Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 10:1-18

"For the law having a shadow of the good [things] to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. Else would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those [sacrifices] there is a remembrance made of sins year by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, But a body didst thou prepare for me; In whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hadst no pleasure: Then said I, Lo, I am come (In the roll of the book it is written of me) To do thy will, O God. Saying above, Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; henceforth expecting till his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, This is the covenant that I will make with them After those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws on their heart, And upon their mind also will I write them; [then saith he,] And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." — Hebrews 10:1-18 (ASV)

Having considered what was done in both testaments to show the superiority of the New Testament over the Old, the Apostle now proves something he had presupposed: that the Old Testament was not able to cleanse sins. This is the last of the five points he had previously established about Christ. In this regard, he does two things: first, he shows the failure of the Old Testament in abolishing guilt; secondly, on this point, he compares the priest of the New Testament with the priest of the Old Testament (Hebrews 10:11).

Regarding the first part, he does two things: first, he states his intention; secondly, he proves it on the authority of Scripture (Hebrews 10:5). Concerning the first of these, he first sets forth what he intends, and then he proves it (Hebrews 10:2).

It should be noted that the Apostle concludes that the Old Law failed based on its condition and rite. Sin deprived humanity of future goods; therefore, because that sin pertained to future, heavenly goods, the Old Law is related to those goods as a shadow is to a body, while the New Law is related to them as an image.

A shadow and an image agree in that each represents something. However, a shadow represents something in a general way, according to the nature of its kind. An image, on the other hand, does so in a particular and specific way, according to the nature of the individual. In the same way, the New Law represents future goods more explicitly than the Old. First, this is because an express mention and promise of good things to come are found in the words of the New Testament, but not in the Old, which mentions only carnal goods. Secondly, the power of the New Testament consists in charity, which is the fulfillment of the Law. And although this charity is imperfect because of the faith in which it inheres, it is nevertheless similar to the charity of heaven. For this reason, the New Law is called the law of love and is called an image, because it has an expressed likeness to the good things to come. But the Old Law represented these things through carnal things; hence, it is called a shadow: Which are a shadow of things to come (Colossians 2:17).

Therefore, this is the condition of the Old Testament: it was merely a shadow of the good things to come, not the true form of these realities. Its rite consisted in offering the same sacrifice every year on the Day of Atonement—namely, the blood of goats and bulls for sin, as is clear from Leviticus (Leviticus 16). From these two facts, he draws his conclusion: since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come, instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. As it says, The law brought nothing to perfection (Hebrews 7:19). That perfection is reserved for the New Law and consists in charity, which is the bond of perfection (Colossians 3:14). Therefore, it says in Matthew 5:48, You, therefore, be perfect.

Then, when he says, Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered?, he proves his conclusion from two facts: first, from the rite of sacrifice; and secondly, from the nature of the offerings themselves (Hebrews 10:4).

To prove that the Law did not cleanse perfectly, he uses the fact that the same sacrifices were frequently repeated. His reasoning is this: If the worshipers had once been cleansed by the same sacrifice, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin, and so they would cease offering them. But as has been said, they offered the same sacrifices every year. Therefore, since they did not cease offering, it is a sign that they were not cleansed. As Jesus said, Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick (Matthew 9:12).

On the other hand, one could argue that this reasoning is not conclusive. One could say that the offering cleansed from past sins, but not from future ones. Therefore, because people sinned often, the offerings had to be repeated frequently. I answer that the way the Apostle speaks excludes this possibility. Since sin is something spiritual, which is opposed to what is heavenly, whatever cleansed from sin had to be spiritual and heavenly, and consequently, it had to have everlasting power. This is why, when speaking about the power of Christ’s sacrifice, he attributed an everlasting power to it, saying, having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12). The fact that it has eternal power is sufficient for sins already committed and for sins yet to be committed; therefore, it was not necessary to repeat it. Hence, by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified (Hebrews 10:14).

