Reading: Hebrews chapter 10 verses 1-18:
Ill:
• The story of Daddy Long Legs is a book by Jean Webster;
• It has now been made into a film.
• It is the story of a little girl in an orphanage.
• She knows that there is a wealthy man who provides for the orphanage.
• But no-one knows who he is, he is never seen.
• One day the little girl sees his shadow cast onto a wall.
• Because of the position of the light;
• The shadow it is elongated and has tremendously long legs.
• She calls the shadow ‘daddy Long Legs’.
• And for years she dreams of this shadow.
• And then one day she meets the owner of the shadow and falls in love with him;
• He too falls in love with her and a relationship develops.
Now here is the point:
• Once she has got him she stops thinking about the shadow altogether.
• Because the substance is far better than the shadow.
• What would you think of her;
• If she went back to the shadow on the wall and tried to kiss it?
• We would say; “She must be crazy”;
• For she now has something far superior in the man himself.
You will have noted in your studies in the book of Hebrews:
• That these Hebrew Christians were being tempted to go back into Judaism;
• But the writer reminds them (and us) that would be like swapping substance for a shadow.
• All through this letter;
• The writer has shown his readers how the Old Testament is full of ‘types’ and ‘shadows’
• The substance of which they speak is Jesus Christ.
• Whose shadow is cast all over the Old Testament.
• But remember a shadow is distorted; depending on the position of the light;
• It never quite gives you the clear picture of what you want.
• It is the same yet very different; and different yet the same.
• And remember, you cannot have a shadow without the substance being real.
The writer of this letter is about to show his readers:
• How the Old Testament sacrifices were really shadows;
• And the death of Jesus Christ is the real substance to take note of!
• In this section the writer presented three benefits
• That explain why the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is superior to the Old Covenant sacrifices.
Note:
• The heading in my Bible for this chapter is:
• ‘Christ's sacrifice once and for all’.
• Verse 10 backs up that statement.
• That only in Jesus Christ is their forgiveness of sins.
Ill:
• Sin, of course, is man's greatest problem.
• The barrier that cuts a person off from God.
• To know God and enjoy his presence;
• We need to be able to deal with the problem of sin.
Ill:
• World that says it doesn’t matter what ‘religion’ you have;
• They all are basically the same.
• Ill: Spokes of a wheel leading to the centre spindle (God).
• This book and Jesus himself said that idea is wrong!
• Only Jesus Christ has the ability and power to deal with the problem of sin,
• Therefore only Jesus Christ is the way to know God.
• Ill: Not all medicines will cure you of your particular ailment.
• Ill: Not all planes fly to the same destination.
• Ill: So not all religion will make you right with God!
• So the writer starts this section off by reminding his readers;
• Exactly WHAT or rather WHO they need – if they want to get right with God.
(1). THE NEED FOR A BETTER SACRIFICE (vs 1-4):
The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming--not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.
2 If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshippers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.
3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins,
4 because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Questions:
• Why were the Old Covenant sacrifices inferior?
• After all, didn’t God himself ordain them?
• And were they not in force for hundreds of years.
Answer:
Ill:
• If you think of the Law as a cookbook;
• A cookbook represents something far greater than itself.
• Cookbooks don’t satisfy the taste, fill the stomach, or nourish the body.
• Instead, they point to something beyond themselves – food!
• What the meal is to the cookbook; Jesus Christ is to the law!
• The Law was only "a shadow of good things to come" and not the reality itself.
THERE WERE TWO LIMITATIONS WITH THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW:
(a). The first limitation of the law was it could not make anyone perfect (verse 1).
“The sacrifices under the old system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship”.
The type of cleansing offered in the Old Testament was ceremonial;
• It assured a conformity of a persons exterior life;
• But provided no power to change things inside.
Ill:
• You could deliberately be a law breaker,
• Go to the temple to make a sacrifice to find forgiveness;
• But because you left the temple as corrupt as when you entered it.
• You may well go out and deliberately break the law again.
• e.g. Frank Skinner the comedian.
• So the first limitation of the law was;
• It could not verse 1 says make anyone perfect, it did not change the human heart.
(b). The second limitation of the law was it could not permanently take away sins:
4 because it is IMPOSSIBLE for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
• The sacrificial system in the Old Testament was temporary,
• And they were not able to accomplish anything permanent.
