery. E. F. Scott wrote: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is in many respects the riddle of the New Testament." When it was written, to whom it was written, and who wrote it are questions at which we can only guess. The very history of the letter shows how its mystery is to be treated with a certain reserve and suspicion. It was a long time before it became an unquestioned New Testament book. The first list of New Testament books, The Muratorian Canon, compiled about A.D. 170, does not mention it at all. The great Alexandrian scholars. Clement and Origen, knew it and loved it but agreed that its place as scripture was disputed. Of the great African fathers, Cyprian never mentions it and Tertullian knows that its place was disputed. Eusebius, the great Church historian, says that it ranked among the disputed books. It was not until the time of Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth century, that Hebrews was definitely accepted as a New Testament book, and even Luther was not too sure about it. It is strange to think how long this great book had to wait for full recognition.

When Was It Written?

The only information we have comes from the letter itself. Clearly it is written for what we might call second generation Christians (Heb_2:3 ). The story was transmitted to its recipients by those who had heard the Lord. The community to whom it was written were not new to the Christian faith; they ought to have been mature (Heb_5:12 ). They must have had a long history for they are summoned to look back on the former days (Heb_10:32 ). They had a great history behind them and heroic martyr figures on which they ought to look back for inspiration (Heb_13:7 ).

The thing that will help us most in dating the letter is its references to persecution. It is clear that at one time their leaders had died for their faith (Heb_13:7 ). It is clear that they themselves had not yet suffered persecution, for they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding their blood (Heb_12:4 ). It is also clear that they have had ill-treatment to suffer for they have had to undergo the pillaging of their goods (Heb_10:32-34 ). And it is clear from the outlook of the letter that there is a risk of persecution about to come. From all that it is safe to say that this letter must have been written between two persecutions, in days when Christians were not actually persecuted, but were none the less unpopular with their fellow-men. Now the first persecution was in the time of Nero in the year A.D. 64; and the next was in the time of Domitian about A.D. 85. Somewhere between these dates this letter was written, more likely nearer to Domitian. If we take the date as A.D. 80 we shall not be far wrong.

To Whom Was It Written?

Once again we have to be dependent on such hints as we get from the letter itself. One thing is certain--it cannot have been written to any of the great Churches or the name of the place could not have so completely vanished. Let us set down what we know. The letter was written to a long-established Church (Heb_5:12 ). It was written to a Church which had at some time in the past suffered persecution (Heb_10:32-34 ). It was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders (Heb_13:7 ). It was written to a Church which had not been directly founded by the apostles (Heb_2:3 ). It was written to a Church which had been marked by generosity and liberality (Heb_6:10 ).

We do have one direct hint. Amongst the closing greetings we find the sentence, as the Revised Standard Version translates it: "Those who come from Italy send you greetings" (Heb_13:24 ). Taken by itself that phrase could mean either that the letter was written from Italy or that it was written to Italy, the greater likelihood is that it was written to Italy. Suppose I am in Glasgow and am writing to some place abroad. I would not be likely to say, "All the people from Glasgow greet you." I would be much more likely to say, "All the people in Glasgow greet you." But suppose I am somewhere abroad where there is a little colony of Glaswegians, I might well say, "All the people from Glasgow send you their greetings." So then we may say that the letter was written to Italy; and if it was written to Italy it was almost certainly written to Rome.

But quite certainly it was not written to the Church at Rome as a whole. If it had been it would never have lost its title. Furthermore, it gives the unmistakable impression that it was written to a small body of like-minded persons. Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group. From Heb_5:12 we can see that they had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith. Still further, Hebrews demands such a knowledge of the Old Testament that it must always have been a book written by a scholar for scholars.

When we sum it all up, we can say that Hebrews is a letter written by a great teacher to a little group or college of Christians in Rome. He was their teacher; at the moment he was separated from them and was afraid that they were drifting away from the faith; and so he wrote this letter to them. It is not so much a letter as a talk. It does not begin like Paulletters do, although it ends with greetings as a letter does. The writer himself calls it "a word of exhortation."

By Whom Was It Written?

Perhaps the most insoluble problem of all is the problem of its authorship. It was precisely that uncertainty which kept it so long on the fringes of the New Testament. The title in the earliest days was simply, "To the Hebrews." No authorname was given, no one connected it directly with the name of Paul. Clement of Alexandria used to think that Paul might have written it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it, for the style is quite different from that of Paul. Origen made a famous remark, "who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews only God knows for certain." Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Jerome said the Latin Church did not receive it as Pauland speaking of the author said, "the writer to the Hebrews whoever he was." Augustine felt the same way about it. Luther declared that Paul could never have written it because the thought was not his. Calvin said that he could not bring himself to think that this letter was a letter of Paul.

At no time in the history of the Church did men ever really think that Paul wrote Hebrews. How then did it get attached to his name? It happened very simply. When the New Testament came into its final form there was of course argument about which books were to be included and which were not. To settle it one test was used. Was a book the work of an apostle or at least the work of one who had been in direct contact with the apostles? By this time Hebrews was known and loved throughout the Church. Most people felt like Origen that God alone knew who wrote it, but they wanted it. They felt it must go into the New Testament and the only way to ensure that was to include it with the thirteen letters of Paul. Hebrews won its way into the New Testament on the grounds of its own greatness, but to get in it had to be included with the letters of Paul and come under his name. People knew quite well that it was not Paulbut they included it among his letters because no man knew who wrote it and yet it must go in.

The Author Of Hebrews

Can we guess who the author was? Many candidates have been put forward. We can only glance at three of the many suggestions.

(i) Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus; the people of Cyprus were famous for the excellence of the Greek they spoke; and Hebrews is written in the best Greek in the New Testament. He was a Levite (Act_4:36 ) and of all men in the New Testament he would have had the closest knowledge of the priestly and sacrificial system on which the whole thought of the letter is based. He is called a son of encouragement; the Greek word is paraklesis (G3874); and Hebrews calls itself a word of paraklesis (G3874) (Heb_13:22 ). He was one of the few men acceptable to both Jews and Greeks and at home in both worlds of thought. It might be that Barnabas wrote this letter, but if so it is strange that his name should vanish in connection with it.

(ii) Luther was sure that Apollos was the author. Apollos, according to the New Testament mention of him, was a Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures (Act_18:24 ; 1Co_1:12 ; 1Co_3:4 ). The man who wrote this letter knew the scriptures; he was eloquent; and he thought and argued in the way that a cultured Alexandrian would. The man who wrote Hebrews was certainly a man like Apollos in thought and in background.

(iii) The most romantic of all conjectures is that of Harnack, the great German scholar. He thought that maybe Aquila and Priscilla wrote it between them. Aquila was a teacher (Act_18:26 ). Their house in Rome was a Church in itself (Rom_16:5 ). Harnack thought that that is why the letter begins with no greetings and why the writername has vanished--because the main author of Hebrews was a woman and a woman was not allowed to teach.

But when we come to the end of conjecture, we are compelled to say as Origen said seventeen hundred years ago, that only God knows who wrote Hebrews. To us the author must remain a voice and nothing more; but we can be thankful to God for the work of this great nameless one who wrote with incomparable skill and beauty about the Jesus who is the way to reality and the way to God.

FURTHER READING

Hebrews

J. Moffatt, Hebrews (ICC; G)

W. Neil, Hebrews (Tch: E)

J. H. Robinson, Hebrews (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Hebrews 10 (Chapter Introduction)

The Only True Sacrifice (Heb_10:1-10)

The Finality Of Christ (Heb_10:11-18)

The Meaning Of Christ For Us (Heb_10:19-25)

The Threat At The Heart Of Things (Heb_10:26-31)

The Danger Of Drift (Heb_10:32-39)

Constable: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

The writer said that he and those to whom he wrote had come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of others who had heard Jesus (2:3-4). Apparently those preachers had since died (13:7). The original readers had been Christians for an extended period of time (5:12). So probably the earliest possible date of composition was about A.D. 60.

Some scholars believe that the book must have been written before A.D. 70 since the writer spoke of the sacrifices as being offered when he wrote (7:27-28; 8:3-5; 9:7-8, 25; 10:1-3, 8; 13:10-11). However, the writer showed no interest in the temple but spoke of the sacrifices as the Israelites offered them when the tabernacle stood. He evidently used the present tense to give these reference a timeless quality rather than indicating that temple worship was still in practice. Nevertheless a date of composition before A.D. 70 seems probable.¹

"The best argument for the supersession of the old covenant would have been the destruction of the Temple."²

The reference to Timothy's release from imprisonment (13:23) appears to date the book later in the life of that outstanding man.³ No other New Testament writer mentioned his imprisonment. The imprisonment of Christians seems to have been a well-known fact of life (10:34; 13:3). This was true after Nero launched an empire-wide persecution in A.D. 64. All of these factors when taken together seem to point to a writing date near A.D. 68-69.

