We go into Hebrews chapter 10. in our series through the book of Hebrews. This is message number 28, entitled, A Body Prepared. And we're going to be looking at Hebrews chapter 10, verses 1 to 10, and I'm going to start reading with verses 1 to 4. For the law, having a shadow of good things to come and 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 worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices, there's 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." So righteousness or perfection by the law has always meant the complete obeying of every precept of the Old Covenant law without exception. Now this means all 613 or whatever the actual number may be and we've talked about that some but the point being that perfection is only reached through the old covenant by complete obedience to every command in the law. But of course this isn't possible and even the most Orthodox Jews had to face this reality that this isn't achievable, it's not accomplishable. And so what they have done traditionally has been to make certain accommodations, to make certain adjustments in order to be able to consider themselves righteous according to the law. But, of course, this is actually a problem, a continuing problem, for all legalists and essentially what happens is the very same thing. There has to be adjustments made, there have to be accommodations made in order for us to even hold to any pretense of perfection according to law. But after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 BC, the remaining southern kingdom was exiled to Babylon and they went there in shock and in disbelief, some of the most painful lamentations that you read, particularly in the book of Lamentations by the prophet in response to the devastation that happened there. And there by the waters of Babylon, they came to what seemed an unimaginable conclusion that they could not then keep the old covenant law. The temple singers hung up their harps on the branches of the trees and they sat down and cried. And they asked, how shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange or a foreign land? In other words, they could not. Jerusalem was destroyed. The temple was destroyed. Israel was not in their land. It's not possible that they could keep the Old Covenant law. Since that time, the Jewish effort has always been to return to the land, to return to the temple, to return to the priesthood, to return to the sacrifices, to return to the Old Covenant. But the reality is that it's not even possible, since the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, to keep every command of the old covenant. That devastating event should have taught them, as the writer of Psalm 137, that only God, remembering His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, will fulfill those promises and plant them in the land in righteousness, peace, and safety in His kingdom. In other words, hope is only forward and not in going back. The very destruction of the temple should have communicated to them that this isn't it. This is not where it's going to be fulfilled. And this is a dominant message in the letter to the Hebrews that comes out here once again in this passage. Chapter 9. emphasized the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ as a once-for-all sacrifice, once-for-all-time sacrifice, in contrast to the repeated sacrifices of the Old Covenant priests. And in dealing with the Old Covenant, the writer has been very careful to show that it was for a shadow, and it was for a time. In other words, he has highlighted that the Old Covenant was temporary, It was conditional and it actually could not accomplish the purging of the conscience of sin, guilt. So the writer made a point of the emphasis of blood required by the old covenant and how nearly every Almost every cleansing ritual in the Old Covenant involves blood. Almost every one. There are a few that involve washings, but almost every cleansing ritual required blood and certainly every sin offering required blood. But it was inferior blood. And it was offered by inferior priests. And it was offered repeatedly. So it never actually accomplished redemption. But Jesus, He told us, entered into the true holy place in the heavens. Not with inferior blood, but with His own blood. And He did that once, and He obtained eternal redemption through that. And of course, this corresponds at the end of chapter 9 there to the common appointment to men to live once, to die once, and to be judged once. He ended by noting that Christ will come again. He currently appears in heaven, but He will appear on earth again. But this time will not be to offer sacrifices for sins, but to save his nation. So chapter 10 opens by offering explanation of the ineffectiveness of the old covenant contrasted with the effectiveness of Christ and his sacrifice. And the writer demonstrates the necessity of the doing away of the old covenant. And here he does so by quotation from Psalm 40. So we're going to look at verses one to four. where the writer explains that it was impossible that the sacrifice of the Old Covenant could take away sins, and verses 5 to 10 where he explains why Christ came. So we'll begin here with verse number one. For the law, having a shadow of good things to come and not the very image of the things, can never, with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the commerce thereunto perfect. So the Old Covenant, we're told, once again, was only a shadow of good things to come and not the substance. Now, we've seen the writer of Hebrews using this language, the various different terms that are related to what we refer to as typology, when there is some intentional person or event or institution in the Old Testament that prefigures some greater fulfillment to come. And we've talked about that. The writer of Hebrews has been continually referring to that. And so it's important here at this point to distinguish what the writer is saying. He says the law, and by that it's just again a shorthand reference to the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant had a shadow of good things