Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 10

CHAPTER X

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

The general subject of this chapter is the sacrifice Christ has made for sin and the consequences that flow from the fact that He has made a sufficient atonement. In chapter 9, the apostle had shown that the Jewish rites were designed to be temporary and typical, and that the offerings made under that dispensation could never remove sin.

In this chapter, he shows that the true sacrifice has been made by which sin can be pardoned, and that certain very important consequences followed from that fact. The subject of sacrifice was the most important part of the Jewish economy and also the essential thing in the Christian dispensation; therefore, the apostle dwells upon it at such great length. The chapter embraces the following topics:

1. The apostle repeats what he had said before about the inefficacy of the sacrifices made under the law (Hebrews 10:1–4). The law was a mere shadow of good things to come, and the sacrifices made under it could never make those who offered them perfect. This was conclusively proven by the fact that they continued constantly to be offered.

2. Since this was the fact regarding those sacrifices, a better offering has been provided in the gospel by the Redeemer (Hebrews 10:5–10). A body had been prepared for him for this work; and when God had said that he had no pleasure in the offerings under the law, Christ came and offered his body once for all so that an effectual atonement might be made for sin.

3. The apostle further illustrates this sentiment by showing how this one great Offering was connected with the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 10:11–18). Under the Jewish dispensation, sacrifices were repeated every day; but under the Christian economy, when the sacrifice was once made, he who had offered it sat down forever on the right hand of God—for his great work was done. Having done this, he looked forward to the time when his work would have its full effect, and when his enemies would be made his footstool.

   The apostle then shows from the Scriptures themselves that this was to be the effect of the offering made by the Messiah, where it is said (Jeremiah 31:33–34) that under the gospel the laws of God would be written on the heart, and sin would be remembered no more. The apostle inferred that there must then be some way by which this was to be secured, and this was by the great Sacrifice on the cross, which had the effect of perfecting forever those who were sanctified.

4. Since it was a fact that such an atonement had been made—that one great offering for sin had been presented to God, which was never to be repeated—certain consequences followed from that, which the apostle proceeds to state (Hebrews 10:19–25). They were these:

   • The privilege of drawing near to God with full assurance of faith (Hebrews 10:22);

   • The duty of holding fast the profession of faith without wavering (Hebrews 10:23);

   • The duty of exhorting one another to fidelity and good works (Hebrews 10:24);

   • The duty of assembling for public worship, since they had a High Priest in heaven and could now draw near to God (Hebrews 10:25).

5. As a reason for fidelity in the divine life and for embracing the offer of mercy now made through the one Sacrifice on the cross, the apostle urges the consequence that must follow from rejecting that atonement, especially after having been made acquainted with the truth (Hebrews 10:26–31). The result, he says, must be certain destruction. If that was rejected, nothing could remain but a fearful looking for of judgment, for there was no other way of salvation. In support of this, the apostle refers to the effect of disobedience under the law of Moses and says that under the greater light of the gospel, much more fearful results must follow.

6. The chapter closes (Hebrews 10:32–39) with an exhortation to fidelity and perseverance. The apostle reminds those to whom he wrote of what they had already endured, encourages them by commending what they had already done, and especially the kindness they had shown to him. He says that they needed only patience and that the time of their deliverance from all trial was not far off, for he who was to come would come. He says that it was their duty to live by faith, but that if anyone drew back, God could have no pleasure in him.

Having thus alluded to the subject of faith in the close of the chapter, he proceeds in the following chapter to illustrate its value in detail. The object of the whole is to encourage Christians to make strenuous efforts for salvation, to guard them against the danger of apostasy, and to exhort them to bear their trials with patience and submission to the will of God.

For the law, having a shadow. This means that the whole of the Mosaic economy was a shadow, for the word law is often used this way. The word shadow here refers to a rough outline of anything, a mere sketch, such as a carpenter draws with chalk, or an artist delineates when about to make a picture.

He sketches an outline of the object he intends 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 finished painting or statue, where every part is an exact copy of the original.

The good things to come here refer to the future blessings that would be conferred on humanity by the gospel. The idea is that under the ancient sacrifices, there was an imperfect representation, a dim outline of the blessings the gospel would impart to people. They were a typical representation; they were not such that it could be pretended they would fulfill 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 fulfill the purpose of saving the soul than the rough sketch an architect makes would fulfill the purpose of a house, or than the first outline a painter draws would fulfill 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 particularly referred to here were those offered on the great day of atonement. These were regarded as the most sacred and efficacious of all; yet the apostle says that the very fact they were offered every year showed there must be some deficiency in 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 no efficacy in them by which sin could be put away. (Hebrews 9:9).

