Expositor's Bible Commentary Commentary Hebrews 10

“The law” as used here stands for the whole OT, with particular reference to the sacrificial system. This is dismissed as no more than “a shadow” (GK 5014). It points to something unsubstantial in opposition to what is real. The law is a foreshadowing of what is to come. Perhaps those exegetes are right who see a metaphor from painting. The “shadow” then is the preliminary outline that an artist may make before he gets to his colors, and the “reality” (GK 1635) is the finished portrait. Thus the law is no more than a preliminary sketch. It shows the shape of things to come, but the solid reality is not there. It is in Christ. The “good things that are coming” are not defined, but this general term is sufficient to show that the law pointed forward to something well worthwhile.

In the second half of this verse, the expression translated “endlessly” can go with what precedes it in the Greek (as NIV) or with what follows, meaning that the law can never bring worshipers to perfection “for all time.” The latter interpretation is preferable. The author is saying, then, that the Levitical sacrifices continue year by year, but they are quite unable to bring the worshipers into a permanent or endless state of perfection. The yearly sacrifices mark another reference to the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement—ceremonies of which the author makes a good deal of use. “Can never” points to an inherent weakness of the old system: the animal sacrifices are quite unable to effect the putting away of sin. The yearly repetition repeats the failure. The same rites that were unavailing last year are all that the law can offer this year. There is an inbuilt limitation in animal sacrifice.

The rhetorical question here emphasizes the truth that the very continuity of the sacrifices witnesses to their ineffectiveness. Had the sacrifices really dealt with sins, the author reasons, the worshipers would have been cleansed and that would have been that. There would have been no need for repeating them (cf. 9:9). The necessity for repetition shows that the desired cleansing and atonement have not been effected. The translation “would no longer have felt guilty for their sins” obscures the reference made here to “conscience,” noted so often in this letter (see also 9:9, 14; 10:22; 13:18). A really effectual atonement would mean the permanent removal of the worshipers’ sins and eliminate the need for the annual Day of Atonement.

The author now contrasts false estimates of what sacrifices might do. “Reminder” (lit., “remembrance”; GK 390) is a word that usually involves action. When people remember sins, they either repent or persist in sin (Ezekiel 23:19). When God remembers sin, he usually punishes it (1 Kings 17:18; Revelation 16:19); when he pardons, he no longer remembers sin (Psalms 25:7). This verse uses an expression that recalls what Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me” , as he established a covenant in which the central thing is that God says, “[I] will remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34). The Day of Atonement ceremonies each year reminded people of the fact that something had to be done about sin. But the ceremonies did no more than that.

The yearly ceremonies were ineffective because “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” The word “impossible” (GK 105) is a strong one. There is no way forward through the blood of animals. “Take away” (GK 904) is used of a literal taking off, as of Peter’s cutting off the ear of the high priest’s slave , or metaphorically as of the removal of reproach . 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.

“Therefore” introduces the next stage of the argument. Because the Levitical sacrifices were powerless to deal with sin, another provision had to be made. The writer then quotes from Ps 40:6–8, words that he sees as coming from Christ and as giving the reason for the Incarnation. The preexistence of Christ is assumed here. This psalm is not quoted elsewhere in the NT, and this reminds us once more that the writer of this letter has his own style of writing and his own way of viewing Holy Writ.

In the passage quoted, the LXX reads “a body you prepared for me,” whereas the Hebrew has “ears you have dug for me.” Most likely the LXX gives an interpretative translation of the original Hebrew. It may be expressing the view that the body is the instrument through which the divine command, received by the ear, is carried out. Or it may be taking a part of the body (the “ears”) as meaning the whole body.

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” (v.5) are both general and might apply to any sacrificial offering, whereas the “burnt offerings” and the “sin offerings” (v.6) are both specific. The four terms taken together are probably meant as a summary of the main kinds of Levitical sacrifices under the old covenant.

The psalmist says that God did not “will” (NIV “desire”; GK 2527) or “take pleasure in” such offerings. This does not mean that the offerings were against God’s will or that God was displeased with them. Rather, considered in themselves as a series of liturgical actions, the offerings did not bring God pleasure. They might have done so if they had been offered in the right spirit, by penitent people expressing their state of heart. But the thrust of the quotation emphasizes the importance of the will.

“Then” (v.7) means “in those circumstances” rather than “at that time.” Since sacrifice as such did not avail before God, other action had to be taken. That action means that Christ came to do God’s will. In his case, there was no question of a dumb animal being offered up quite irrespective of any desires it might have. He came specifically to do the will of the Father, and his sacrifice was the offering of one fully committed to doing that will.

The reference to the “scroll” (GK 1046) is not completely clear, but probably the psalmist meant that he was fulfilling what was written in the law. The author of Hebrews sees the words as emphasizing that Christ came “to do” what was written in Scripture. The words that immediately follow in the psalm (“your law is within my heart”) show what this expression implies. The author uses the word “will” (GK 2525) five times, always of the will of God. It was important to him that what God wills is done. Christ came to do nothing other than the will of God.