As to authorship, most students of this subject are not dogmatic or even certain for good reason.⁴ As early as Origen, the Alexandrian church father who died about A.D. 255, no one knew who the writer was for sure. After careful study of the authorship of Hebrews, Origen wrote, "But who it was that really wrote the epistle, God only knows."⁵

"The language of the Epistle is both in vocabulary and style purer and more vigorous than that of any other book of the New Testament.

". . . The vocabulary is singularly copious. It includes a large number of words which are not found elsewhere in the apostolic writings, very many of which occur in this book only among the Greek Scriptures . . ."⁶

"All that can be said with certainty is that Hebrews was composed by a creative theologian who was well trained in the exposition of the Greek Scriptures. . . . He was surely a hellenistic Jewish-Christian."⁷

Commentators have made cases for the writer being Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Peter, Jude, Stephen, Silvanus (Silas), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Philip the Evangelist, Priscilla, Mary the mother of Jesus, Clement of Rome, Aristion, and others.⁸ None of these suggestions has found enthusiastic general reception for various reasons. Probably we should be content to share Origen's agnosticism on this question and look forward to getting the answer in heaven.⁹

The early Christians originally accepted all the New Testament books as inspired by God because they contained apostolic teaching. For this reason the writer was probably either an apostle or a close associate of at least one of the apostles (cf. 13:23).

The original recipients of the epistle are also unknown. The title "The Epistle to the Hebrews" implies that they were Jewish Christians. This title is ancient and is probably a safe guide to the identity of the first readers. References in the epistle also suggest that the original readers were mainly Jewish. The writer assumed that they were very familiar with the institutions of Judaism. The warnings against turning away from Jesus Christ back to the Old Covenant also imply this identity. Other indications are the emphasis on the superior priesthood of Jesus and the many appeals to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. However the brand of Judaism in view seems to have been Hellenistic rather than Palestinian.

The reference to the generosity of the readers and their helping other believers (6:10) suggests that the original audience did not live in Palestine. The Palestinian churches had a reputation for needing material assistance rather than for giving it to other Christians (cf. Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:3). Probably they were Jews of the Diaspora therefore. This conclusion has support in the writer's consistent use of the Septuagint Old Testament version. Hellenistic Jews used this translation widely, but Palestinian Jews did not use it as much.¹⁰

In most of the New Testament churches there was a mixture of Jewish and Gentile believers. The appeal of this epistle would certainly have been great to Gentiles tempted to return to paganism as it would have been to Jews facing temptation to return to Judaism. However the writer's primary concern appears to have been that his Jewish readers were failing to appreciate that Christianity is the divinely revealed successor to Judaism. He did not want them to abandon Christianity and return to Judaism.

Probably the letter originally went to a house-church outside Palestine that had a strong Hellenistic Jewish population. This church may have been in or near Galatia in view of conditions that existed there that the Epistle to the Galatians reflects. However they may very well have lived in another area. Many scholars believe that the letter went first to a church in or near Rome.¹¹

In view of 13:24b it has seemed to some scholars that the writer was in Italy when he sent this epistle, perhaps in Rome. However the expression "from Italy" in that verse probably refers to those living outside Italy, such as Priscilla and Aquilla who were Jews forced to leave Rome by Emperor Claudius' edict in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2).¹² This expression suggests that the writer was not in Italy when he wrote.

Purpose

Many students of the book have observed that Hebrews is more of a sermon in written form than an epistle in the traditional New Testament sense.¹³ The writer even described it as a "word of exhortation" (13:22). He urged the original readers to persevere in their faith rather than turning from Christianity and returning to Judaism. A note of urgency and pastoral concern permeates the whole letter. This tone comes through especially strongly in the five warning passages and in the encouragements that follow these warnings.

". . . the purpose of the writer to the Hebrews is not to give us an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. . . . Using material not from the prophets but primarily from the Psalms, with other materials added to elaborate the argument, the writer's goal was to establish the superiority of the gospel in contrast to all that went before, particularly the levitical system. The primary evidence of the supremacy of Christianity is presented in its finality. Coming to Christ means final access to God without any barrier."¹⁴

". . . Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women who discovered that they could be penetrated by adverse circumstances over which they exercised no control. It throbs with an awareness of the privilege and the cost of discipleship. It is a sensitive pastoral response to the sagging faith of older and tired individuals who were in danger of relinquishing their Christian commitment. It seeks to strengthen them in the face of a new crisis so that they may stand firm in their faith. It warns them of the judgment of God they would incur if they were to waver in their commitment. Exhortations to covenant fidelity and perseverance are grounded in a fresh understanding of the significance of Jesus and his sacrifice."¹⁵

Message¹⁶

We could summarize the message of this epistle in the following words. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him in this life.

The ultimate goal that the writer had in view was our full eternal reward as believers. I do not believe it was the conversion of the unsaved members of his audience. He addressed his readers consistently as believers. He wrote to encourage Christians to persevere faithfully so we will receive all that God wants to give us at the judgment seat of Christ. Our rewards are at issue in this letter. He did not want us to suffer loss but to enter into our full inheritance, our full rest, our full salvation.

To do this he wrote that we must know one thing and do two things, one positive and one negative.

We must know the greatness of Jesus Christ. In this epistle the writer presented Him as the greatest revelation that God has given mankind. God's revelation in His Son is superior to all other revelations He has given in three respects.

1. It supersedes all other revelations: God's revelation through angels (the Mosaic Law), His revelation through humans (the prophets), and His revelation through rituals (the Old Covenant). When Jesus Christ came to reveal God, He brought revelation that superseded what had preceded Him.

2. God's revelation in His Son is sufficient to meet every basic human need. God spoke through His Son, so the need for a prophet (a revealer of God) no longer exists. He established a new Covenant, so the need for a priest (a mediator for man) no longer exists. Moreover He exalted His Son to His right hand, so the need for a king (a righteous ruler) no longer exists.

3. God's revelation in His Son insures final victory in every basic sphere. The individual (the human order) attains perfection through the Son. Society (the social order) will experience perfection through the Son. The universe (the cosmic order) will reach perfection through the Son.

This is what we need to know objectively to do subjectively what is necessary to gain our full reward as believers.

What we must do is continue to trust God. Hebrews places great emphasis on the importance of living by faith. It teaches us three things about faith.

1. Hebrews defines faith. Faith is volitional surrender and obedience to God regardless of appearances. It is not just intellectual conviction. It is the action of the will that expresses intellectual conviction. This epistle regards unbelief as disobedience as does all of Scripture. People in the past who lived by faith made decisions and acted because they believed God in spite of appearances (ch. 11).

2. Hebrews also illustrates faith. It describes faith as doing, as suffering, and as waiting. These are the primary activities of faith that the writer of Hebrews emphasized. They are progressively more difficult. It is harder to suffer persecution for our faith than it is to obey God when obedience does not involve suffering. It is most difficult to keep on trusting God when suffering does not end. Waiting for God to fulfill His promises is hardest of all when our hopes do not materialize (e.g., Christ's return).

3. In addition, Hebrews vindicates faith. It assures us of the ultimate triumph of faith. People in the past who acted in faith achieved. People who suffered for their faith triumphed. People who waited in faith received their reward.

On the positive side we need to continue to trust God to realize our full reward as believers.

What we must not do is turn away from God. This is the negative responsibility that the letter also stresses. If we apostatize, we will lose our full reward. Hebrews teaches us three things about apostasy (as it does about faith).

1. This epistle defines apostasy descriptively. It is the opposite of faith. It consists of disobedience because of appearances (e.g., the 10 spies; cf. Jude). Apostasy for a Christian is turning away from faith having previously embraced faith. An apostate, however, can be a believer or an unbeliever.

2. Hebrews also illustrates apostasy in the same three ways it illustrates faith. Apostasy acts. It involves a deliberate turning away. It also suffers, not now but in the future because of what the apostate loses. It also waits, even though it lives for the present rather than for the future.

