All right, in Hebrews chapter
10, we'll read it all, not being able to cover it all this morning,
but beginning in verse 1, Hebrews 10. For the law, having a shadow
of good things to come, not the very image of the things, can
never, with those sacrifices which they offered year by year,
continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they
not have ceased to be offered because that the worshippers,
once purged, should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there
is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not
possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away
sins. Wherefore, when he comes into
the world, he said, Sacrifice an offering thou would not, but
a body hast thou prepared me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices
for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come in the
volume of the book. It is written of me to do thy
will, O God. above, when he said, Sacrifice
and offerings, and burnt offerings, and offerings for sin thou wouldest
not, neither hath pleasure therein which are offered by the law. Then said I, Lo, I come to do
thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that
he may establish the second, by the which will we are sanctified
through the offering of the blood of Jesus Christ once, and then
the end for all. Now, verse 1 through 4 will be
our principal part of focus this morning. The first thing that
I'd like to point out is that here is another of the many places
in the Scripture where a new chapter or a division does not
mean a new or a different subject is taken up, or that the flow
of thought has been drastically altered by the author. Now that's seen, I think, by
the word for in the beginning of verse 1 in chapter 10. John Owen called the word for
a conjunctive particle which indicates that what is written
here in chapter 10 for us has some inference or is making some
connection or is drawing some conclusion based upon something
that has gone before earlier. John Brown took the word for
here in verse 1 to be the equivalent of moreover or furthermore. far moreover or furthermore."
And then he makes that point. Now the question is, what had
gone before? What is it that had recently
and before been said? in this part of the Scripture? Answer, in the last half of chapter
9 we have there the necessity and the efficacy of the death
of Christ our Lord. that he appeared one time in
the end of the world to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. In fact, the apostle had been
declaring two things intermingled along back in chapter 9. Number one, the weakness and
the inferiority of the Levitical sacrifices and of the Levitical
priesthood made by Aaron and by his sons and successor. They were not able to remove
sin or make an atonement for sin. And the second thing that
is intermingled in this is the perfection of Christ's one sacrifice
for sin that Christ, in dying one time, could do and did do
what all the thousands of Old Testament animal sacrifices could
not do. that the blood of Christ is more
fit than the blood of beast. And that covenant that Moses
instituted at the command of God was instituted with blood,
it is true, but it was the blood of goats and bulls and heifers
and such like. It was the blood of beast. But
the blood of Christ is the better blood and is the blood of the
new and the better covenant. Now, especially back in the last
few verses of chapter 9, that Christ is the high priest of
the New Covenant, he entered not into an earthly tabernacle,
but he has entered into the heaven of heavens, and that by his very
own blood, and has by his dying one time in the end of the world,
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And so has Gil, and
other commentators have perceived here in chapter 10 of Hebrews,
the apostle pursues the same dual precepts again. That is,
the imperfection of the Levitical priesthood and the superiority
and the excellency of that one of Christ. Now, the part that
we read here in chapter 10 has two distinct sections, and we
might consider them separately. In verses 1 through 4 of chapter
10, here in these verses, the apostle proved the inability
of animal blood to take away sin, to purge the consciences
of the worshiper, or to perfect those who are comers, or literally,
worshipers of God. And he confirms this by their
repetitious use again and again, year after year. and in some
cases even daily. And consider the last point,
if you might, that this repetition at regular and appointed times
in the history of Judaism, which the Jews took to be a strength
of their system, the author of Hebrews proved, in fact, is a
sign of the imperfection and the weakness of the system. That it is repeated again and
again is not its strength, but is its weakness. And then the
second section, we won't have time to touch it this morning,
but in verses 5 through 10 there is a testimony here of the all-sufficiency
of the one death of Christ to save completely and to save forever. and how this was according to
the will of God from before the foundation of the world. Now to begin with, to get our
feet wet and begin to wade out into the deep, let us consider
and put our focus upon verse 1 of Hebrews chapter 10. And
here the grand and logical argument of the apostle begins as to why,
in the end of chapter 9, Christ's one death was one necessary,
or it was ordained by God, and only it can put away sin. And
