The tenth chapter of Hebrews emphasizes the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in contrast with the imperfect sacrifices that were offered under the Old Covenant. Our Lord’s superior priesthood belongs to a better order—Melchizedek’s and not Aaron’s. It functions on the basis of a better covenant—the New Covenant—and in a better sanctuary, in heaven. But all of this depends on the better sacrifice, which is the theme of chapter 10.
The argument concerning Christ’s greatness comes to a climax in Hebrews 10:1-18. This is the final subsection of the expository unit that began at 7:1. In chapter 7 the author argued for the superiority of Christ, as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek, over the Levitical priests. In 8:1–10:18, the writer argued the superiority of Christ’s priestly ministry which is based on a superior covenant (8:7–9:15) and entailed a superior sacrifice (9:16–28). Now the author argued that the superior sacrifice perfects the New Covenant worshiper.
1 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the form of those things itself, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually every year, make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. (NASB)
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- Sin is our greatest problem. By nature, we are a sinner; and by choice, we prove that our nature is sinful.
- Ultimately animals could not deal with the sin problem. The sacrifice of animals could not deal finally, completely, and ultimately with the sin problem.
- There was a desperate need for a better sacrifice because the blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sins. The sacrifice could cover sin and postpone judgment; but it could never affect a once-and-for-all redemption. Only the better sacrifice of the Son of God could do that.
CLOSER LOOK:
Verse 1: The “For” with which Hebrews 10:1 is introduced explains why the once for all death of Christ was necessary and looks back to “once to bear” in 9:28. Why were the Old Covenant sacrifices inferior? After all, they were ordained by the Lord; and they were in force for hundreds of years. While it is true that at times the Jewish people permitted these sacrifices to become empty rituals (Isa. 1:11–15), it is also true that many sincere people brought their offerings to God and were blessed. The O.T. sacrifices were not sufficient. The very nature of the sacrifices made them inferior. The Old Testament law had impressive ceremonies supported by centuries of tradition. It preserved an awareness of divine holiness and revealed the need for atonement. Nevertheless, the repetition of offerings and sacrifices on the annual Day of Atonement never brought the worshipers into a permanent relationship with God. Why? Old Testament sacrifices reminded of sin but did not remove it. The sacrificial system was a type or picture of the work our Lord would accomplish on the cross. This meant that the system was temporary, and therefore could accomplish nothing permanent. The very repetition of the sacrifices day after day, and the Day of Atonement year after year, pointed out the entire system’s weakness.
The author is building on some of the logic and argument that they have used before. Remember earlier that the earthly tabernacle was built off a form, model, or something of the heavenly one. It is the heavenly one that is real. It the earthly one that is the copy. What the author is saying is that the Mosaic Law in some sense was a copy of ultimately what God will do, “of the good things to come.” Hebrews emphasizes that the Law was only a shadow of God’s good blessings and not the reality. A shadow can never reveal its object, but it can provide an outline of reality. Whenever the reality comes, the shadow is irrelevant. Because the Law was only a faint outline of the glories of the coming gospel, it was a temporary element in God’s plan.
By virtue of its anticipatory character, the Law could “never … make those who approach perfect.” By “make perfect” the writer did not mean sinless perfection. As the following discussion shows, the writer was concerned with that definitive removal of guilt which makes free access to God possible for worshipers who trust in the sufficiency of the Cross.[1]
Since these sacrifices occurred year after year, the very fact that you had to do them year by year, showed that they were never complete or finished. If they were, you would not have to do it the next year. So repetition here shows to some degree inadequacy. Think of the analogy of brushing your teeth. You brush your teeth every night. Now I could say, “well I brushed my teeth and now it’s done. I don’t ever have to do it again.” But they would not be put in a position to be healthy. Because in the repetition by doing it every morning, every evening, and even after every meal, you are showing that one is not enough. It’s inadequate. It has to be a continual thing. And that is the way the sacrifices under the Law were. They had to be repeated over and over again. And by implication, they could not “make those who approach perfect.” Perfect in the sense of a completion of perfection.
Verse 2: The clear implication of verse two is the Temple was still standing when this was written (cf. 7:28; 8:13). If the Law made the worshipers perfect, then would not offerings cease because the worshipers would no longer have felt guilty for their sins? If the offerings had reached their goals, they would have stopped. These sacrifices dealt only with infractions committed since the last offerings. They left the root cause, sin, untouched.[2] Their repetition showed their inadequacy. The continuous sacrifices of the old order which are “repeated endlessly year after year” (v. 1) testify to the Law’s incapacity to “perfect” its worshipers. Far from enabling them to achieve a standing before God in which they “would no longer have had consciousness of sins,” the yearly rituals (of the Day of Atonement) served as a kind of annual reminder of sins, since animal blood has no power (“it is impossible”) “to take away sins.”
As we saw in chapter 9, we need to point out that the Law and the sacrificial system are separate but part of the same fabric. We cannot have this swap out or trade out of components. We cannot say, “Okay, we’re going to have this Law, we’re going to trade sacrifices from this over here and trade these things out. They go together.” So if you have a change in the Law, you have a change in sacrifices. If you have a change in sacrifices, you have a change in the Law. This year-by-year sacrifice is on the Day of Atonement.
Again, we have this repetition, meaning temporal or inadequate. Otherwise they would not have ceased to be offered. The author uses kind of an awkward way of saying this. We probably would not say it this way but they use the negative to affirm positive. What the author is saying is that if it had been adequate, they would have stopped doing it but it was not. If you ever reach that stage where you would not have consciousness of sins, then you could have stopped it. But they never reach that stage under the Old Covenant.
Verse 3: The contrast of 10:3 with the new covenant in 8:12 is almost startling. The O.T. Day of Atonement annually reminded the Israelite of his/her sins and that they are a sinner. In contrast the Christian remembers Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 11:24-25). Every offering announced the inadequacy of the previous offerings. It reminded the worshipers to get ready for the next annual offering. Only the sacrifice of Christ could abolish the consequences of sin permanently. An annual reminder of sin could only cause people to reflect on their sin and the problem of sin in their lives. But nothing was ever done. They kind of had this understanding where they are forced to deal with sin because they had to sacrifice and this offering is only good for a year because they would have to do it all over again the next year. When Christ came to die for sin, believers were blessed by an experience with a God who no longer remembered their sins (Heb. 8:12).
Verse 4: Why were the animal sacrifices so ineffective in removing sin? Animal sacrifices could never remove sin because they were never intended to take away sin. They were intended to foreshadow Jesus, who would later come to die to take away the sins of believers. Only the death of the perfect God-man could take away sin. David said centuries earlier that “the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise” (Ps. 51:17, ESV). God accepted the perfect sacrifice of Christ because it represented a broken, contrite expression of obedience to His will. Because animal sacrifices could not finally and ultimately deal with the sin problem, there had to be something else. Of course, we understand that something else is the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is able to take away sins that the animals could never do. They never get the job done.
[1] Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 804.
[2] Thomas Lea, “Hebrews” in Holman New Testament Commentary – Hebrews & James, vol 10, edited by Max Anders (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1999), np.