• The proof of that is they needed to be repeated day after day,
• And the Day of Atonement year after year,
• The very repetition point out the entire system's weakness.
• i.e. that the previous year's sacrifices were not lasting but incomplete.
Ill:
• If the hunger in your belly and the cash in your wallet are both the appropriate size,
• You could dine in one of the most expensive restaurants in the world.
• Each year Forbes publishes their list of expensive dining spots;
• Their lists include the average cost (in USD) for dinner for one below.
• 3rd place - Gordon Ramsay, London England $183
• 2nd place - Alain Ducasse au Plaza Athénée, Paris France $231
• 1st place - Aragawa, Tokyo Japan $368
• But no matter how good the restaurant, the chef or the food;
• No one meal will ever fill you up for life.
• The fact that you have to keep eating is evidence of that;
• Likewise no one animal sacrifice could take away sin!
(2). THE PROVISION OF THE BETTER SACRIFICE (vs 5-9).
“Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will, O God.'
8 First he said, Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them (although the law required them to be made).
9 Then he said, Here I am, I have come to do your will. He sets aside the first to establish the second.”
• The writer of this letter develops his argument by quoting Psalm 40 verses 6-8:
• Once again he will contrast the Old Testament sacrifices;
• And the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Notice:
• That the burnt carcass of sacrificed animals brought no lasting satisfaction to God.
• In fact twice in this paragraph (verses 6&8).
• The writer tells us that God "had no pleasure" in the Old Covenant sacrifices.
• This does not suggest that the old sacrifices were wrong,
• Or that sincere worshipers received no benefit from obeying God's law.
• It only means that something essential was missing;
• They were only a shadow and not the full substance!
Notice: the contrast in these verses:
• The problem with animal sacrifice was that there was no will involved:
• In fact, it was against the will of the animal to be killed.
• i.e. At best the animal would stand in ignorance and submit to the knife.
• Here is where the contrast stands out so magnificently.
• With Jesus, a will was involved,
• He had a choice, a will – and he submitted his will in obedience to God.
Note:
• The phrase “A body you prepared for me” (verse 5);
• Is not actually found in the original quotation of Psalm 40 verse 6.
Quote: Psalm 40 verse 6 reads:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced; burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not require”.
Question: So where did the writer of this letter get his ‘extra’ information?
Answer:
• He was quoting from the Septuagint (Sep-tu-a-gint),
• Which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
Ill:
• In New Testament times Hebrew was a dead language;
• People spoke Aramaic.
• Greek was the language literature (ill: English books all over the world).
• So the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek.
• Virtually all New Testament quotes in Acts or the letters from the Old Testament
• Are taken from the Septuagint (Sep-tu-a-gint).
The phrase translated as "pierced ears” or “opened .ears":
• Signified a readiness to hear and obey the will of God.
• Jesus often used a similar expression “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”.
• Both Psalm 40 & Jesus are using expressions;
• Which are saying; “Be obedient to what God tells you.”
• And the meaning in the quote from the Septuagint means exactly the same;
• In essence what both quotations are saying:
• Psalm 40 verse 6: “You unplugged my ears so that everything I hear I must obey”
• Hebrews 10 verse 9: “You gave me in a body and with my body I will obey your will”
The point that the writer is making is:
Ill:
• No amount of sacrifices could substitute for obedience.
• God told king Saul through Samuel the prophet: “To obey is better than sacrifice..”
• Saul failed to obey but made a sacrifice;
• He got the cart before the horse and his sacrifice was rejected!
Ill:
• In contrast to King Saul,
• King Jesus perfectly obeyed the commands of his Father.
• Compare verse 9: “Then he said, Here I am, I have come to do your will”.
• With say, Matthew chapter 26 verse 42:
“He went away a second time and prayed, My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”
And as a result of his obedience verse 10 says:
• N.I.V: “We have been made holy”
• K.J.B: “We are sanctified”.
• Amplified: “We have been made holy (consecrated and sanctified)”
• The word means: “Set apart for its intended purpose”.
Note: The Law could never do those things:
• The Law required that a person be clean before God.
• In the Old Testament under the old Covenant.
• Certain things, people and days were purified;
• Not just so that they would be clean, but ‘clean’ for God’s use.