it was too ordered for that end, that he came into the world to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Now, the connection
between the two chapters is something along this line. as our great
high priest has died once in the end of the age in order to
put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And then in chapter
10 and verse 1, for because since moreover furthermore he reasoned. For, he said, the law, the law. He wants to speak now to them
of the law. Here is a word that is used,
if I did not miscount, at least a dozen times in the Hebrew epistle,
this word law. And it would be hard to refer
this word law to any other than the mosaic economy that he had
been speaking about in the book of Hebrew. Those sacrifices that
were offered in conjunction with that system of worship. And as seen here in the first
four verses of chapter 10, the law can never, with those sacrifices
which they offered year by year, continually make the comers there
unto perfect. But let us look at the part that
I skipped over in that quoting, which is a confirmation of the
doctrine which the apostle is here teaching. Here is why Christ
became incarnate and died. And here is why the sacrifices
of the law could neither take away the sins of the worshiper,
nor make them perfect in the sight of God. For there was,
says the author in verse 1, a shadow of good things to come. For the
law had a shadow of good things to come. We notice something
else. We notice that we have a contrast
here early in verse 1. Notice the contrast. A shadow
and not the very image of the thing. Now let's be very careful
here to note what is said, what is not said or written. For example, It is not said,
the law having a shadow and an image. That's not what the apostle
has written. Rather, it is the law having
a shadow and not the very image of the thing. And both of these
things are in relation to the good things to come. Thus the
law having a shadow of good things to come, but not the very image
of the good things to come. So as Owen pointed out, there
is a positive and a negative, and yet both of them in relation
to the good things to come, also in relationship unto the law. That in the law there was a shadow,
but not the very image of the good things that were to come. Now, let's consider these words,
the word shadow and image. I think that the word for shadow
is skia, and I counted it at least seven times in the New
Testament. Here they are very quickly, number
one and number two. in Matthew 4, 16 and Luke 1,
79. Both times of some who sit in
the shadow of death, probably referring unto the Gentiles. And thirdly, in Mark chapter
4 and 32, of the shadow of the abnormal mustard seed tree into
which some lodged in the shadow and the branches." It's the word
in Acts 5 and verse 15 of the shadow of Peter as he passed
by, and some wanted the shadow of the apostle to fall upon them. And then fifthly, we have it
in Colossians chapter 2 and verse 17, a shadow of things to come. Sixthly, we have it in Hebrews
8 and 5, who serve under the example and copy or shadow of
heavenly things. And finally, the last time this
year, in Hebrews chapter 10 and verse 1, a shadow of things to
come. By the way, the passage back
in Colossians chapter 2 and verse 17 seems to resemble a lot or
favor somewhat that one in Hebrews 10 and 1. In that, in Colossians
2.17, There is also a contract in that Paul calls such things
as meat and drink, holy day, new moons, Sabbath, which are
a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ. There's the contract. These things
are a shadow, but the body is Christ. Note, it is shadow that
is plural, the things which it is things which is plural, that
is, the ceremonial observances were collectively a shadow of
things to come, of good things to come that would come in Messiah. Now let's make a short study
of the two words used here in Hebrews chapter 10 verse 1. The word shadow and the word
image. Before we do, keeping in mind
the law had a shadow of good things to come and not. the very image. It had a shadow
but not the very image. In this the apostle speaks of
two likenesses being of a different kind or of a different degree
from the other. Some say that the word shadow,
the word skia, can have two meanings and does have two meanings in
the New Testament. Number one, it can mean a shadow
which a body or a thing might cast or might project as it stands
in relationship unto light or unto the sun. Secondly, a dim
and shadowy sketch. they say, is meant by this word
skia. Think of, first of all, just
an outline as contrasted with the filled in and the colored
and the finished state of it. John Brown held this view, that
the word shadow here, in chapter 10, verse 1, is a word that was
used by artists, by those that were painters, to signify the
first outline of an object or a picture that they intended
to fashion out and make full and complete. And in conjunction
with this very meaning, Brown said this about the law that
is referred to. Quote, the apostles' meaning
seems to be that the Mosaic institution contained a rude sketch, but
not by any means the complete picture of the blessings to be
enjoyed under Messiah end of his quotation. John Eady called
it, in Colossians 2.17, in his commentary, quote, a rudimentary
sketch, unquote. And again, describing the Mosaic
economy as being, quote, the faint lines of a sketch which
was lined, portrayed by the divine pencil for the guidance and government
of the Hebrews in their worship, unquote. Again, it has been called