to come. In other words, the Old Covenant was a type. It was a figure, a shadow, a parable, and all these different words the writer of Hebrews has used to refer to this. That the Old Covenant was a shadow does not mean that the Old Testament was a shadow. Those are two very different things. Not that the Old Covenant is not part of the Old Testament, but to say that the entire Old Testament is a shadow, that is not the same thing. There are those that treat the Old Testament that way and interpret the Old Testament with typology and spiritualizing. And this is in error, and it is not how the writers of the New Testament interpreted the Old Testament, nor the other writers of the Old Testament either. But the Old Covenant itself was a shadow of the good things to come, the better things to come. Now, just because the Old Covenant was a shadow, though, also doesn't mean that every little detail that we can find, every little hoop and latch that we might find described in the tabernacle and what have you, doesn't mean that every little detail corresponds to something as a figure. But it does so as a whole. It does so as a whole. It has also some very particular types as a shadow of the good things to come. But the writer has used that phrase several times and he means by that the good things to come are Christ and the new covenant. And he's made that very clear in this letter. So the writer's point here is that the old covenant did not contain the true substance. In other words, the Old Covenant wasn't given as a permanent solution for sin. It wasn't given for that purpose. It was given to point out the need for a permanent solution for sin and the fact that God would give a permanent solution for sin. And because it did not have the true substance, the writer has referred to the fact that it sacrifices were repeated yearly, and they could not perfect the people. Now the word that he uses for never is strong. Never at all. Impossible, we could say, as he does say. Now the concept of perfect or being perfect, being made perfect, is something repeated in this letter. And it refers to completion or maturity. And particularly the way the writer of Hebrews has been using it, it refers to the accomplishment of a true cleansing of the conscience from sin guilt. References like in chapter seven and verse 19 and back in chapter nine and verse nine as well. Verse number two, So the writer here is again drawing a conclusion. we're following along, we've noticed how that he has continued to refer to things that are clear and obvious from the Old Testament. Now he did refer to the Melchizedekan priesthood as having that idea of strong meat and those consequences and implications there, very, very strong meat for the mature. But he has drawn all of these things from clear, open statements from the Old Testament. So here he draws this direct conclusion. If they had been effective, if the sacrifice of bulls and goats and all those animals had been effective, they would not have been repeated. There would have been no need to repeat them. But of course, when you think about it, the Old Covenant actually commanded this repetition. The Old Covenant established a cyclical calendar for all observations of the Old Covenant. All of these ordinances were repeated continually after time, year after year after year after year. That's actually a feature of the Old Covenant. That's not anything that he's laying onto it. That's what it said itself. Now when he refers to the conscience, having no more conscience of sins, This means what we might call consciousness of sins. And it's another important theme in this letter. He's referred to again in chapter 9, verses 9 and 14, first to adhere again in verse 22, and then later in chapter 13, verse 18, this comes up again. This is another important theme, that idea of consciousness of sins. So what does he mean by that? By consciousness of sins, the writer is not talking about mere awareness that we have sinned, that we can think back in our memories and think back, well, I sinned in this way or I sinned in that way this year and that year, whatever. He doesn't mean awareness of sins, but he refers to more of what we might call moral consciousness. It's a consciousness of guilt. It is an awareness of sins in the past that are presently and in the future condemning us before God. That's what he's referring to. So if the sacrifices of the Old Covenant had been effectual, then those sinners could have known that their guilt was fully and permanently purged. But they did not. because they were not effective. And in fact, he goes on to say in verse 3, but in those sacrifices, there's a remembrance again made of sins every year. So instead of them having the knowledge of their sins, all of their sins being permanently forgiven and cleansed, The knowledge of the guilt of their sins was simply renewed year after year after year. Now if you think about it, though he's not really getting into this fact as much, there is a certain gospel orientation in the Old Covenant. While the Old Covenant isn't effectual at accomplishing redemption, the Old Covenant is just shouting clearly from beginning to end the need for redemption. The message of the Old Covenant is never, you're okay, you're all right as you are, you're good enough. The message of the Old Covenant is never, you're really, really close. If you would just try a little harder, just dig down, just try a little harder, you can get there. That is not the message of the Old Covenant. The message of the Old Covenant is always condemnation. And the Old Covenant condemns everyone who looks at it, who is judged by it, showing that there's a need for something better. So the answer is not within the Old Covenant, but beyond it, what it points to. Verse four, for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. And you see that four, he's giving an explanation here. And again, the writer is just drawing a direct and necessary consequence from the plain statements of the Old Covenant itself. He says, it's not possible. He talks about impossibility like he did back in chapter six in