It was God who provided the sacrifice and not man. The quotation used in this section of Hebrews 10 is from Psalm 40:6–8, and it is applied to Jesus Christ in His incarnation (“when Christ came into the world”). The quotation makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant sacrifices.
The word “sacrifice” used here refers to any of the animal sacrifices. Offering covers the meal offerings and the drink offerings. The burnt offering and sin offering are mentioned (Heb. 10:5, 8). The guilt offering would be covered in the word sacrifice (Heb. 10:5). Each of these offerings typified the sacrifice of Christ and revealed some aspect of His work on the cross (see Lev. 1–7).
The failure of animal sacrifices to secure forgiveness led to the explanation of a better approach. The answer comes from Psalm 40:6–8 and applies to our situation. The words of the psalm express Christ’s mission after He entered the world in the incarnation. Christ’s sacrifice lasted because it showed a volitional commitment to do God’s will. Jesus showed a continuous awareness that He was to do the Father’s will, and He pursued it relentlessly. When Christ came, He willingly committed His life to the plan of God. Doing God’s will was His supreme goal. The only complete fulfillment of the will of God appeared in Christ’s perfect obedience.
5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; 6 in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. 7 Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’” 8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (ESV)
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- The sacrificial system was never the means by which God would deal permanently with sin
- Believers have been set apart (“sanctified”) by the offering of Christ’s body once for all. (v. 10)
- Jesus came to do the Father’s will, which is seen in the New Covenant. Through His death and resurrection, Jesus Christ has taken away the first covenant and established the second. The readers of Hebrews would get the message: why go back to a covenant that has been taken away? Why go back to sacrifices that are inferior?
- Jesus showed a relentless pursuit to do the Father’s will. Our goal should be to relentlessly pursue God and do His will.
CLOSER LOOK:
Verses 5–7: An inference from Hebrews 10:1-4 is introduced by “Consequently” (“Therefore” in NASB) in 10:5. Based on the inadequacy of animal sacrifices, a conclusion is drawn. If animal sacrifices could not remove sins, God had to do something. It was precisely because the yearly rituals served as a reminder (v. 4) that an Old Testament prophecy (Ps. 40:6–8) recorded the words of the One who would do what God really wanted. The author presents Psalm 40 as a messianic psalm, for only Christ, and not David, could have fulfilled the prophecies of the OT. This psalm prophetically anticipated some of Christ’s words at His First Advent. In this Psalm David prayed for God’s deliverance. When he approached the Lord he recognized that animal sacrifices were not sufficient. He must give himself to obey God’s will. Of course, this was ultimately fulfilled by Christ.
The phrase “a body have you prepared for me” is one Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew expression “You have dug ears for Me.” (the MT has “my ears You opened (dug).”). Now look at Psalm 40:6-8, in particular verse 6 (it says, “You have not desired sacrifice and meal offering; You have opened my ears; You have not required burnt offering and sin offering” (NASB), italics mine). “Opened” literally means dug, and could possibly mean pierced. The problem is verse 6. Hebrews has the word “body” whereas Psalm 40 has the word “ears.” The thing is that those who translate the Psalms are using the Masoretic Text or the Hebrew Text. The Hebrew text reads “ears,” whereas most of the major Septuagint manuscripts have the word “body.”
Some say this looks back to the ritual of Exodus 21:6. It is far better to say this is a case of synecdoche, or a part for the whole. In this case, it is kind of like an interpretive translation that uses a figure of speech (synecdoche). When God created such a delicate instrument as the ear, it portrayed the creation of the body in the womb. The Greek translator whose version the author of Hebrews used (obviously translating with the help of the Holy Spirit), construed the Hebrew text as a kind of figure of speech (technically called synecdoche) in which a part is put for the whole.[1] Of course, the same Holy Spirit who inspired Psalm 40 has the right to amplify and interpret His Word in Hebrews 10. If God is to “dig out ears” He must “prepare a body.” This interpretation is both valid and correct as its quotation in Hebrews proves. A modern day example of this is when someone asks you for help, like moving or fixing something. You in turn tell them that you “will give them a hand.” Obviously, you do not literally give them a hand. It is way that the hand in this case represents the whole body.