3. Likewise Hebrews condemns apostasy. It assures us of the ultimate tragedy of apostasy. Apostates may achieve what they want in the present, namely success, but they lose what is far more valuable in the future. They may avoid suffering now, but later they will be sorry. They may not want to wait for their reward now, but they will wait forever for it later and never get it.

This is the central message of the epistle. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him.

The writer urged his readers to persevere in faith by using two appeals, one negative and one positive.

The first appeal is negative: the warnings. There are five warning passages in Hebrews. Each one warns of the danger of apostasy from a different angle.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) warns of the danger of drifting away from the truth (2:1). It pictures a ship dragging its anchor. The tides of our age can draw us away from our moorings. We need to keep on standing firm in faith (cf. Col. 1:23).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) warns of the danger of disbelief (3:12). Disbelief results in heart hardening (3:13). We need to keep on believing rather than ceasing to believe (cf. Luke 17:3).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) warns of the danger of immaturity (5:12). When we do not put truth into practice, we do not just remain in the same spiritual state. We regress. Therefore we need to keep on growing (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) warns of the danger of willful sinning (10:26-27). If we abandon confidence in the efficacy of Jesus Christ's sacrifice, there is no other sacrifice that can protect us from God's judgment as believers. We need to keep on submitting to God (cf. Rom. 6:16).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) warns of the danger of unresponsiveness (12:25). The message of this letter demands positive response. If we do not respond positively, we will lose part of our reward (12:17). We need to keep on obeying God (cf. Titus 3:8).

The second appeal is positive: the encouragements. Accompanying each of the warning passages is at least one word of encouragement. The writer balanced his negative warnings with positive words of encouragement.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) encourages with a reminder of God's confirming His promises with miracles in the apostolic age (2:3b-4).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of faithfulness (3:1-6) and our resources as believers (4:12-16).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) encourages with a reminder of the readers' past faithfulness (6:9-12) and God's firm promises (6:13-20).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) also encourages with a reminder of the readers' past perseverance (10:32-39).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of perseverance (12:1-2) and the divine reason for discipline (12:3-11).

By way of application let me make three observations based on the three major revelations in the epistle.

1. An appreciation for Jesus Christ is foundational to faithful perseverance. The reason many Christians turn away from the Lord is that they do not appreciate His greatness. Preach Christ in your ministry.

2. We need to emphasize the Christian's hope more in our ministries. We live in a present oriented culture that values immediate self-gratification. Many Christians are apostatizing because they do not appreciate the reward they will receive if they remain faithful to the Lord. This life is preparation for the next.

3. We need to realize that God will judge Christians who apostatize. We will not lose our salvation, but we will lose much that we will wish we never gave up if we stop walking by faith.

Outline¹⁷

I. The culminating revelation of God 1:1-2:18

A. The agent of God's final revelation 1:1-4

B. The superiority of the Son 1:5-14

C. The danger of negligence (the first warning) 2:1-4

D. The humiliation and glory of God's Son 2:5-9

E. The Son's solidarity with humanity 2:10-18

II. The high priestly character of the Son 3:1-5:10

A. The faithfulness of the Son 3:1-6

B. The danger of disbelief (the second warning) 3:7-19

C. The possibility of rest for God's people 4:1-14

D. The compassion of the Son 4:15-5:10

III. The high priestly office of the Son 5:11-10:39

A. The danger of immaturity (the third warning) 5:11-6:12

1. The readers' condition 5:11-14

2. The needed remedy 6:1-3

3. The dreadful alternative 6:4-8

4. The encouraging prospect 6:9-12

B. The basis for confidence and steadfastness 6:13-20

C. The Son's high priestly ministry 7:1-10:18

1. The person of our high priest ch. 7

2. The work of our high priest chs. 8-9

3. The accomplishment of our high priest 10:1-18

D. The danger of willful sinning (the fourth warning) 10:19-39

1. The three-fold admonition 10:19-25

2. The warning of judgment 10:26-31

3. The encouragement to persevere 10:32-39

IV. The proper response 11:1-12:13

A. Perseverance in faith ch. 11

1. Faith in the antediluvian era 11:1-7

2. Faith in the patriarchal era 11:8-22

3. Faith in the Mosaic era 11:23-31

4. Faith in subsequent eras 11:32-40

B. Demonstrating necessary endurance 12:1-13

1. The example of Jesus 12:1-3

2. The proper view of trials 12:4-11

3. The need for greater strength 12:12-13

V. Life in a hostile world 12:14-13:25

A. The danger of unresponsiveness (the fifth warning) 12:14-29

1. The goal of peace 12:14-17

2. The superiority of the New Covenant 12:18-24

3. The consequences of apostasy 12:25-29

B. Life within the church ch. 13

1. Pastoral reminders 13:1-21

2. Personal explanations 13:22-25

Constable: Hebrews

Hebrews

Bibliography

Andersen, Ward. "The Believer's Rest (Hebrews 4)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):31-38.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Hebrews. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1963.

Bateman, Herbert W., IV. "Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5-13 and 4QFlor 1.1-19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):11-27.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' Use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Black, David Alan. "A Note on the Structure of Hebrews 12, 1-2." Biblica 68:4 (1987):543-51.

_____. "The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):163-77.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Bligh, John. "The Structure of Hebrews." Heythrop Journal 5 (April 1964):170-77.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Early Christian Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

_____. "The Kerygma of Hebrews." Interpretation 23:1 (January 1969):3-19.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Casey, J. M. "Eschatology in Heb 12:14-29: An Exegetical Study." Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, 1977.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

Cockerill, G. L. The Melchizedek Christology in Heb. 7:1-28. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1979.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Colijn, Brenda B. "Let Us Approach': Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):571-86.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

____. "The Substitutionary Death of Christ in Hebrews." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.

Cosby, M. R. "The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11 in Light of Example-lists in Antiquity." Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1985.

Cross, Frank M. "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Custer, Stewart. "The Awfulness of Apostasy (Hebrews 6)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):45-50.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to," by A. B. Bruce.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton, 1965.

Dunham, Duane A. "An Exegetical Examination of the Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1974.

Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Translated by Christian Frederick Cruse. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Elliott, J. H. Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1976.

Estes, Daniel J. "Looking for Abraham's City." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):399-413.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Hebrews." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 369-415.

Farrar, F. W. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge: University Press, 1894.

Filson, Floyd V. "Yesterday": A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. Studies in Biblical Theology 2nd series 4. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gleason, Randall C. "The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7-4:11." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:627 (July-September 2000):281-303.

_____. "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):62-91.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Gourgues, M. "Lecture christologique du Psaume CX et fête de la Pentecôte." Revue Biblique 83 (1976):5-24.

Govett, Robert. Entrance into the Kingdom. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1978.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert G. Stand Bold in Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):333-40.

Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Hebrews." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 777-813. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Horning, Estella B. "Chiasmus, Creedal Structure, and Christology in Hebrews 12:1-2. Biblical Research 23 (1978):37-48.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. "The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):99-109; 519 (July-September 1973):195-212; 520 (October-December 1973):305-14; 131:521 (January-March 1974):26-33.

_____. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. "Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Peril of Apostasy." Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973):137-55.

Hughes, R. Kent. Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul. 2 vols. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by T. Rees.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

Kendall, R. T. Once Saved, Always Saved. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

_____. Hebrews 9-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lang, G. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Paternoster Press, 1951.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 11: Galatians--Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braume, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1976.

_____. The Problem of Pain. 1940. Reprint ed. London: Collins Press, Fontana Books, 1959.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lovelace, Richard F. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. Hebrews. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

MacDonald, William. Hebrews from Shadow to Substance. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

Mackay, Cameron. "The Argument of Hebrews." Church Quarterly

Review 168 (1967):325-38.

MacLeod, David J. "The Cleansing of the True Tabernacle." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):60-63.

_____. "The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:583 (July-September 1989):291-300.

_____. "The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):185-97.

_____. "The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):184-200.

_____. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena, and Doctrinal Center." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.

MacRae, G. W. "Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews." Semeia 12 (1978):179-99.

Man, Ronald E. "The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):146-57.

Manson, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951.

Marshall, I. Howard. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

_____. "New Wine in Old Wine-Skins: V. The Biblical Use of the Word Ekklesia.'" Expository Times 84:12 (1973):359-64.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Mauro, Philip. God's Pilgrims. Revised ed. New York: Gospel Publishing House, n.d.

McCullough, J. C. "The Impossibility of a Second Repentance in Hebrews." Biblical Theology 20 (1974):1-7.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Millar, Merland Ray. "What Is the Literary Form of Hebrews 11?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):411-17.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.

Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Black, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. "Hebrews." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Mugridge, Alan. "Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 46:3 (September-December 1987):74-82.

Neal, Marshall. "The New Covenant (Hebrews 8)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):59-65.

Neighbor, R. E. If They Shall Fall Away. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1984.

Newell, William R. Hebrews Verse by Verse. Chicago: Moody Press, 1947.

Oberholtzer, Thomas Kem. "The Warning Passages in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):83-97; 578 (April-June 1988):185-96; 579 (July-September 1988):319-28; 580 (October-December 1988):410-19; 146:581 (January-March 1989):67-75.

Parsons, Mikael C. "Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews." Evangelical Quarterly 60:3 (July 1988):195-215.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. A Faith That Endures. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers. 1992.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1990.

Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972.

Peterson, D. G. "An Examination of the Concept of Perfection' in the Epistle to the Hebrews.'" Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1978.

_____. "The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979):74-81.

Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Reich, Max I. The Glories of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1960.

Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul). "Chiasm and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 11." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):327-45.

_____. "Christology and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 5:11-6:20." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):83-96.

Rice, George E. "Apostasy As a Motif and Its Effect on the Structure of Hebrews." Andrews University Seminary Studies 23:1 (Spring 1985):29-35.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 6th ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Robinson, S. E. "The Apocraphal Story of Melchizedek." Journal for the Study of Judaism 18:1 (June 1987):26-39.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):71-84.

Ross, Robert W. "Hebrews." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1401-27. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Ryken, Leland. The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The Scofield Reference Bible. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909.

Scott, Brett R. "Jesus' Superiority over Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):201-10.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. "Archegos in the Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):47-54.

Selby, Gary S. "The Meaning and Function of Suneidesis in Hebrews 9 and 10." Restoration Quarterly 28:3 (Third Quarter 1985/86):145-54.

Sharp, Jeffrey R. "Typology and the Message of Hebrews." East Asia Journal of Theology 4:2 (1986):95-103.

Smith, T. C. "An Exegesis of Hebrews 13:1-17." Faith and Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):70-78.

Soden, John. "The Use of Psalm 45:7-8 (6-7) in Hebrews 1:8-9." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):51-70.

Spencer, William David. "Christ's Sacrifice as Apologetic: An Application of Heb 10:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997):189-97.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stedman, Ray C. What More Can God Say? Bible Commentary for Laymen series. Reprint ed. Glendale, Calif.: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1977.

Swete, H. B. The Ascended Christ. London: Macmillan and Co., 1916.

Swetnam, James. "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6." Biblica 53 (1972):368-85.

_____. "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13." Biblica 55 (1974):333-48.

Tenney, Merrill C. "A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):230-36.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Fredrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1964-74. S. V. "aphistemi, apostasia, dichostasia," by Heinrich Schlier, 1 (1964):512-14.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Exchatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews." Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):67-80.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Guides to New Testament Exegesis series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.

Vanhoye, Albert. A Structureal Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by James Swetnam. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Ware, Bruce A. "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 68-97. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Wills, L. "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity." Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984):277-99.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East. Part III: The Temple in Palestine-Syria." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wuest, Kenneth S. "Hebrews Six in the Greek New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 119:473 (January-March 1962):45-53.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE HEBREWS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Catholic Church hath received and declared this Epistle to be part of the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, though some doubted of it in the first ages [centuries], especially in the Latin Church, witness St. Jerome on the 8th chap. of Isaias; Luther and most of his followers reject it, but the Calvinists and the Church of England have received it. Others, who received this Epistle in the first ages [centuries], doubted whether it was written by St. Paul, but thought it was written by St. Barnabas, or by St. Clement, or St. Luke, or at least that St. Paul only furnished the matter and the order of it, and that St. Luke wrote it, and St. Paul afterwards read it and approved it. It was doubted again, whether this Epistle was first written in Hebrew (that is, in Syro-Chaldaic, then spoken by the Jews) or in Greek, as Estius pretends. The ancient writers say it was written in Hebrew, but that it was very soon after translated into Greek either by St. Luke or St. Clement, pope and martyr. Cornelius a Lapide thinks the Syriac which we have in the Polyglot to have been the original; but this is commonly rejected. See Tillemont on St. Paul, Art. 46, and note 72; P. Alleman on the first to the Hebrews, &c. St. Paul wrote this letter about the year 63, and either at Rome or in Italy. See Chap. xii. 24. He wrote it to the Christians in Palestine, who had most of them been Jews before. This seems the reason why he puts not his name to it, nor calls himself their apostle, his name being rather odious to the Jews, and because he was chosen to be the apostle of the Gentiles. The main design is to shew that every one's justification and salvation is to be hoped for by the grace and merits of Christ, and not from the law of Moses, as he had shewn in his Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans, where we many observe this kind of difference: To the Galatians he shews, that true justice cannot be had from circumcision and the ceremonies of the law: to the Romans, that even the moral precepts and works of the law were insufficient without the grace of Christ: and in this to the Hebrews, he shews that our justice could not be had from the sacrifices of the old law. As to the chief contents: He exhorts them to the faith of Christ, by shewing his dignity and pre-eminence above the Angels, and above Moses, Chap. i, ii, iii.; that Christ's priesthood was above that of Aaron, from the 4th to the 8th chap. ver. 6; that the new law and testament is preferable to the old, form thence to the middle of chap. x.; he commends faith by the example of the ancient Fathers, Chap. xi. and in the beginning of the twelfth; then he exhorts them to patience, constancy, brotherly love, &c. The like exhortations are mixed in other parts of this Epistle. (Witham) --- We must here remark, that our separated brethren, relying solely upon tradition, admit in general this Epistle into their canon of Scriptures, though they are necessitated to allow that for some centuries great doubts were entertained on the subject. According to Mr. Rogers, in his Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles, whilst several among the Protestants have rejected as apocryphal the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the 2nd and 3rd of John, and Jude, others have as strenuously maintained that they ought to be admitted into the sacred canon. The Catholic Church admits them as deutero-canonical books, and of equal authority with the proto-canonical books....After the arguments had been justly weighed on both sides, they seem to have been admitted by the general consent of the Latin Church, as they had all along been admitted by the Greek Church. The canon, as it now stands, both of the Old and New Testament, we find enumerated in Pope Innocent's letter to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, an. 405 [the year A.D. 405], in St. Augustine, (lib. ii. de doct. christ. chap. viii.) and in the decrees of an African Council, an. 419 [the year A.D. 419], consisting of 217 bishops, who declare that in giving a catalogue of the Holy Scriptures, they only confirm and ratify what they have received from their Fathers. This canon is attributed to the third Council of Carthage, an. 397 [the year A.D. 397]. Dr. Cosin, an eminent Protestant divine, tells us in his canon of Scripture, p. 4, "that to know the books of Scripture, there is no safer course to be taken than to follow the public voice and the universal testimony of the Church." The sixth of the thirty-nine articles gives a similar rule, which excludes private judgment. And "what is this," asks Hooker, "but to acknowledge ecclesiastical tradition?" The mind of man, naturally fickle and unsettled, stands in need of a guide in the road to eternal life. I shall never hesitate, says a spirited author, to take for my guide the Catholic Church, which contains in herself the authority of past and future ages. The Syriac version of the Old and New Testament, which is deservedly allowed to be of greatest antiquity and authority, comprises the same deutero-canonical books as the canon of the Council of Trent; a convincing proof that the Church of Syria, immediately after the times of the apostles, considered them as part of the sacred canon, no less than the Catholics of the present day. For a very satisfactory account respecting the authenticity and inspiration of this Epistle, as also for an excellent commentary with notes moral, doctrinal, and critical, see a late work entitled, An Explanation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, by the Rev. Henry Rutter. --- What can be the reason why Protestants admit the deutero-canonical books of the New and reject those of the Old Testament? --- This Epistle merits the particular attention of Christians of every denomination, since it points out to them their various duties in respect to the necessity of faith and the practice of a holy life. In opposition to the Socinians, it tends to shew not only the divinity of Jesus Christ, but also that his death was a true and real sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind. See Chap. i, ver. 5, &c. In opposition to other sectarists, it proves that the bloody sacrifice of Christ, once offered on the cross, though a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of redemption, does not exclude the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, by which he is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. See Chap. v, &c. It is no less applicable to Catholics, in order to confirm them in the faith once delivered to the saints, and to point out the dreadful consequences of abandoning that religion which Jesus Christ came to establish in the world. The just man lives by faith; but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Let us, therefore, hold fast the confession of our hope, without wavering, or forsaking our assembly, the Catholic Church, as many have done to follow Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other separatists. But we, says the apostle, are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them who have faith unto the saving of the soul. (Hebrews x. 39.)