verse four, and he'll use the term again in a couple of ways to show something that's not possible. The blood of bulls and goats, he's saying, could never take away sins. And there's probably a few reasons that we could point to for that, one of those being they were not conscious, willing sacrifices for sins. Never did one of those animals think, I'm going to go give my blood to atone for the sins of Israel. Never did they think that. And not only that, these animals, they were not men. And so really their blood was not an adequate representative or substitution for the blood of men. So it's just not possible that an animal sacrificed on behalf of a man or men and women could atone for sins. And, of course, we can know this, again, by this explanation the writer gives. The writer speaks of this as just impossibility. It's just not possible. Then we come to the next part, starting here in verse 5, where the writer now, again, gets with that and sort of in the background, he gets into why Christ came. Verse number 5. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice an offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me. Now, because of this impossibility, and we see that connecting word there, wherefore, or therefore, or because, for this reason, or however you want to translate it, connect, it's an explanation. When he comes into the world, Because of this impossibility, he refers to Christ coming into the world. And this means his incarnation. He's talking here about his first coming into the world in human flesh. And of course, this refers right back to chapter 9 and verse 28, which was just a few verses ago where the writer spoke of his coming again, his second coming into the world. But now here he's explaining his first coming. And he begins here a quotation. from Psalm 40 verses six to eight. Now this Psalm was written by David, but notice that the writer of Hebrews here directly attributes it to Jesus Christ. He says in verse five, wherefore when he, and again that refers back to Christ in chapter nine and verse 28, when he cometh into the world, referring to his becoming flesh, his incarnation, he saith, And then he begins to quote these words of David in Psalm number 40. Well, let's go on with the quote. So he begins that quotation in verse five, he quotes down through verse number seven. This is Psalm 40 verses six to eight. Now Psalm 40, is quite a unique psalm. It blends the praise and thanksgiving psalm with a penitential lament psalm, with an imprecatory prayer psalm. Again, it's very unique among the psalms as far as its structure and its content and features and all of those things. And we looked at all those quite a while back now. And we're not given in Psalm 40, we're not given the occasion in David's life, but we do know that he opens up, first five verses, he's recollecting past deliverances from God. He's praising and thanking God for them. And obviously we've seen that the way that those sort of recollections function in the Psalms. It's a looking back to what God has done. a looking at the present circumstance and its need and then thinking forward that God's faithfulness will carry through. He has delivered. He will deliver. Sort of a way that those recollections work in the Psalms. He gives his crisis complaint, his petition for deliverance in the last part of the Psalm, verses 11 to 17. And in between, in verses 6 to 8, David speaks of his consecration to God. In other words, he sees his life wholly devoted to God. David's not basing that on his own merit or on his own piety. He sees his life wholly devoted to God because of God's choice of him. because of God's anointing of him as king, because of God's covenant with him to raise up his seed after him. This is why David sees his life consecrated to God. In other words, David knows that His life and the events of His life are bound up in God's purposes to fulfill His covenant with Abraham. And again, you can see David's testimony as he comes to the end of his life, and he talks about how he has not been ordered and sure. He has not merited this from God, but God has been faithful and His covenant is ordered in all things and sure. And in this psalm, David actually He writes this as king and he intercedes for many. And you can see that in verses 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 16. And he gives us in this psalm, another interesting aspect of this psalm, he gives us this subtle picture of a priest-king. interceding for many. And the implication is, just as he's declaring his consecration to God, meaning that his life is bound up in God's purposes to fulfill his covenant to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the lives of those he's interceding for, the many, their lives, their fates are also dependent upon this representative priest-king. Again, it's a very unique psalm. So then beginning with verse number eight, The writer of Hebrews then begins to draw out his necessary consequences from this psalm. Verse 8, he says, So he refers to a couple of specific parts. He does one here and then one in the next verse. He refers to a specific part. He refers particularly to the sequence in which things were stated and then he also gives sort of a commentary that again is just a necessary consequence of a plain statement in the Old Testament. So he emphasizes this sequence. Notice he says above, he says, when he said, and that's going to sort of be a counterpart to verse nine when he says, then said he, and that sequence is important. He is emphasizing that. When he said sacrifice and offering and so on. First of all, he's saying that Christ said when he came into the world that God didn't desire or take pleasure in sacrifices and offerings. Not that those were wrong to offer. In fact, God commanded those things to be offered. So he's not saying that they were wrong in offering them, nor that God had not commanded them to be offered. What he's saying is they didn't affect the appeasement of his wrath against sin. He didn't take pleasure in them. And so the writer picks up these words of Christ as meaning His declaration