Hebrews 10:5-10

Hebrews 10:5-10

⁵ Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; ⁶ in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. ⁷ Then I said, 'See, God, I have come to do your will, O God' (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)." 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, "See, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. ¹⁰ And it is by God's will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:5-10 is part of a larger segment, verses 1-18, that expresses the superiority of the sacrifice of Christ to that of the sacrifices in the Law of Moses. The obedience and submission of Christ to the will of the Father replaces Mosaic sacrifice. A new reality has come. 

⁵ Consequently, when Christ came into the world, referring to the Incarnation. Yet, the reference is broader in that it refers to the world. He may even have in mind a birth something like what we find in Luke 2. Hebrews has an exalted Christology, so it seems the phrase has theological significance for him. He said, quoting from Psalm 40:6-8, obviously understanding the psalm in a Christological way, as if Christ were speaking to God, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me. The original, picturesque Hebrew phrase "ears you have dug for me"[1] the author replaces with the Septuagint's more obvious "a body you have prepared for me."  ⁶ In burnt offerings and sin offerings, you have taken no pleasure.[2] The old order required blood sacrifices (as noted in 10:4) of uncomprehending beasts such as bulls and goats. The new sacrifice that incarnates the new reality is the willing sacrifice of the fully cognizant Christ. While the animals and grains sacrificed under the old covenant had no knowledge of what occurred in the sacrifice, Christ is fully aware and willingly became Incarnate to do the will of the Father even to the point of death. ⁷Then I, the Incarnated Christ, said, 'See, God, I have come to do your will,[3] O God' (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)." The Psalm refers to four of the five types of offerings prescribed by Mosaic Law in Leviticus 1-7, namely, fellowship, grain, burnt, and sin. The sentiment expressed is like other passages in the Old Testament. The Lord takes greater delight in obedience than in burn offerings and sacrifices (I Samuel 15:22). 

In verses 8-10, the author offers a Midrash of the text. 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, "See, I have come to do your will." Continuing a reflection on the Psalm, he applies the notion of coming to do the will of God to Jesus. This becomes the key point of the passage. Other passages in the New Testament suggest the same thing. The prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane was while he would like his Father to remove the cup of suffering from which he was about to drink, he does not want his will done, but rather, he wants the will Father done (Mark 14:36). Jesus said that his food was to do the will of the one who sent him (John 4:34). He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.[4] For Hebrews, Jesus fits in perfectly with the chosen scripture. Bringing out that God does not desire animal sacrifices, God abolishes the first covenant, and Jesus came to do the will of God. A scribe hinted at this conclusion when he responded to Jesus concerning the greatest of the commandments that to love God with all one is and to love the neighbor as oneself is much more important than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices (Mark 12:33). The response of Jesus to this scribe was that he was near to the rule of God. Yet, we have a reminder that for those who hold that New Testament theology supersedes Old Testament theology the book of Hebrews presents considerable fodder for debate. For example, the opening chapters of the letter to the Hebrews contend that Jesus as God’s Son is superior to the angels, Moses, and the former high priests. In short, the author of Hebrews persistently argues for the supremacy of Christ’s priesthood when compared to the liturgical practices of the prior covenant. I suggest, however, that it remains inappropriate and misguided to conclude that the Hebrew writer is attempting to undermine and disparage the Hebrew Bible and its promises. Even in this passage, the author selects certain portions of the OT (specifically, Psalm 40) to privilege over other portions (sacrificial law codes such as those found in Leviticus). Thus, he does not envision a New Testament replacement of the Old Testament so much as he uses a selective choosing of texts. Indeed, the choice to understand Christ through the sacrificial system suggests that that system retained symbolic power for the author of Hebrews. Further, as Paul says of his fellow Israelites, “[A]s regards election they are beloved, for the sake of their ancestors; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:28b-29). I suspect the author of Hebrews would fully agree. ¹⁰ Further, it is by God's will that God has sanctified us through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. We have now arrived at the main point. The main topic is offerings.  Jesus did the will of God through his atoning death by the offering of his body. Because of Jesus' sacrifice, the people of God no longer need the Levitical offerings and the law.  He is quite consistent with other passages in the New Testament in this matter. Christ loved us, giving up his life for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:2). Christ bore our sins in his body on the cross so that we receive healing of our sins by his wounds (I Peter 2:24).

---

[1] By using the Septuagint's description rather than the old Hebrew, the author misses an opportunity to make additional correlations between Old Testament promises and New Testament fulfillment. The third Servant Song of Isaiah, which speaks poignantly of the abuse and humiliation heaped upon the Servant as the "reward" or his obedience, uses the "ear" as a focal point. In Isaiah 50:4ff. the "ear of this Servant - also an ear dug for him by his creator - is particularly noted. It is the ear which the Lord "wakens" each morning, for the Servant recognizes the gift of life was not given only on the day of his creation, but is given anew each day. And in verse 5 the Lord "opened" the Servant's ear to the mystery of the divine purpose. Because his ear is opened, the Servant is no longer tempted towards rebelliousness, but is joyfully obedient - even when faced with persecution.

[2] Actually, the Psalmist's words in 40:6 merely stated that these offerings are "not required. "

[3] However, the author fails to continue with the Psalmist's assertion that "your law is written on my heart." Yet, any reader aware of the Psalm being quoted would recall both this conclusion to that text in the Psalm and the link that it makes with the new covenant language found in Jeremiah 31:33. The law written upon the believer's willing heart is a basic requisite of this new reality formed by the new covenant. The writer of Hebrews stops short in his quotation so that he might continue to focus his reader's attention on the sacrifice made to bring this new covenant into existence.

[4] This abolition of sacrifices raises a question about the dating of this book. On the one hand, it could be argued that the lack of a specific reference to the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. suggests an earlier date for Hebrews, perhaps sometime in the mid-60s A.D. However, the general mood and ethical imperatives that permeate the book seem more similar to the concerns of later Christian writers, thus suggesting a date perhaps around 80 or 90 A.D. If a later date is accepted, the lack of explicit reference to the destruction of the temple (which would appear to fit well with the point in v. 9) could be explained on the grounds of the author's interest in a description of the sacrificial system as it appears in the OT rather than with any more contemporary practices that would have occurred in the pre-70 A.D. temple complex.