an outline, a design to be later completely filled in and finished
up. And yet, in its first sketch,
it is representative of the whole or the complete, and representative
of that which is to come in connection with the appearance of Messiah,
the good things to come. Now, this is not to tell the
Jews that the Mosaic economy was empty, was useless, was in
vain, or that it was without meaning. Because, as they knew,
it was of divine origin. It was God who gave it. And He
gave it through no less a dignitary than Moses. And it was given
with great glory. on that particular occasion. However, the glory of Moses and
the glory of the law was completely overshadowed by the glory of
Christ and the glory of the Gospel as Paul writes in 2 Corinthians
3, makes that contract. And then again, Paul's great
illustration in Galatians 3 and 4, how that the Jews as a people or as a nation were by God under
that imperfect system as a tutor or a governor until the coming
of Christ who freed them and brought them unto the adoption
of son and into full age. And thus what we are learning
is that the first system was highly, highly typical. And as John Brown put it, it
was imperfectly typical at that. It was typical and it was imperfectly
typical in that it could not portray the full image of the
good things to come in Messiah, even as the apostle here has
written. It was not the very image of
the things that were to come in and with Christ. Now, you will find expositors,
of course, not be surprised at it, somewhat and sometimes at
odds as to the identity of these good things to come that he speaks
about in verse 1. Some say it is the fuller revelation
in the Gospel. Others say it is the eternal
things that await those in glory. If it be the latter, then are
we still without an image or an exact image of them, however. And in the context, the contrast
is between the two types of sacrifices and their efficacy to purge sin
and perfect worshipers between those sacrifices that were continually
offered year by year and the one sacrifice of Christ, which
we will read, sanctifies once and for all. So let's hear again. The extract from verse 1, The
law can never, with those sacrifices which they offered, perfect the
worshippers. Now the apostle, like a mighty
Simon, pulls down the pillars of Old Testament Judaism here
with a declaration of the inability of their sacrifices to perfect
the worshiper. In fact, if you want to flip
back with me to chapter 7 of Hebrews, and let's read verse
18 and 19 from that passage or chapter of this epistle. Chapter 7, verse 18 and 19, for
there is barely a disannulling of the commandment going before
for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing
perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did, by the
which we draw nigh unto God." Now again, looking at a part
of chapter 10 and verse 1, and a couple of words and phrases. Look at the words now, year by
year. Then look at the word continually. We want to dwell and focus upon
them. Is the author repeating himself
here for emphasis, year by year, continually? Is he just simply
repeating himself? Does he mean here only to emphasize
the same thing by both expressions, year by year, and continually? That is, were they an off-repeated
slang of sacrifices under the law. Now, for what it is worth
considering that question, me think such expositors as John
Owen, John Brown, A. W. Pink got it right that the
word continually here in verse 1 does not amplify or does not
expand upon the words year by year, but should be joined with
the last words of verse 1, chapter 10. That legal sacrifices could
not continually make the comers that came to worship by means
of those sacrifices perfect. It could not do that. Now the
meaning is coming into focus for us like a picture. Such sacrifices
of the law, though they were very often repeated year by year,
such as the Day of Atonement in Leviticus chapter 16, every
year at the appointed time, annually. Every year, as we have it down
in verse 11 of Hebrews 10, oftentimes, often offering, oftentimes, that
is often, even daily. And notice, the same sacrifices
which can never take away sin. Thus it is, that a word study
here, I believe, would be both profitable and bring out the
meaning. Now the word translated in verse
1, continually, that is in King James, is a compound word that
we find here, meaning carried through, and carried through
to an unbroken continuance. And as Owen wrote, The apostle
is far from declaring the absolute perpetual duration of the legal
sacrifice. It is, in fact, just the very
opposite. And as the Führer to Owen wrote,
this word translated continually, according to him, quote, does
not anywhere signify a duration or a continuance with a limitation
But always, he said, it is the opposite. Unto completion or
perfection. Perfection forever to the uttermost. And this word is four times in
our New Testament. And let us see how, where, and
why. And all four of them are found
here in the Hebrew epistle, and three of them here in the tenth
chapter that we are studying from this morning. Now, in this
very discussion that we are having, It is, first of all, in Hebrews
7 and verse 3, of the Melchizedekian priesthood. Notice what it said. You remember? Abideth a priest
continually. That is, perpetually, without
cessation, without interruption. This is the kind of priesthood
that is bestowed upon Christ. He hath an unchangeable priesthood."