The fact that we offer the sacrifice every day seems to contradict the statement that it is not repeated. I answer that we do not offer something different from what Christ offered for us—namely, His blood. Hence, it is not a distinct oblation, but a commemoration of that sacrifice which Christ offered: Do this in remembrance of me (Luke 22:19). The second point he made is that in the Old Testament, a commemoration of his own sins and those of the people was made every year. Therefore, they were not abolished. He says, But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. This is true, for a general mention was made of sins, acknowledging a consciousness of sin. But in the New Covenant, special mention is made: Therefore, confess your sins to one another (James 5:16).

Then, when he says, For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, he proves the same point based on the nature of the things offered. The offering of bulls and goats, which took place on the Day of Atonement, was the most solemn of their offerings. And since it was an obscure and imperfect representation of heavenly things, like a shadow, it was impossible for sin to be taken away by their blood. This is true regarding their own power. If any sins were remitted, it was due to the power of Christ’s blood. As Jeremiah asks, Shall the holy flesh take away from you your crimes in which you have boasted? (Jeremiah 11:15). As if to say: No.

Then, in Hebrews 10:5, he cites an authority from Scripture. In regard to this, he does two things: first, he cites it; secondly, he explains it (Hebrews 10:8). According to a Gloss, this authority can be divided into two parts: first, it deals with Christ’s incarnation, which was prefigured in the Law; secondly, it deals with his passion (Hebrews 10:7). Yet, according to the Apostle’s intention, it can be understood differently: first, he touches on what pertains to the rejection of the Old Testament; secondly, what pertains to the acceptance of the New Testament (Hebrews 10:7b).

This authority fits Christ in regard to His coming into the world. He says, therefore, that because the old sacrifices could not remove sin, the Son of God, coming into the world, said what is written. But on the other hand, it says in John 1:10, He was in the world. I answer that it is true that He was in the world as the one ruling the whole world, inasmuch as He is said to be in all things by His essence, presence, and power. But He is also outside the world, because He is not comprehended by the world but has a goodness separate from the entire world, by which the goodness of the universe is caused. Yet, because He assumed a human nature for us, He is said to enter into the world, as was stated above: And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world (Hebrews 1:6).

Coming, therefore, into the world, he said what is written. But what did He say? Sacrifice and offering you did not desire. He mentions four things that were in the Old Testament. A sacrifice was either of inanimate things, such as bread or incense, and then it was called an offering; or it was of animate things. If an animate thing was offered to placate God, it was called a holocaust, which was most fitting because it was completely burned and gave honor to God. If it was offered for cleansing from sin, it was called a sacrifice for sin. This latter had two parts: one part was burned on the altar, and the other was given to the ministers for their own use. Or, if it was offered for God’s benefits, it was less fitting, because only one-third was burned, one-third was given to the ministers, and one-third was given to the ones who made the offering; this was called a peace offering. The offering of Christ’s body in the New Testament corresponds to all of these, because God was placated by the body of Christ offered on the cross: while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son (Romans 5:10). Furthermore, sin was removed by it: Christ also suffered once for sins (1 Peter 3:18). Finally, by it we are introduced to eternal goods and merit God’s benefits.

Hence, he says, Sacrifice and offerings you did not desire, and then adds, but a body you have prepared for me—that is, a body fit for immolation. This is for two reasons. First, because it was most pure, to wipe away all sin: it shall be a lamb without blemish (Exodus 12:5). Secondly, because it would suffer and be immolated: God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). That body is a true sacrifice and a true oblation: and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:2). Then he says, In burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. It is a greater thing to please than to will, because those things please us which cause us to will something; but sometimes we will certain things not for their own sake but for something else. Therefore, because holocausts were the most fitting sacrifices, if he says that they were not pleasing, then much less were the others.