In this is also the idea that comes along with ears and that is hearing. When you hear the Word of God, it is not just that you pick up and make sense of these vibrations that go into your ear canal and all that. But you are actually taking what you hear and doing it. So what you have here is that the ear has come to be translated as a body, “A body to do the will of God.” But this is a difficult textual issue and of course, in the Old Testament, your modern English translations are using the Hebrew text and so that’s why you have ear. But in the New Testament you’re using the Greek text and the Greek manuscripts are following the Septuagint, which has body.
In the “body” which He assumed in Incarnation, Christ could say that He had “came into” achieve what the Old Covenant sacrifices never achieved, the perfecting of New-Covenant worshipers. In this sense He did God’s will. This may cause us to ask, were these the last words of the Son before He entered the womb of Mary?!
Verses 8–10: The writer relates the theology of 10:1-9 to the Lord Jesus in Hebrews 10:10-14. The writer then expounded the text they had just quoted. In the words, “He does away with the first in order to establish the second” (v. 9), the author referred to the setting aside of the Old Covenant sacrifices which did not ultimately satisfy God. What was established was God’s will, and it was “by that will” that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (ephapax; cf. 7:27; 9:12). The “will” mentioned in verse 10 is the will of God carried out perfectly in Christ’s earthly life and death.
Verses 8 and 9 of Hebrews 10 contain the writer’s commentary on Psalm 40:6-8. At least three points are made here. (1) The sacrificial system of the O.T. was never meant to be God’s ultimate solution to the sin question (vv.5-6). (2) The answer to the problem of sin was to be by the One who would perfectly carry out God’s will (v. 7). (3) The one perfect obedience supplanted the sacrificial system (vv. 8-9).
The word rendered “sanctified” (or “made holy”) involve a single Greek word (hēgiasmenoi) often rendered “sanctify” (cf. 10:14, 29). Here it occurs in a tense that makes it plain, along with the rest of the statement, that the sanctification is an accomplished fact.[2] Nowhere in Hebrews does the writer refer to the “progressive sanctification” of a believer’s life. Instead, sanctification is for the writer, a functional equivalent of the Pauline concept of justification.[3] By the sanctification, which is accomplished through the death of Christ, New Covenant worshipers are perfected for guilt-free service to God (cf. 2:11). Theologically, sanctification is both an objective and a subjective matter. We have been made holy objectively by the cross of Christ and we are in the process of being made holy through ongoing sanctification by the Holy Spirit throughout our lifetime.[4] The statement here in v. 10 points to objective sanctification (the point). In v. 14 the author referred to subjective sanctification (the process).
Another thing to note here is that this Psalm is placed on the lips of Jesus (“He said”). This is a rather remarkable hermeneutical move on the part of the author: the author places an Old Testament passage of Scripture on the lips of Jesus. This is Jesus saying these words and He is doing a couple of important things. First, there is a recognition from the Word of God itself that the Old Testament sacrifices were inadequate. Here it says, “Whole burnt offerings and sacrifices you take no pleasure in it.” This idea is that these are inadequate so I am (being Jesus) stepping forward and am going to rectify this. Ultimately the sacrificial system is not going to get the job done wholly and completely. Thus, Jesus as it were steps forward and essentially says, I have come to change and take care of the inadequacy. In this we see how the “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired…in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure.” All of this to say, it is pretty clear that the sacrificial system in and of itself was not wholly and totally adequate.
Also, the author of Hebrews is not necessarily the first one to question the efficacies of the Old Testament sacrificial system. In fact, the Old Testament does a pretty good job of that itself (there are maybe seven or eight passages in the OT that talk about the problems with the sacrificial system). Even in the Old Testament, there was an implicit recognition that these sacrifices were inadequate in the long run.
There are three major points come out of this quotation. One, God was not ultimately pleased by the Mosaic sacrifices. This implicitly points to the future of something else, an alternative. They were never the means by which God would deal permanently with sin. Two, God desired a different kind of sacrifice. A sacrifice involving His Son. Jesus steps forward to do this. And then three, the Son was willing to do the will of the Father. Again, we see this idea of voluntary. This seems to be what the author is getting at in this quotation of the Psalm and it contributes to their argument.
[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), 803.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] David L. Allen, “Hebrews,” in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, eds E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 35 (Nashville: B&H, 2010), n.p.