====================

Gill: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS

That this epistle was written very early appears from hence, that it was imitated by Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, who took whole sentences out of it; and therefore it could not be a new work, as Eusebius ^a observes: it has been denied to be authentic by some heretics, as the Marcionites and Arians, but has been generally received as such by the orthodox: some indeed doubted of it, because it was not received by the Roman church, as an epistle of the Apostle Paul ^b; though others, who have thought it was not his, as Origen, yet looked upon it as genuine ^c. It has been ascribed to different persons, as to Barnabas, to Apollos, to Luke the Evangelist, and to Clement of Rome, but without any just reason. Clement of Alexandria, a very ancient writer, asserts it to be the Apostle Paul's ^d; and his name stands in the title of it, in all R. Stephens's exemplars, and in all Beza's copies, excepting one, and so it does in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and that it is his, is highly probable from the agreement there is between this, and other epistles of his; compare Heb 1:2 with Col 1:15 and Heb 5:12 with 1Co 3:1 and Heb 12:1 with 1Co 9:24 and Heb 13:7 with 1Th 5:11, and Heb 13:9 with Eph 4:14 and Heb 13:18 with 2Co 1:12 and Heb 13:20 with Rom 15:13 and many other places; and also from the order and method of it, first treating of doctrines, and then proceeding to practical exhortations, which is the common form of Paul's epistles: to which may be added various circumstances; as that it was written from Italy, where Paul was a prisoner; and the mention the author of it makes of his bonds, and of Timothy, as well known unto him, who was Paul's companion; besides, the token of his epistles appears in this, namely, his usual salutation to the churches; see Heb 13:23. But above all, the testimony of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of its being his, 2Pe 3:15 from whence it clearly appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; see 1Pe 1:1 and what epistle could it be but this? and what Peter refers to is to be found in it; see Heb 10:25 and which is written with great wisdom; in none of Paul's epistles is there a greater discovery of his knowledge of divine mysteries than in this; and in it also are things hard to be understood, Heb 5:11. The common objections to its being his are, its not bearing his name, the diversity of its style, and the author of it seeming to be not an apostle, but a disciple of the apostle's: as to his not setting his name to it, the reasons might be, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not so much of the Jews; and because of the prejudice of the Jews against him, both believers, and unbelievers; wherefore had his name been to it, it might have prevented the usefulness of it to the one, and have stirred up the rage of the other: as to the difference of style, different subjects require a different style; and yet in many things there is a likeness, as before observed: and as to the author's not being an apostle, which is concluded from Heb 2:3 the word "us" there is to be understood of the believing Hebrews, the disciples of the apostle, and not inclusive of the author, by a figurative way of speaking often used by Paul; and besides, the apostle received a confirmation of the Gospel from Ananias, who might have been an hearer of Christ, though he was at first taught it by Christ himself; add to this, that whoever was the writer of it, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and when several of the apostles were living, and therefore he could never design by those words to put himself in a succeeding generation. The persons to whom this epistle was written were Hebrews, or Jews; so called, as some think, from the name of Abraham, the father of them; or, as others, from his passing over the river Euphrates, when he came out of Chaldea into Palestine. So Abram the Hebrew, in Gen 14:13 is by the Septuagint rendered, perathv, "one that passes over", taking it to come from the word rbe, which signifies to "pass over"; with this compare Jos 24:3 and this is the opinion of some of the Jewish Rabbins ^e; though it seems rather that they were called so from Heber, who lived at the time of the confusion of languages; see Gen 10:21. And this is the sense of many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, of Josephus ^f, of Jonathan ben Uzziel ^g, of R. Nehemiah ^h, of Aben Ezra ⁱ, and Kimchi ^k, and others; 2Co 11:22. And these were the Hebrews that dwelt in the land of Judea, and particularly at Jerusalem; nor were they the unbelieving inhabitants of those parts, but believers in Christ, who were embodied in a Gospel church state, It was a tradition of the ancients ^l, that this epistle was written originally in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek, either by Luke the Evangelist, or by Clement of Rome. But for this there is no foundation; no Hebrew copy can be produced; Munster's edition of it in Hebrew is a translation from the Greek, in which it was, no doubt, originally written, that being the common language, and well known to the Jews; and which appears from the citations in it out of the Old Testament, which are made, not from the Hebrew text, but from the Greek version; and besides, had it been written in Hebrew, the writer would not have interpreted the Hebrew words, Melchizedek and Salem, as he does, in Heb 7:1. The time of its writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in this book is signified by the coming of the Lord, and the day approaching; and after Timothy was released from prison, and some time within the two years of his own imprisonment at Rome; when he hoped for a release, as his epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon show. Dr. Lightfoot places it in the year 62, and in the eighth of Nero. And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

Gill: Hebrews 10 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS 10

In this chapter the apostle pursues his argument, showing the weakness and imperfection of the Levitical priesthood, and the superior excellency of Christ's, which he closes with suitable exhortations to faith on Christ, as the alone high priest, and to a constant profession of him. The imperfection of the Levitical priesthood is proved, from the law by which it was established, being only a shadow of good things to come; from the insufficiency of annual sacrifices to perfect the comers to them, or to purge the consciences of the worshippers from sin; and from the non-cessation of these sacrifices which would have been, if the above ends could have been answered by them, Heb 10:1, but on the contrary, by the annual return of these sacrifices, sins are afresh remembered, and very good reason there is for it, since it is an impossible thing that the blood of slain beasts should take away sin, Heb 10:3 moreover, the apostle proves the insufficiency of such sacrifices, by a divine testimony, out of Psa 40:6 by which it appears, that they are not agreeable to the will of God, and are rejected by him as useless, Heb 10:5 and this leads the apostle to discourse of the excellency of Christ's sacrifice above them; that they are taken away, and his is substituted in their room; that as they are not agreeable to the will of God, his is a fulfilment of it; that though they could not expiate sin, yet by the offering up of the body of Christ, once for all, his people are sanctified, or their sins are expiated, Heb 10:9 and this is further illustrated by a comparison between the priests under the law, and Christ; they were many, he but one; they daily offered the same sacrifices, he offered but one sacrifice; theirs could not take away sin, by his offering he has perfectly expiated the sins of his people; they stood daily ministering, their work being never at an end; he is set down at the right hand of God, expecting his enemies to be made his footstool, having done his work to perfection, Heb 10:11 and that legal sacrifices are ceased, and no more to be used, is proved by a testimony of the Holy Ghost, out of Jer 31:33 relating to the covenant of grace, among the promises of which stands that of the forgiveness of sin; from whence the apostle justly concludes, that where remission of sin is, there is, and there needs no more offering for it, Heb 10:15 and from hence, the apostle passes to exhortations to the exercise of grace, and discharge of duty, which he strongly urges from the consideration of Christ's priesthood, and the efficacy of it: and first, he presses them to the duty of prayer, to draw nigh to God to the throne of his grace. The manner in which he would have them approach to God, is in the sincerity of their hearts, in a plerophory of faith, an high and full exercise of it, and impurity of soul and body: the motives or encouragements to it are taken from their having boldness and liberty to enter by faith into heaven itself with their prayers, through the blood of Jesus; from there being a new and living way opened for them through, the flesh of Christ; and from their having such an high priest over the house of God as he is, Heb 10:19, and next he exhorts them to a constant and steadfast profession of their faith, to which he animates them by the faithfulness of a promising God, who will never leave nor forsake his people, Heb 10:23 and then to consider one another in their church relation, and to stir up one another to the exercise of the grace of love, and to the performance of good works, Heb 10:24, and also not to forsake their public assemblies, as was the custom of some, but to exhort each other to greater diligence in attending there, especially since they might observe that a time of great tribulation was at hand, Heb 10:25 and in order to deter from apostasy, which is expressed by a sinning wilfully, after a man has received and professed the knowledge of the truth, the apostle observes that the destruction of such is inevitable; since there never will be another propitiatory sacrifice offered up, and therefore there can be no other than a dreadful expectation of an awful judgment, and of the wrath of God, which, like a consuming fire, will destroy such adversaries of Christ, Heb 10:26 the justice of which is argued from the less to the greater; that if the transgressors of the law of Moses had no mercy shown them, but died when there were proper and sufficient witnesses of their crimes, then such must be deserving of a far greater punishment, who treat with the greatest rudeness the person of the Son of God, and his precious blood, and with the greatest contempt the person and grace of the Holy Spirit, Heb 10:28, and such persons have reason to expect the vengeance of God will fall on them, since it is threatened them in the word of God, Deu 32:35 and a dreadful thing it is to fall into his hands, Heb 10:30. But in order to encourage these believing Hebrews to hold on and out unto the end, the apostle puts them in mind of their good beginning, how well they set out, and how bravely they behaved, by bearing afflictions and reproaches themselves; by being the companions of those that were afflicted and reproached; by having compassion on the apostle when in bonds; and by cheerfully suffering the loss of their goods upon this consideration, that they had in heaven a better and a more enduring substance, Heb 10:32 wherefore it would be exceeding wrong and very unbecoming, after all this, to drop their faith and a profession of it, which otherwise would issue in the enjoyment of the great recompense of reward, Heb 10:35 and as patience is necessary, it is right to exercise it under sufferings for Christ's sake, partly because it is doing the will of God, and partly because that after that is done, such shall receive the promised happiness; and what may serve the more to engage to the exercise of it is, it is but a little while and Christ will come and put an end to all the sufferings of his people, Heb 10:36 and that faith should be in exercise, is proved from a divine testimony, Hab 2:4 and so must be pleasing to God, when the contrary is highly resented by him, Heb 10:38 and now, lest the believing Hebrews should conclude from all this that the apostle suspected them as going into apostasy, he declares his belief, that he and they were not in the number of apostates, but of believers, whose souls would be saved, Heb 10:39.