For then would they not have ceased to be offered? A marginal note says, "Or they would have." The meaning is the same. The idea is that the very fact they were repeated showed there was some deficiency in them regarding 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 to repeat them in this manner. In this respect, they were like medicine. If medicine given to a patient heals him, there is no need to repeat it. But if it is repeated often, it shows there was some deficiency in it; and if taken periodically throughout a person's life, and the disease still remained, it would show that it was not sufficient to bring about 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 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 sins. That is, if their sacrifices had been effective enough to remove their past sins and to obtain forgiveness, they would have had no more trouble of conscience because of them. They would not have felt it was necessary to make these sacrifices over and over again in order to find peace.

When a person 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 does not have evidence that all his sins are forgiven, those sins will come to mind, and he will be alarmed.

He may be punished for them after all. Therefore, it follows that if a person 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, and no effort to forget them will achieve the goal.

They must be blotted out if he is to have peace—and that can only be through a perfect sacrifice. By the use of the word translated as "conscience" here, it is not meant that the one who was pardoned would have no consciousness that he was a sinner, or that he would forget it. Instead, it means he would have no trouble of conscience; he would have no fear of future wrath.

The pardon of sin does not cause it to cease to be remembered. The one who is forgiven may have a deeper conviction of its evil than he 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 elevate his understanding of God's mercy and the glory of the atonement, but it will no longer overwhelm his mind with the dread of hell. This effect, the apostle says, was not produced in the minds of those who offered sacrifices every year. The very fact that they did so showed that the conscience was not at peace.

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 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, those who made the offering were reminded of their guilt and their deserving of punishment. All the efficacy that could be claimed for those sacrifices was that they made expiation for the past year. Their efficacy did not extend into the future, nor did it embrace anyone except those who were engaged in offering them.

These sacrifices, therefore, could not make the atonement that humankind 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 that was already made as a ground of pardon, and they could not meet the needs 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.

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. The reference here is to the sacrifices that were made on the great day of atonement, for on that day the blood of bulls and of goats alone was offered. (See the notes on Hebrews 9:7).

Paul here means to say, doubtless, that it was not possible that the blood of those 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 offenses of various kinds against the ritual law of Moses, and pardon for such offenses 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 offense. 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 that 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 on Hebrews 9:9-10).

Therefore. This word shows that the apostle means to support 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 stated by authority which they would not presume to question, and he therefore appeals to their own Scriptures.

When he comes into the world. When the Messiah came, for the passage evidently referred to him. The Greek is, "Therefore coming into the world, he says." The question has been raised when this is to be understood as spoken—whether when he was born, or when he began his ministry. Grotius understands it of the latter. But it is not essential for 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, by coming into the world, made arrangements for a better sacrifice.

He says. That is, this is the language that his great undertaking represents; this is what his coming to make an atonement implies. We should not suppose that Christ formally used these words on any occasion—for we have no record that he did—but this language is that which 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 written by him with reference to his future coming.

Sacrifice and offering you would not. This is quoted from Psalm 40:6, 8. There has been much perplexity felt by commentators regarding this quotation; and, after all that has been written, it is not entirely removed. The difficulty relates to these points:

1. To the question whether the Psalm originally had any reference to the Messiah. The Psalm appears to have pertained only to David, and it would probably not occur to anyone reading it to suppose that it referred to the Messiah, unless it had been so applied by the apostle in this place.

2. There are many parts of the Psalm, it has been said, which cannot, without a very forced interpretation, be applied to Christ. (See Hebrews 10:2, 12, 14-16).

3. The argument of the apostle in the expression, a body you have prepared me, seems to be based on an incorrect translation of the Hebrew; and the question is, on what principles has he done this?

It is not the design of these Notes to undertake an extended examination of questions of this nature. Such examination should be sought in more comprehensive commentaries, and in treatises expressly relating to points of this kind. On the design of Psalm 40, and its applicability to the Messiah, the reader may consult Professor Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus xx., and Kuinoel, in the relevant section. After the most careful examination I can give the Psalm, it seems probable to me that it is one of the Psalms that had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah, and that the apostle has quoted it just as the Holy Spirit intended it to be understood, as applicable to him. The reasons for this opinion are briefly these:

1. There are such Psalms, as all admit. 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 poets. By the Spirit of inspiration, they saw him in the distant future in the various circumstances in which he would be placed, and they dwelled with delight on the vision. (Compare to the Introduction to Isaiah, section 7, subsection 3).