Hebrews 7 and verse 24. Then again you have that word
here in Hebrews 10. verse 1, again Hebrews 10 and
verse 12 translated forever, and again in Hebrews 10 and verse
14 and there also translated forever. Thus the repetitious
sacrifices of the law can never bring those that worship by them
to a state of perfection. They can never complete the full
sanctification of a worshipper of God. They can never put away
their sin, can never purge their conscience of the guilt that
constantly abides there. And I suggest to you here that
the context support that this is the way that the word continually
is to be understood in chapter 10 and verse 1. And that is that
the sacrifices of the law, though they were regularly offered,
and that by a duly called and appointed high priest of God,
yet they could not perfect the worshipers perpetually or perfectly
are forever. So that the contrast between
the sacrifices of the law in verse 1 could never, forever
make the worshipers perfect. But look what we read in verse
14 of Hebrews chapter 10. for by one offering he, that
is Christ, hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. We'll consider this in our next
study, God Willing. Now, coming to the second verse
of Hebrews chapter 10, and especially the first sentence, and as in
the margin, then in such a case They would have ceased to be
offered. They would have come to an end
had they perfected the worshipers who used them. And the then,
T-H-E-N, in verse 2, refers to the last part of verse 1. If those sacrifices perfected
those who used them and worshipped under them, having perfected
them, they would of necessity cease, having served their purpose. That is, if they brought perfection,
no need for the same sacrifice again and again And again, for
that comparison, see Hebrews chapter 7 and verse 11 while
we are there. If therefore perfection were
by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received
the law, What further need was there that another priest should
arise after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Christ? If the Levitical priesthood brought
perfection, there would never be another raised up. Perfection cannot be improved
upon by the same token. If the law sacrifices brought
the worshipers unto perfection, there would be no need of the
repetition of them to do it again. And the reason, or a reason,
is in the end of the second verse of our text. The worshipers,
having once been purged in their conscience are perfected should
have no more conscience for sin." Now, let's look at this carefully.
The worshipers are no doubt the same as the comers in verse 1. Not the priests here are in view,
but the people in whose behalf the sacrifices were made, for
the priests offered in behalf of the people, making those sacrifices
which the law appointed and call for, and made in regard to sin,
and made repeatedly, and some at regular and appointed intervals
as year by year. Now the point being made If they
were able to perfect the comers or the worshipers, then they
of necessity ought to have ceased. They need not be repeated. If
they have that efficacy to perfect, they need not be repeated. And
it was the reason why they were repeated, because they could
not perfect a sinner for the reason that they could not take
away his sin. And I want to repeat it again,
if a Jew considered the repetition the strong point of the system,
it was in fact the opposite, a proof of the weakness of that
system under which they were worshipping. Now, see how the
apostle strings together his argument. Such sacrifices, he
said, could not perfect. If they could, they would not
need to be repeated, and the reason being because they would
have served their purpose, reached their aim, and arrived at their
goal, which the apostle calls purging. if they were able to
purge the worshipper. And he makes an interesting observation
here in the last half of verse 2. Because the worshippers once
purged." Literally, I think the text is, having been. The worshipers,
having been purged, should have had no more conscience of sins. Now look at that. This purging
is cleansing, or washing. And note the word, once. The worshipers, once purged. Once having been cleansed, Remember
what the Lord said to Simon Peter in John's Gospel, chapter 13. Linsky said that we have here
in Hebrews the perfect participle in regard to the purging or the
cleansing. And it would be in the tense
like this, once cleansed with an enduring permanence, if that
had occurred. This would have put such a worshipper
in a most blessed state indeed, having no more conscience in
regard to sin, being once cleansed. Supposing those sacrifices were
able to cleanse, which they were not, two things would be true. Number one, There would be no