College: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of Hebrews for understanding the nature of the new covenant. No other document in the New Testament canon comments as directly and extensively upon this covenant as does Hebrews. Its description of Jesus as the great high priest of the believer is a unique contribution to New Testament Christology.

Yet Hebrews is perhaps as well known for the difficulties it presents as it is for its distinctive contributions to our understanding of the ministry of Jesus and the nature of our salvation. It is difficult to be certain about who wrote it, when and to whom. It is a letter and not quite a letter. Many find its line of argument intricate and complex, its theology abstract and obscure, and its use of the Old Testament puzzling if not problematic. This commentary will begin by addressing some of these considerations.

AUTHORSHIP

Over the years, most of the debate about the authorship of Hebrews has focused on whether or not Paul wrote this letter. Arguments have been made for other possible authors as well. What we can know for certain about the author is best gleaned from the letter itself, but many will want to know how this debate affects our confidence in the authority and inspiration of the letter.

Did Paul write the Letter to the Hebrews?

Though few defend Pauline authorship of Hebrews today, in the past this view has enjoyed the support of significant church leaders and traditions. The earliest extant copy of Hebrews (early third century) has been received as part of a collection of Paul's letters, in which it was placed after Romans. Pauline authorship was defended by notable church fathers in the East, e.g., Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) and Origen (185-253) who, despite reservations, defended it as essentially Pauline, at least in part on the weight of what was then received tradition. Later, Jerome and Augustine helped to shift opinion in the West and the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419) established a tradition of support for Pauline authorship which lasted until the Reformation.

However, the weight of the evidence - both historical and texual - is far from clear. Early church opinion was far from universal. In the West, prior to Jerome and Augustine, such leaders as Irenaeus and Hippolytus of Rome did not accept Hebrews as Pauline. The Muratorian Canon (a list of documents accepted as New Testament Scripture, c. 170) included thirteen letters identified as Pauline but excluded Hebrews. When reformers such as Calvin and Luther reexamined the question centuries later, neither concluded that Paul was its author. Contemporary critics consider Pauline authorship implausible in light of clear differences between the vocabulary and style of Hebrews and epistles known to be Pauline. Further, it has been argued as improbable for Paul to refer to himself as the author does in 2:3 ("This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him") in light of what he says of himself in Galatians 1:11-12 ("I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ").

Who else could have written the letter to the Hebrews?

As early as the second century, Tertullian identified Barnabas as the author of the letter. Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:26), and there is much about levitical ritual in the epistle. He was also a Hellenistic Jew, a member of the Jerusalem church and a missionary partner of Paul (Acts 9:27; 11:30; 12:1-14:28). All of this evidence is circumstantial, however, and nothing but Tertullian's opinion connects him to the letter directly.

Clement of Alexandria first suggested that Luke translated a Hebrew text written by Paul. Calvin affirmed this possiblity centuries later. There are some similarities in the Greek style of Luke-Acts and Hebrews. But there is little other evidence and there are also some differences in style. Calvin also suggested Clement of Rome as a possibility. However, Clement of Rome widely quoted from the letter himself. It is unlikely that he would quote himself and his use of the Old Testament is often at variance with that in Hebrews.

Luther was the first to suggest Apollos as the possible author of Hebrews, a view which continues to enjoy some popularity. He was a "learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" who "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:24-28). Presumably, he would have been capable of the careful handling of the LXX found in Hebrews. Also, he probably had some connection to the Pauline mission (1 Corinthians 1-4). But concluding that he was therefore the author of Hebrews is, at best, conjecture.

Among others, arguments have been made for Peter, Jude, Stephen, Aristion, Priscilla, Silas, Timothy, Epaphras, Philip and Mary the mother of Jesus as possible authors of Hebrews. Two other possibilities remain. An associate of Paul could have written the letter for him (a view first suggested by Origen in 220). It is also possible that Hebrews was written by some other anonymous Christian unknown to us. The letter itself does not clearly identify its author. Perhaps the fairest conclusion is that advanced by Origen, in spite of his inclination to defend Pauline authorship: "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth."

How does the debate about authorship affect our view of the letter?

It is important to note that, although the debate over authorship has extended over the centuries, the question of the letter's canonicity (i.e., its inspiration and authority) has not. Even though church fathers in the East may have had doubts about its authorship, there is no evidence that they ever questioned its canonicity. Though the Muratorian Canon excluded Hebrews (as well as James and 1-2 Peter), all four books were included in the New Testament canon by the Synod of Hippo (393) and the Third (397) and Sixth (419) Synods of Carthage. Subsequent questions about its authorship during the Reformation had no effect at all upon the reformers' view of its authority or inspiration.

It is clear that apostolicity, as well as other issues such as universality and the "rule of faith," were important in the early decisions about the New Testament canon. We must keep in mind, however, that a document's "canonical" status is the result of a human process which does not bestow divine authority or inspiration upon a document but recognizes the authority and inspiration which it inherently possesses because it has been "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). In other words, if it is true that Hebrews is a divinely inspired and authoritative document, its inspiration and authority remain factual in an objective sense apart from our own inability to clearly discern the identity of its author. In his providence, God bore witness to the inspiration and authority of this letter in a manner that left little room for doubt, as Hebrews persistently silenced the questions of men who soon found that it "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

What do we know about the author?

Though the question of authorship is not determinative of either the letter's inspiration or authority, it is significant for our interpretation of Hebrews. Knowing as much as we can about the author can be helpful for discerning the meaning of a text. We may not be able to know the identify of our author with any degree of certainty, but there is much that we can know about him.

He was probably a Hellenistic Jew for he was both steeped in the LXX and possessed of an excellent vocabulary and a polished style for writing in the Greek language. Presumably, then, he was well educated. He was probably a second generation Christian (2:3) but one with direct connection to apostolic influence since he was a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly an associate of Paul. It is possible that he wrote from Italy, although 13:24 could also be taken to mean that the recipients were in Italy and some in his own party were from there as well. The rhetoric of the letter and his description of it as "my word of exhortation" (13:22) suggest that he was probably a preacher. His "short letter" reveals a compassionate pastor, a keen theologian and a superior logician who applies all the resources of revelation and rhetoric at his command so that his dear friends will "not drift away" (2:1).

DATE, DESTINATION AND PURPOSE

Three important facts suggest at least a general date for the letter. First, Clement of Rome cited Hebrews frequently. 1 Clement was written in A.D. 95 or 96 and thus Hebrews would not only have been completed but well circulated by this date. Second, there is thus little reason to doubt that the Timothy of 13:23 was the associate of Paul referred to elsewhere in the New Testament. Though we do not know how old Timothy was when he joined Paul in his work, it is unlikely that this reference would place the letter very late in the first century. Finally, much is made of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. Although it is possible that the author would not have referred to this event if it had happened by the time of writing, it seems improbable that he would omit reference to an event that not only had a significant effect on the lives of first-century Jews (including Christians) but would have added great force to his own argument. Further, he refers to old covenant worship rituals in the present tense (8:4-5; 10:1-3).