• This was an often repeated, never ending process;
• BUT! Under the New Covenant every Christian is set apart finally and completely.
(3). THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE Better
SACRIFICE (vs 10-18):
“And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.
Once again the writer of this letter:
• Is going to make a number of contrasts;
• Between the sacrifice that Jesus offered and the animal sacrifices that the priests offer.
(1). He stresses the achievement of Jesus
(vs 11-12).
11” Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”
Ill:
• Every day, so long as the Temple stood, according to Numbers chapter 28 verses 3-8:
• The following sacrifices had to be carried out.
• ill: Every morning and every evening a male lamb of one year old,
• Along with it there was offered a meat-offering
• ill: And there was also a drink-offering,
• Added to that there was the daily meat-offering of the High Priest;
• ill: In addition there was an offering of incense;
• Before these offerings in the morning and after them in the evening.
There was a kind of priestly tread-mill of sacrifice “day after day”.
• Moffatt speaks of "the levitical drudges"
• Who, day in day out, kept offering these sacrifices.
Ill:
It was a monotonous and dull routine because everything was prescribed;
• How the priest was to be dressed, how the animals were to be sacrificed,
• What kind of offerings was to be used for specific rituals.
• There was no room for freedom or creativity.
• The priests couldn't slip into something a little more stylish,
• The type of sacrifice couldn't be varied,
• And the feast days couldn't be changed around to fit your schedule.
• There was no end to this prescribed process;
• And sadly, it left men still conscious of their sin and alienated from God.
In contrast the sacrifice of Jesus was made once and is effective forever;
• Jesus had made a sacrifice that neither COULD;
• Nor NEED be repeated.
Ill:
• On a human level.
• All works of genius have a certain unrepeatable quality.
• ill: Certain music, works of art, pieces of literature stand alone;
• They will never be equalled, there is something unrepeatable about them.
• What is true about human efforts;
• Is far truer of that achieved by Jesus Christ the Son of God!
• Through his sacrifice on the cross;
• He has achieved something that can never be done again.
• Perfection cannot be improved!
• Jesus had made a sacrifice that neither COULD; nor NEED be repeated.
(2). He stresses the exaltation of Jesus
(vs 11-12).
11” Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12 But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”
Notice again the contrast:
• The priests stand offering sacrifice;
• Christ sits at the right hand of God.
• ill: The earthly priests are in the position of a servant;
• ill: Jesus is in the position of a monarch.
• ill: The priests are busy at work in the temple “day after day”.
• ill: But Jesus is the King gone home, his task accomplished and his victory won.
Note: There is a wholeness about the life of Jesus:
• His life is incomplete without his death;
• His death is incomplete without his resurrection;
• His resurrection is incomplete without his return to glory.
Ill:
• The life of Jesus is like a panelled tapestry;
• To look at one panel is to see only a little bit of the story.
• The tapestry must be looked on as a whole before the full greatness is disclosed.
(3). He stresses the final triumph of Jesus
(vs 13-18).
“Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool,
14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy.
15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16 This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.
17 Then he adds:
Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.
18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.
Ill:
At the moment we are in between times:
• D-Day was 6th June 1944.
• Experts say that the war was won on that day.
• But V.E. Day was not until 8th May 1945.
• The victory was won but there was an in between time before it was recognised.
In these verses (13-18) the writer stresses the final triumph of Jesus.
• His victory has been won.
• He now awaits the final conquest of his enemies;
• There is coming a day where the universe will recognise that he is supreme.
• How and when that will come and take place is not ours to know;
Finally in verse 15-18:
• As is his habit,
• The writer to the Hebrews clinches his argument with a quotation from scripture:
• He quotes Jeremiah the prophet, speaking of the new covenant;
• Which will not be imposed on a man from outside but which will be written on his heart
• "I will remember their sin no more" (Jeremiah chapter 31 verse 34).
• Because of Jesus says the writer; the barrier of sin is for ever taken away FOREVER!
At this point in the letter:
• The writer has reached the end of his argument;
• Concerning the superiority of Christ’s person and work
• His conclusion is:
• Who would want a shadow when you can have the substance!
• Who wants the imperfect when you can have the perfect!
• Who wants the temporary when you can have the permanent!