need of repeating them. Number two, the cleansed worshipers
would or should have no more conscience of sin. Now, we best
be careful here with the meaning of this statement from the apostle,
that it harmonizes perfectly with John and with Paul's teaching
on remaining or indwelling sin in the believer. For the saved
still sin, and the saved still are convicted for it, and they
confess it before the Almighty God. How then does the apostle
speak of having no more conscience of sin? How to reconcile one
with the other. Well, I think the meaning was
well summed up by the expositor John Gill. Quote, they are discharged
from the guilt of sin and are not liable to condemnation for
it. Unquote. In Psalm 32, 1 and 2,
it won't turn there, but quoted by Paul in Romans chapter 4 and
Romans chapter 8, no condemnation to them who are in Jesus Christ. 1 John 3, 20 and 21, if our heart
condemn us not then have we confidence toward
God." This was not the case with the Old Testament sacrifices,
with the law of sacrifices. In fact, in verse 3 of Hebrews
10, in them was a remembrance again of sin every year. Again, see the contrast. No more
conscience of sin, a remembrance of sin. Now the question here
is this remembrance of sin, is it on their part or is it on
the part of God that there is a remembrance of sin? Or on the part of both someone,
some another? Or did God order the repetition? Did God do so in order that a
remembrance of sin might be kept up in the mind and the heart
of the people, most expositors in dealing. with the third verse
of chapter 10. Recall the same passages from
the Old Testament Scripture. For example, in Numbers 5 and
verse 15, there was to be made on a certain occasion a jealousy
offering. And it is described this way,
quote, an offering of memorial bringing iniquity to remembrance. That's when a husband was jealous
of his wife and made an offering, if you remember. It had no sweet-smelling
crushed spice in it whatsoever. It was a jealousy offering. Also
there is 1 Kings 17 and verse 18. The woman who asked the prophet
Elijah, have you come to me to call my sin to remembrance? Ezekiel 29, 16. And remember
that Samuel, Samuel the prophet, stirred up a fresh remembrance
of sin in King David when he challenged or charged him with
the sin that he had committed. and honest exegesis, it is said
here in our text, in those legally, duly appointed and offering sacrifices,
a remembrance made of sin every year. Each new sacrifice, and
the apostle seems to have in his eye the yearly atonement,
it was a fresh reminder that they were sinners, but also As
the exegete John Brown opined, these respected sacrifices were
an intimation that God had not yet received the adequate atonement
for sin. one that fully put away sin,
both in its guilt and in its condemning power. And now, coming
to verse 4, squeezing the time a bit, where the apostle pulls
down the whole legal system of sacrifices with what John Owen
called, quote, the last determinate resolution concerning the inefficiency
of the law and its sacrifices to expiate sin." Now, the impossibility
of the blood of beasts to take away sin, it is impossible. It is not possible for sin to
be put away, to be expiated, to be removed, to be taken off,
forgiven, or pardoned. by the blood of those sacrifices
offered under the old economy. for those sacrificed and others
like them. There is no putting away sin
but the blood of Christ. We might quickly remind us today
that there are those in Christendom who also attempt to see their
sin put away in another way rather than directly through the blood
of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now this raises the question,
or the objection, sure to be raised by the Jews who heard
these things. And it will be answered in our
next study. Why then were they given? Are they worthless? Have they
no value whatsoever? These institutions of the law. Why then were they given? Have they nothing to do and no
benefit whatsoever? But we'll deal with that in our
next study, God willing. This teaches us, does it not,
that the Old Testament saints were not saved by the blood of
their animal sacrifices, not a single one, for not a single
sin was ever forgiven or washed away by the blood of beasts on
Jewish altars slain. Not one soul saved by all the
barrels of that animal blood that was offered. Not one sinner
reconciled unto God or justified by the blood of beast or of animal. And the apostle does not restrict
this impossibility only to the time after Christ died, but while
the Mosaic law was yet in force. Now we'll take that up and take
up here in our next study. But we had to lay this foundation,
for it does so in the book of Hebrew. Christ will offer a once-for-all
sacrifice that saves forever those that are sanctified by
His death and by His blood.