Charles Ellicott Commentary Hebrews 10

A Shadow of good things to come.—These words have already been discussed; the “shadow” in Hebrews 8:5, and “the good things to come” in the ordinary reading of Hebrews 9:11.

Not the very image.—The antithesis is hardly what we would have expected. The word “image” is indeed consistent with the closest and most perfect likeness; but why is the contrast to “shadow” expressed by a word that cannot denote more than likeness, and not by a reference to the things themselves? The answer seems to be that, from the very nature of the “good things to come,” the law could not be understood as possessing the things themselves; but if it had possessed “the very image” of them, such a perfect representation might have brought with it equal efficacy.

Can never with those sacrifices.—It is difficult to determine the exact Greek text in the latter half of this verse. With the ordinary reading, the general construction of the sentence is what the Authorized Version represents: For the law . . . can never . . . make perfect. The better manuscripts, however, read “they can,” a change that introduces some irregularity of construction: the pronoun “they” must probably in this case be understood as referring to the priests.

The order of the Greek is also very peculiar. Two translations of the verse (with the changed reading) may be given:

1. They can never with the same sacrifices year by year which they offer continually make them that draw nigh perfect.
2. They can never year by year, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually, make them that draw nigh perfect.

The difference between the two renderings will be easily seen. The former makes the whole sentence relate to the annual sacrifice on the Day of Atonement, and gives to “continually” almost the same meaning as “year by year.”

The meaning of the latter is that by the annual sacrifices, which are the same as those that the priests are offering for the people day by day (for the sacrifice of the Day of Atonement did not in itself differ from the ordinary sin offering), they cannot make the worshipers perfect. The latter translation agrees best with the original and conveys a very striking thought. It is open, however, to a very serious objection—that it separates the verse into two incongruous parts.

That annual sacrifices not different in kind from the sin offerings that were presented day by day (and that the very institution of the Day of Atonement declared to be imperfect) could not bring to the worshipers what they needed, is an important argument; but it has no connection with the first words of the verse. Hence, though the Greek does not very readily yield the former translation, it is probably to be preferred. With the expression “them that draw nigh” or “approach” (to God), compare Hebrews 7:26, where the same word is used. On “make perfect,” see Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 9:9.

For then.—Better, otherwise. The very repetition of the annual ceremonial was a testimony to its imperfection. The idea of repetition has been very strikingly brought out in Hebrews 10:1.

Once purged.—Better, because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have no more consciousness of sins. “Worshippers,” not the same word as in Hebrews 10:1, but similarly used in Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 12:28 (Philippians 3:3, and others): in Hebrews 8:5; Hebrews 13:10, it is applied to priestly service.

There is a remembrance.—Better, a remembrance of sins is made year by year. In each of the three prayers of the high priest for himself and his house, for the priesthood, for the people, he made special acknowledgment of sin. “I have sinned, I and my house and the sons of Aaron: Your people have done perversely.”

This verse explains those that precede. No inconsistency really existed in these sacrifices and this ceremonial system, even though they were so often repeated; for it was impossible that any such sacrifice could really remove sin. The offering was necessary, and it served its purpose; but it could not remove the necessity for another and a better offering.

Therefore.—This means, on account of this powerlessness of the sacrifices of the law.

He says.—This refers to Christ, speaking in the prophetic word of Scripture. Though not directly mentioned here, He has been the subject of the whole context (Hebrews 9:25–28). The words that follow are a quotation from Psalm 40:6-8 and agree substantially with the Septuagint, except that in Hebrews 10:7 a word of some importance is omitted (see the Note there). The Septuagint, again, is on the whole a faithful representation of the Hebrew text; only one clause (the last in this verse) presents difficulty. Particular expressions will be noted as they occur; the general meaning and application of the psalm must first receive attention.

Like Psalm 1 and Psalm 51 (with some verses of Psalm 69), Psalms 40 is remarkable for its anticipation of the teaching of the prophets (Isaiah 1:11–17; Jeremiah 7:21; Hosea 6:6; Micah 6:6–8; and others) on one point: the inferior worth of ceremonial observances when contrasted with moral duties.

It seems probable that the psalm is David’s, as the inscription relates, and that its key-note is to be found in the words of Samuel to Saul (1 Samuel 15:22): Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying (literally, hearkening to) the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey (literally, to hear) is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. The first part of the psalm is an expression of thanksgiving to God for deliverance from peril.

David has learned the true way of displaying gratitude, not by offerings of slain animals, but by the sacrifice of the will. The latter so excels the former, and the sacrifice of the will is so truly in accordance with God’s will, that the value of the legal offerings is in comparison as nothing. There is in all this no real disregarding of the sacrificial ritual , but there is a profound appreciation of the superiority of spiritual service to mere ritual observance.

It can hardly be said that this quotation rests on the same principle as those of the first chapter. The psalm is certainly not Messianic, in the sense of being wholly predictive like Psalm 110, or directly typical like Psalm 2. In some respects, indeed, it resembles 2 Samuel 7 (See the Note on Hebrews 1:5). As there, after words which are quoted in this Epistle in reference to Christ, we read of David’s son as committing iniquity and receiving punishment; so in this psalm we read, Mine iniquities are more than the hairs of mine head. David comes with a new perception of the true will of God, to offer Him the service in which He takes pleasure. And yet this is not entirely so—for such service as he can offer is itself defective; his sins still surround him in their results and penalties.

Hence, in his understanding and his offering of himself he is a type, while his sinfulness and weakness make him only an imperfect type, of Him who was to come. Such passages as these constitute a distinct and very interesting division of Messianic prophecy. We may then trace the principle on which the psalm is here applied. Jesus came to His Father with that perfect offering of will and self which was foreshadowed in the best impulses of the best of the men of God, whose inspired utterances the Scriptures record. The words of David, but partially true of himself, are fulfilled in the Son of David.

Since, then, these words describe the purpose of the Savior’s life, we can have no difficulty in understanding the introductory words, when He cometh into the world, He saith; or the seventh verse, where we read, Lo, I am come to do Thy will. When David saw the true meaning of the law, he thus came before God; the purpose of Jesus, when He received the body which was the necessary instrument for human obedience, finds its full expression in these words.

Sacrifice and offering.—The corresponding Hebrew words denote the two divisions of offerings, as made with or without the shedding of blood.

But a body hast thou prepared me.—Rather, but a body didst Thou prepare for me. Few discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Hebrew have attracted more notice than that which these words present. The words of the Psalmist are, In sacrifice and offering Thou hast not delighted: ears hast Thou digged for me. As in Samuel’s words, already referred to as containing the germ of the psalm, sacrifice is contrasted with hearing and with hearkening to the voice of the Lord, the meaning evidently is, You have given me the power of hearing so as to obey. A channel of communication has been opened, through which the knowledge of God’s true will can reach the heart, and excite the desire to obey.

All ancient Greek versions except the Septuagint more or less clearly express the literal meaning. It has been supposed that the translators of the Septuagint had before them a different reading of the Hebrew text, preferable to that which is found in our present copies. This is very unlikely. Considering the general principles of their translation, we may with greater probability suppose that they designed merely to express the general meaning, avoiding a literal rendering of a Hebrew metaphor which seemed harsh and abrupt.

They seem to have understood the Psalmist as acknowledging that God had given him that which would produce obedience; and to this (they thought) would correspond the preparation of a body which might be the instrument of rendering willing service. If the present context be carefully examined, we shall see that, though the writer does afterwards make reference (Hebrews 10:10) to the new words here introduced, they are in no way necessary to his argument, nor does he lay on them any stress.