2. The fact that it is here applied to the Messiah is strong evidence demonstrating 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, for all who admit his inspiration, seems to decide 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 desired to convince of the truth of what he was asserting regarding 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 present a passage as proof whose relevance would not be admitted. The presumption is that the passage was, in fact, commonly applied this way.

3. The whole of the Psalm may be referred to the Messiah without anything forced or unnatural. The Psalm throughout seems to consist of expressions used by a suffering person, who had indeed been delivered from some evils but was expecting many more. The principal difficulties in the way of such an interpretation relate to the following points:

   1. In Hebrews 10:2, 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 because 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 tried to destroy him; and it may be that he refers to some deliverance from such schemes. 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.

   2. The next objection or difficulty relates to the application of Hebrews 10:12 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 men 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 called 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

      HEBREW

      means calamity, misfortune, trouble. (1 Samuel 28:10; 2 Kings 7:9; Psalms 38:6). 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, or 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 Psalm 49:12 by the parallelism. In the former part of the verse, the word to which "iniquity" corresponds is not sin, but evil, i.e., calamity.

      For innumerable evils have compassed me about;
      Mine iniquities [calamities] have taken hold upon me.

      If the word, therefore, is 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.

   3. 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 Hebrews 10:14-15: 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; indeed, it may also be said 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 malicious feeling in this, nor is it inconsistent with the highest benevolence. The lawgiver who says that the murderer shall die may have a heart full of benevolence; the judge who sentences him to death may do it with eyes filled with tears. The objections, then, are not of such a nature that it is improper to regard this Psalm as wholly applicable to the Messiah.

4. The Psalm cannot be applied properly to David, nor do we know of anyone to whom it can apply except 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. 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 agreement 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, and the latter to any oblation made to God—such as a thank-offering, an offering of flour, oil, etc. (See Barnes on Isaiah 1:11).

When it is said, "Sacrifice and offering you would 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 undoubtedly were; but that they were not as acceptable to him as obedience, and especially as the expression is used here, that they could not secure the forgiveness of sins.

They were not in their own nature what 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, 1 Samuel 15:22, Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.Hosea 6:6, For I desired mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt-offerings. Compare Psalm 51:16-17, For you do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; you do not delight 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 you have prepared me. This is one of the passages that has caused 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 use 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 use the language of others to express our own thoughts.

But the apostle does not appear to have used the passage this way here, but to have applied it as an 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 (Psalms 40:6) is, Mine ears you have 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 Isaiah 1:5, The Lord GOD has opened my 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 clearly 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 (Exodus 21:6; Deuteronomy 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 the Psalm the Septuagint translates, a body you have prepared me, and this rendering has been adopted by the apostle. Various ways have been tried to explain 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 tried to show that it is probable that the Septuagint reading in Psalm 40:6, was— wtion kathrtisw moi "my ear you have 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 swma, body.

See Hebrews 5:10. It is probably now altogether impossible to explain the reason why the translators of the Septuagint rendered the phrase as they did; and this remark may be extended to many other places of their version. It is to be admitted here, beyond all doubt, whatever consequences may follow,

1. that their version does not agree with the Hebrew;

2. that the apostle has quoted their version as it stood, without attempting to correct it;

3. that his use of the passage is designed, to some extent at least, as proof of what he was demonstrating. The leading idea, the important and essential point in the argument, is, indeed, not that a body was prepared, but that He came to do the will of God; but still it is clear that the apostle meant to lay some stress on the fact that a body had been prepared for the Redeemer.

   Sacrifice and offering, by the bodies of lambs and goats, were not what was required; but, instead of that, the Messiah came to do the will of God by offering a more perfect sacrifice, and in accomplishing that it was necessary that he should be given 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 seem satisfactory. The only circumstances which seem to offer any solution to the difficulty are these two—

1. that the main point in the argument of the apostle was not that "a body had been prepared," but that the Messiah came to do the "will of God," and that the preparation of a body for that was a rather incidental circumstance; and

2. that the translation by the Septuagint was not a material departure from the scope of the whole Hebrew passage. The main thought—that of doing the will of God in the place of offering sacrifice—was still retained; the opening of the ears, i.e., 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 the relevant section, Rosenmuller, Stuart on the Hebrews, Excursus xx., and Kennicott on Psalm 40:7. Kennicott supposes that there has been a change in the Hebrew text, and that instead of the present reading

   HEBREW

   oznaim, ears, the reading was

   HEBREW

   oz, guph—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 stand. 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 manuscripts for any change, nor do any of the old versions justify it, or agree with this, except the Arabic.