for the incarnation, He did not come to earth to offer animals on the altar at the temple in Jerusalem. And the writer adds that little comment, which were offered by the law or by the old covenant. In other words, Christ did not come into the world to fix or continue or alter the old covenant. He didn't come for that purpose. He didn't come to offer animal sacrifices that didn't appease the wrath of God to begin with. He didn't come for that purpose. Instead, he said, you've prepared a body for me. Now, verse nine, then said he, lo, I come to do thy will, O God. he taketh away the first that he may establish the second." So the writer emphasizes now what was said after that. So he emphasizes that, first of all, Christ said when he came into the world that God did not desire or take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices, and he just adds the note, which, by the way, were according to the Old Covenant. He didn't. But then he said, in other words, this is The alternative. If Christ didn't come to offer animals on the altar outside the temple in Jerusalem, then what did he come to do? And that's what he's saying. This is the alternative. He came to do God's will. To take away the first and establish the second. So Christ declared through David that he became a man to do God's will. And this distinguishes him, first of all, from the animal sacrifices. For one thing, again, they had no consciousness of dying as sacrifices for sin. But he came for that purpose, declaring beforehand that that was his purpose. And you can even think about that echoed during his ministry when he said things like, what am I supposed to say? Save me from this hour for this reason I came into the world. So the writer is picking up on these, emphasizing this sequence. First of all, he came. God did not desire offerings and sacrifices according to the old covenant. Rather, he had a body. And some people, we're not getting into Psalm 40, and the writer of Hebrews doesn't get into all aspects of Psalm 40 and everything, though he is using it contextually. And in Psalm 40, it says something like, open the ear. And so this is something of a paraphrase, where he's saying a body that has been prepared, and so it's not a problem, it's not an issue. But the writer is picking up on this sequence. And by this very sequence, then he draws this necessary conclusion. And that's where he says, he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. So Christ does away with the first or the former, that's the old covenant, in order to establish the second, the new covenant. So by Christ saying through David that God was not pleased with old covenant sacrifices and then saying he came to do God's will, he spoke of offering himself as a sacrifice and establishing the new covenant. Verse number 10. By the witch will, we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. So God's will was for the Old Covenant to be a shadow of good things to come for a time. And those good things to come are what God willed to come, Christ and the new covenant. So the writer just simply draws out, again, a necessary consequence. Obviously, he is saying clearly, again, back to the things that they should have understood. They knew these things from the Old Testament. They should have been able to put them together and understand them. This is a necessary consequence. that Christ did away with the old covenant to establish the new covenant by God's will. And then he adds that it is this, it's this will. And we know, again, we're in the context, he's talking about Christ, the new covenant. It's this will of God, referring to what was just said, that sanctifies through the bodily sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Not the Old Covenant. He's already remarked on how the Old Covenant does not sanctify other than just a ceremonial cleansing of the external. The word for sanctify that he uses, and he used it back in chapter 2 and verse 11. He's used it back in chapter 9 and verses 13 and 14. It's an important word, and again it goes along with that consciousness of sin. The word means to be purified, to be made holy. And he uses it here in the perfect tense, which indicates something that has been accomplished in the past, but has continuing effects in the present and into the future. And that's what he says is done by the will of God that Christ came to accomplish. Well, the writer has already referred to the incarnation as necessary for Jesus to, it was necessary for Jesus to become a man in order to be a faithful high priest. That's back in chapter two in verses 16 to 18. And here we see that it's necessary for him to have a body to offer in sacrifice for sin so Jesus could make full penal substitution for sinners. And by this one sacrifice that he did by the will of God, He has sanctified those who come to Him, meaning that the consciousness of guilt of sin is purged. Now, it is very important that we understand that a purged consciousness of sin Doesn't mean that we're no longer aware as if we can't remember, although I would say as we do get along in years, we probably do have a tendency to forget some of the sins that we have committed. But some of them we don't. Some of them maybe stick around, linger in our minds, cause us ongoing problems, but they shouldn't. He's not saying that we're not aware of sins that we've done in the past. What he is saying is we know, we can know, we can have assurance. that we stand forgiven, purified by the blood of Jesus Christ, so that no one of our sins stands against us to condemn us before God. And that's a purging of the consciousness of the guilt of sin. Oh, yes, I am a sinner. Yes, we're never going to get beyond that knowledge that yes, we are a sinner and we have sins in our lives. But this means that those sins are forgiven and are purified. And so we know that we stand that way permanently before God through faith in Jesus Christ. That's what he's saying. And of course, what he's also saying is that the Old Covenant could never do that. Could never do that. Never do that. Only by faith in the blood of Jesus Christ.