But on the other hand, it says in Leviticus 1:9, the priest shall burn all of it on the altar, as a burnt offering, a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD. Furthermore, if He did not want them, why did He command them to be offered? I answer that the statement that the Lord did not want them can be understood in three ways. First, He does not want them at the time when, with the coming of the reality, the shadow could cease; hence, a person would sin by offering them now. Second, He does not want them because of the sins of those who offer them: Your hands are full of blood (Isaiah 1:15). The third answer, toward which the Apostle is tending, is that they were never pleasing to God or accepted in themselves. They are said to be accepted for two reasons: first, because they were a figure of Christ, whose passion was accepted by God, for He was not pleased with the killing of animals but with faith in His passion: Now these things happened to them as an example (1 Corinthians 10:11). Secondly, they were commanded to restrain the people from idolatry; hence, the first time the Law was given, no mention was made of sacrifices, but only after they made the golden calf. As Jeremiah says, For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices (Jeremiah 7:22).

Then when he says, Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come,’ he continues to approve the New Testament. According to a Gloss, it is read in the following way: Then, namely, when you prepared a body for me (that is, in the conception), I said, Behold, I have come—that is, I propose to come to the passion. As it is written, This is he who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ (1 John 5:6). Or it is better referred to His coming into the world, thus: Then, namely, when holocausts were not pleasing to you, I said, I have come by the Incarnation. I came from the Father and have come into the world (John 16:28), and this was in order to offer myself in the passion; therefore, he says, Behold.

But was that sacrifice accepted? It certainly was, because in the scroll of the book it is written of me. This book can be understood as Christ in His human nature, and in it were written all the things necessary for humanity’s salvation: Take a large scroll (Isaiah 8:1); And the head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3). Thus, in the scroll of the book—that is, in the plans of God, who is the head of Christ, who is the book—it is written that the Son of God is to be incarnated and die. Or, the book is the Psalter, whose first psalm concerns Christ. Or better, the book is the book of life, which is nothing other than the knowledge God has about the predestination of the saints, who are saved by Christ. Therefore, in that book it is written of me, because the saints are predestined through me: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4); For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29). Therefore, if predestination is called a book, it is obvious that Christ is the head of the book: but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life (Revelation 21:27). Therefore, in the scroll of the book—that is, in me, according to my divine nature—it is written of me, according to my human nature, that I have come to do your will, O God. This means it was foreordained that by Your grace I should do Your will by offering Myself for the redemption of the human race.

Then, when he says, When he said above, he explains the authority he quoted. In regard to this, he does two things: first, by stating the order in which he will speak, he lays out the difference between the Old and New Testaments; secondly, he explains in detail something presupposed by the authority (Hebrews 10:10).

We have said that two things were touched upon in the authority cited: one pertains to the rejection of the Old Testament, the other to the approval of the New. The Old Testament was rejected in two ways: first, because God does not want its sacrifices, and secondly, because they do not please Him. Hence, David the prophet says above, that is, in the beginning of the quote, Sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire. As Isaiah says, I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats (Isaiah 1:11). Nor are they pleasing to you (these are offered according to the law); that is, You are not delighted with them. You will not be pleased with a burnt offering (Psalms 50:16), unless it be because they are figures or inasmuch as they kept the people from idolatry.

Therefore, after saying this, he continues: Then I said—namely, when You fitted a body to me for my passion, or when the old sacrifices did not please you—Behold, I have come, either to the incarnation or to the passion. To what end? To do your will, O God. As Christ said, I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38), and, My food is to do the will of him who sent me (John 4:34). Therefore, the prophet, in saying this, abolishes the first in order to establish the second. With these words, he shows the difference between the Old and New Testaments. In speaking of the Old, he says that God does not want its sacrifices and that they do not please Him in themselves; therefore, they are taken away. But when he speaks of the New, he says that God does want it, because I have come to do your will. Therefore, the New is established and confirmed as being in accord with God’s will: When the new crop comes in, you will have to clear out the old (Leviticus 26:10).