Other considerations as to the probable date of the letter pertain to the identity and location of its recipients. The title "To the Hebrews" may have been added later and reflect later opinions about its contents but it accompanies the letter in all of the oldest Greek manuscripts and there is no evidence that the letter ever bore any other title. Some suggest that the phrase could be translated "against the Hebrews" but it is the same formula used in Paul's letters which were hardly "against" the Romans, Galatians, etc. The title of the letter thus suggests that its recipients were Jewish, and the content that they were both Jewish and Christian.

The letter itself indicates that its recipients were enduring persecution (10:33-34; 12:4; 13:3, 23). The more natural reading of 13:24 suggests that the author wrote to Italy rather than from Italy (for which the expression "those in Italy send you their greetings" would have been more appropriate). The Edict of Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome in 49 but many had returned by the time of the persecution begun by Nero in 64. Since our earliest quotes of Hebrews come to us from Clement of Rome, its circulation there was likely at an early date. The cumulative evidence thus suggests that the letter was addressed to Jewish Christians in Rome who suffered under the persecutions of Nero.

The combination of these circumstances and statements in the letter suggest its purpose. Though some have suggested that Hebrews was written foremost to combat an early Jewish perversion of Christian doctrine or as a generic tract to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, key verses in the letter suggest that it was addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need. The following verses are all suggestive:

Passage Exhortation End in View

2:1 We must pay more careful attention so that we do not . . . to what we have heard drift away

3:1 fix your thoughts on Jesus (cp. 12:2)

3:6 hold on to our courage and the

3:6 hope of which we boast

3:12 See to it . . . that none of you has a

. . . heart that turns away from the

living God

3:13 encourage one another daily so that none of you

may be hardened by

sin's deceitfulness

3:14 . . . if we hold firmly till the end the We have come to

confidence we had at first share in Christ . . .

4:1 let us be careful that none of you be

found to have fallen

short of it [rest]

4:11 Let us . . . make every effort to enter so that no one will

that rest fall

4:14 let us hold firmly to the faith we

profess

6:11 show this same diligence to the very in order to make your

end hope sure

10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the

hope we profess

10:35 So do not throw away your it will be richly

confidence rewarded

10:36 You need to persevere so that when you

have done the will of

God, you will receive

what he has promised.

12:1 Let us run with perseverance the

12:1 race marked out for us

12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus (cp. 3:1)

12:3 Consider him who endured such so that you will not

opposition from sinful men grow weary and lose

heart

Hebrews is, without doubt, a theologically valuable document which presents a well arranged argument in defense of the superiority of the new covenant. Yet these verses suggest that the author had an immediate purpose in mind for his theology and his rhetoric - the encouragement of Christian brothers and sisters who, suffering under persecutions which threatened even martyrdom, were tempted to abandon their strength. In the midst of their suffering, our author sends his "short letter" and "word of exhortation" (13:22) that they might fix their eyes on Jesus (3:1; 12:2), whose greatness he demonstrates from their own beloved Scriptures and cherished heritage.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

Since Hebrews includes some of the formal features of an epistle (e.g., personal greetings and closing formula) but not others (e.g., typical introductory greeting or address), there has been much debate as to whether it is more of a letter or a sermon. However, this particular formulation of the genre question probably reads a sharper distinction between written and oral communication back into an era when rhetoric rarely made such a rigid separation. Other epistles in the New Testament were clearly written in the knowledge that they would be read in the presence of congregations. It is thus possible to argue that, though written, they should be viewed primarily as oral documents. Writing lengthy treatises with significant oral features was a typical "rhetorical" practice for the ancients (e.g., the "template" or model speeches of Isocrates and others). Hence, Hebrews could well have been constructed as a "written homily," i.e., a letter with sermonic features.

This is to propose a variation of Deissmann's suggestion that Hebrews could have been an example of Christian literary art (i.e., a kind of treatise). Guthrie's criticism - that the writer's purpose was too serious to be regarded in this light - assumes that literary art cannot be addressed to particular communities and urgent occasions, when in fact, rhetoric is chiefly defined by (1) its "addressed" nature and (2) its "contingent" character. The fact that it is addressed to specific communities, their circumstances and the demands of those circumstances is precisely what, according to Aristotle, distinguishes "rhetoric" from its counterpart "dialect." It is quite in keeping with at least one significant ancient rhetorical tradition to regard Hebrews as a written homily - an extended written treatise with significant oral features, addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need.

Of what import is this conclusion? There is little value in examining Hebrews for exact correspondence to any particular classical scheme of rhetoric as some have done for (1) a strong case has been made that there is no single classical tradition of rhetoric and (2) our uncertainty about the identity of the author makes it impossible for us to do anything more than speculate about the possible significance of any such similarities.

There are several values, however, in recognizing the "rhetorical" nature of the document. First, this encourages us to keep in mind that, above all, Hebrews is an attempt to persuade its recipients (to take action, i.e., a case of deliberative rhetoric). Close attention should thus be paid to its argumentative dimensions. Also, as we attempt to follow the writer's development of thought, we should be alert for the use of rhetorical devices which signal transitions from argumentative sections to hortatory sections that address the contingiences of the community's situation. Further, apart from the complexities which separated competing rhetorical traditions in the ancient world, it is not inappropriate to look for evidence of the kinds of topoi (argumentative commonplaces) more widely employed and with which a well educated author was likely to be familiar. This should aid our understanding of the nature of the proofs employed by our author. Finally, it reminds us to seek the relevance of the subject matter of Hebrews in relationship to particular sets of life circumstances (persecution, suffering, temptation, and discouragement among them).

Hebrews is organized around a series of quotations from the Old Testament which are not only presented as argument but also developed with a variety of exegetical procedures (see below). If we use these quotations as a guideline for discerning its structure, the following picture of Hebrews emerges.

Chapter One is an introduction. This chapter is full of Old Testament quotations demonstrating Jesus' superiority over angels.

Chapter Two appeals to Psalm 8. Jesus rescues man by coming down beneath angels, joining man in flesh and blood, dying, and then returning to his place of exaltation above the angels. All who cling to him in faith return with him to the throne.

Chapters Three and Four deal with Psalm 95. God offers rest to all who trust him. The land of Canaan was not that rest, for this Psalm spoke of a rest long after the Israelites who wandered in the desert hardened their hearts and lost the rest which God offered to them. God's rest is still available for all who believe him.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven are organized around Psalm 110. Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek, who was also superior to the priesthood of the old covenant. Jesus, in fact, is a priest forever by God's oath.

Chapter Eight introduces Jeremiah 31. The new covenant, created by Jesus our great high priest, is superior to the old covenant. It is founded on better promises than the old covenant, which was a mere copy and shadow of this new covenant.

Chapters Nine and Ten treat Psalm 40. Jesus' living sacrifice of himself through obedience is far superior to the Old Testament sacrifices of dead bulls and goats repeatedly offered in the old tabernacle. Jesus took this sacrifice into the very presence of God, thus fully taking away sins and cleansing our consciences.

Chapter Eleven develops a theme from Habakkuk 2, that the righteous will live by faith. This principle by which we live is illustrated by numerous examples of people living by faith.

Chapter Twelve treats Proverbs 3. We must accept the discipline God brings upon us, for God disciplines those he loves.

Chapter Thirteen is the conclusion. It is full of exhortations on how to give ourselves to God in the life of faith.

Remove the introductory and concluding chapters for a moment and an interesting picture of the structure of the main body of thought emerges. The new covenant (chapter 8) is central, tying together his priesthood (chapters 5-7) and his sacrifice (chapters 9-10). This is prepared for by the offer of rescue (chapter 2) and rest (chapters 3-4) and followed by the re

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle. The "Art" of Rhetoric . Loeb Classical Library. Translated by J. H. Freese. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.

____________ . On Rhetoric . Edited and translated by George A. Kennedy. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews . Hermeneia Commentaries. Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Translated by William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. "Baptism." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 1. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Bietenhard, H. "Name." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 2. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blowers, Paul. "Patterns of Perfection in Hebrews." Unpublished paper presented to a Fellowship of Professors at Johnson Bible College in Knoxville, Tennessee, September. 21, 1990.

Boatman, Don Earl. Helps From Hebrews . Bible Study Textbook. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1960.