Then, in Hebrews 10:10, he explains what he had said about God’s will, for the fulfillment of which Christ came. This will is described in 1 Thessalonians 4:3: For this is the will of God, your sanctification. Hence, he says, by that will we have been sanctified, and this was accomplished through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. As Peter says, Christ also suffered once for sins (1 Peter 3:18).

Next, in Hebrews 10:11, he compares the priest of the New and Old Testaments. Here it should be noted that there were two solemn sacrifices in the Law: one on the Day of Atonement, offered by the high priest alone; the other was the continual sacrifice, where one lamb was offered in the morning and another in the evening (Numbers 28). This is the one the Apostle intends to discuss here. In regard to it, he does three things: first, he lays down what pertains to the priest of the Old Testament; secondly, what pertains to the priest of the New (Hebrews 10:12); thirdly, he supports all this with scriptural authority (Hebrews 10:15).

He says, therefore, And every priest stands daily at his service. He says every priest to distinguish this sacrifice from the one of atonement offered by the high priest alone. In the former, every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, because they always offered a lamb. These daily sacrifices can never take away sins, because they were repeated. As Jeremiah asks, Shall the holy flesh take away from you your crimes in which you have boasted? (Jeremiah 11:15). But that continual sacrifice prefigured Christ and the eternity of Him who is the lamb without blemish.

Then, in Hebrews 10:12, he shows what pertains to the priesthood of Christ. In regard to this, he does two things: first, he states his intent; secondly, he gives the reason (Hebrews 10:14).

He says, therefore, But when this man, namely, Christ, had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins. The Old Law offered many sacrifices without atoning for sins. This man, therefore, offered one sacrifice, because He offered Himself once for our sins, and he sat down at the right hand of God. He did not sit as a minister who is always standing, like the priests of the Old Law, but as the Lord. The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand” (Psalms 110:1); he sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19). He sits at the right hand of God the Father with equal power in His divine nature, but with the more important goods in His human nature: he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3). And this is forever, for He will not die again, because Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again (Romans 6:9); His power is an everlasting power (Daniel 7:14).

He is waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. This waiting does not imply any anxiety in Christ, as it does in humans, because hope deferred makes the heart sick (Proverbs 13:12). Instead, it designates His will to have mercy: Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you (Isaiah 30:18). Those who are willing are subjected under His feet—that is, to His humanity—and in this their salvation consists: namely, in doing His will. How long will you refuse to submit to me? (Exodus 10:3). But the wicked, who are unwilling, also submit to it, because even though they do not accomplish His will in itself, His will is nevertheless fulfilled in them as a work of justice. Consequently, all things are subject to Him in one of these ways: you have put all things under his feet (Psalms 8:6).

Then, in Hebrews 10:14, he gives the reason why Christ sits as Lord and not as a minister like the priests of the Old Testament, who could not take away sin by one sacrifice and, consequently, had to offer many others frequently. As it says, For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices (Hebrews 5:1). But the sacrifice which Christ offered takes away all sins: Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many (Hebrews 9:28). Hence, he says that by a single offering he has perfected for all time. This He did by reconciling us and uniting us to God as to our source. He has perfected those who are being sanctified, because Christ’s sacrifice, since He is God and man, has the power to sanctify forever. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood (Hebrews 13:12). For by Him we are sanctified and united to God: Through him we have also obtained access (Romans 5:2).

Then, when he says, And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us, he confirms what he had said by citing an authority from Jeremiah 31:33. Since this text has been explained above in chapter 8, we will pass over it at present. Yet it can be divided into two parts: first, he cites the authority; secondly, he argues from it (Hebrews 10:18). He forms the following reason: Sins are remitted in the New Testament by Christ’s sacrifice, because the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins. Therefore, in the New Testament, in which sins and iniquities are forgiven, as the authority indicates, there is no offering to be repeated for sins. Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick (Matthew 9:12). Therefore, where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. To suggest otherwise would be to demean Christ’s sacrifice.