Bromiley, Geoffery, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . 4 Vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Brown, Francis, et al . The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon . Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1980.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews . Trans. by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Chamberlain, William. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1941. Reprinted 1979.

Crouch, Owen. God Has Spoken: Expository Preaching and Teaching - Hebrews . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983. Reprinted 1990.

Davidson, A.B. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.

Dods, Marcus. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Vol. IV in The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910.

Douglas, J.D., ed. The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd. Ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1992.

Ellingworth, Paul. Commentary on Hebrews . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Enos, Theresa, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication From Ancient Times to the Information Age . New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Fant, Clyde E. and Pinson, William E., eds. Twenty Centuries of Great Preaching: An Encyclopedia of Preaching . 23 Vols. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1971.

Feinberg, C.L. "Tithe." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Fensham, F.C. "Oath." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. III, ed. by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Fiensy, David. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Gooding, D.W. and D.J. Wiseman. "Censer." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Gregory, T.M. "Oath." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Guthrie, Donald. "Epistle to the Hebrews," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. 2. Edited by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

____________ . Hebrews . Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

____________ . New Testament Introduction . 3rd ed. rev. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1970.

Hatch, Edwin and Henry Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint . Two Volumes including supplement. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck - Univ. Verlagstalt, 1954.

Héring, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities . Books I-IV. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

____________ . The Jewish War . Books IV-VII. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928.

Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . 10 Vols. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews . New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Konig, Eduard. "Tabernacle." The Jewish Encyclopedia . Ed. by Isadore Singer. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D. W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

____________ . Hebrews 9-13 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D.W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James . Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1966.

Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon . 9th ed. Rev. and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.

Lindars, Barnabas. "The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews." New Testament Studies Vol. 35 (1989), pp. 382-406.

Louw, Johannes and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains . 2 Vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students . 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek Testament . New York, London: United Bible Societies, 1971, corrected edition, 1975.

Meyer, F.B. The Way into the Holiest: Expositions of the Epistle to the Hebrews . Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1982.

Milligan, R. Epistle to the Hebrews . The New Testament Commentary, Vol. IX. Cincinnati: Standard Pub., n.d.

Moffat, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews . The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924. Reprinted 1968.

Montefiore, Hugh. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1964. Reprinted 1987.

Morris, Leon, et al. The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 12. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Moule, Charles F. Idiom Book of New Testament Greek . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James H. and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. Reprinted 1980.

Moulton, James H., Wilbert F. Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963-79.

Moulton, W.F. and A.S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897. 5th ed., 1978.

Nairne, A. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921.

Paterson, J. H. "Sea." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta . 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel Stiftung, 1935.

Schiappa, Edward. "Protagoras." Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication . ed. by Theresa Enos. New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Silva, Moises. "Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews." Westminster Theological Journal . Vol. 39 (1976), pp. 60-71.

Singer, Isadore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia . New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Spicq, C. L'Épitre Aux Hebreux . Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1952.

Soulen, Richard. Handbook of Biblical Criticism . 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976, 1981.

Swetnam, J. "Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observations and Surmises on Hebrew 9, 26." Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 30 (1968), pp. 227-254.

Tenney, Merrill C., ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . 5 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974-76.

Thayer, Joseph. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament . 4th Edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901.

Thompson, James. The Letter to the Hebrews . The Living Word Commentary. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Co., 1971.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpeting the Epistle to the Hebrews . Guides to New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Waltke, B.K. "Melchizedek." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-76.

Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . 2nd Edition. 1892. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994.

Wiseman, D.J. "Weights and Measures." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Ed. By J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament . Rev. ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Press, 1993.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDB New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English

Lexicon

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Bromiley)

KJV King James Version

LN Louw & Nida's Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

MHT Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar

MM Moulton & Milligan's Vocabulary of Greek Testament

NASB New American Standard Bible

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament

Theology

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

ZPED Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Hebrews (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS - 1:1-14

A. The Preeminence of the Son - 1:1-4

B. The Son Superior to the Angels - 1:5-14

II. JESUS RESCUES MAN - 2:1-18

A. Warning Not to Ignore Such a Great Salvation - 2:1-4

B. Jesus Became a Man to Bring Men to Glory - 2:5-18

III. GOD OFFERS REST TO ALL WHO TRUST HIM - 3:1-4:16

A. Jesus Is Superior to Moses - 3:1-6

B. Psalm 95:7-11 - 3:7-11

C. Hold Firm to the End - 3:12-15

D. Unbelieving Israelites Fell in the Desert - 3:16-19

E. A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God - 4:1-5

F. A Sabbath-Rest Remains - 4:6-11

G. The Message from God Does Its Part to Save Us - 4:12-13

H. Jesus, the Great High Priest - 4:14-16

IV. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE OLD COVENANT AND A PRIEST FOREVER BY GOD'S OATH - 5:1-7:28

A. Requirements of the High Priest - 5:1-4

B. Jesus Fulfills the Requirements and Offers Eternal Salvation - 5:5-10

C. [Excursus: Responding to God] - 5:11-6:12

1. Still Infants - 5:11-14

2. On to Maturity - 6:1-3

3. Those Who Fall Away - 6:4-8

4. Confident of Better Things - 6:9-12

D. God's Oath Makes His Purpose Sure - 6:13-20

E. Melchizedek Like the Son of God - 7:1-3

F. Melchizedek Greater than Abraham - 7:4-10

G. Jesus Is High Priest Based on His Resurrection which Introduces a Better Hope - 7:11-19

H. Jesus Is High Priest Based on God's Oath which Produces a Better Covenant - 7:20-22

I. Jesus' Resurrection Creates a Permanent Priesthood - 7:23-25

J. Jesus' Death Provides the Perfect Sacrifice - 7:26-28

V. THE NEW COVENANT BROUGHT BY JESUS OUR HIGH PRIEST IS SUPERIOR TO THE OLD COVENANT - 8:1-13

A. Our High Priest Reigns and Serves in the True Tabernacle, Prefigured by Old Testament Shadows - 8:1-5

B. Our High Priest Is Mediator of the New Covenant, Promised through the Prophet Jeremiah - 8:6-13

VI. JESUS' SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF IS SUPERIOR TO THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD COVENANT AND SETS US FREE FROM SIN - 9:1-10:39

A. The Tabernacle and Its Tools - 9:1-5

B. The Day of Atonement - 9:6-10

C. Jesus' Sacrifice Cleanses Our Conscience - 9:11-14

D. Jesus' Death Inaugurates the New Covenant - 9:15-22

E. Jesus' Sacrifice Was Once for All - 9:23-28

F. Old Covenant Sacrifices Could Not Take Away Sin - 10:1-4

G. Christ Offered His Body to Make Us Holy - 10:5-10

H. Our High Priest Now Reigns - 10:11-14

I. Witness of the Holy Spirit through Jeremiah - 10:15-18

J. Let Us Draw Near to God and Spur One Another On - 10:19-25

K. The Judgment of God on Those Who Keep Sinning - 10:26-31

L. Reminder of Earlier Suffering - 10:32-34

M. The Need to Persevere - 10:35-39

VII. GOD EXPECTS US TO SHOW FAITH - 11:1-40

A. The Nature of Faith - 11:1-3

B. Faith Illustrated by Abel, Enoch, and Noah - 11:4-7

C. Faith Illustrated by Abraham - 11:8-19

D. Faith Illustrated by Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph- 11:20-22

E. Faith Illustrated by Moses - 11:23-28

F. Faith Illustrated in Israel - 11:29-38

G. God Planned to Make Them Perfect with Us - 11:39-40

VIII. GOD EXPECTS US TO ENDURE DISCIPLINE - 12:1-29

A. A Call to Perseverance - 12:1-3

B. The Word of Encouragement - 12:4-6

C. God Disciplines His Children - 12:7-11

D. Practical Actions - 12:12-17

E. Terrifying Mt. Sinai - 12:18-21

F. Mt. Zion, the Heavenly Jerusalem - 12:22-24

G. A Kingdom which Cannot Be Shaken - 12:25-29

IX. CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS - 13:1-25

A. Keep Loving Each Other - 13:1-3

B. Stay Pure - 13:4-6

C. Remember Your Leaders - 13:7-8

D. Counterparts to Old Covenant Practices - 13:9-16

E. Obey Your Leaders and Pray for Us - 13:17-19

F. Benediction and Closing Exhortations - 13:20-22

G. Personal Greetings - 13:23-25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV