ACC ~ Hebrews 10 v3 - 11

A REMINDER OF SIN. THEODORET OF CYR: He showed both the law’s limitations and its usefulness: while it cannot remove sins, it mounts an accusation against them, instills fear and obliges one to have recourse to grace. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 10.

SACRIFICES ABOLISHED THROUGH SACRIFICE. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: If they had become perfect, their priesthood would have ceased, because they should have abstained from their sacrifices. And if their conscience was cleansed from sin, at the same time they would have been cleansed from the impurity of flesh. But “in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin” every day. “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin.” Therefore our Lord, who came to this world, said through the mouth of David, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me,” so that the victims of sacrifices might be abolished through his sacrifice. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

A SACRIFICE FOR ALL SINS. OECUMENIUS: For he says that the sacrifices were offered not only for sins that had taken place, but rather for all sins, on the grounds that the sacrifices that had already taken place could not put the sins away. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 10:4.

HE CHANGES THE TEXT FROM “I WILL ESTABLISH EARS.” THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: These things have been spoken to those in Babylon who wanted to say to God, “You did not demand sacrifices from me but only to obey you and to do your will.” And right away the things pertaining to the quotation have become unambiguous as far as I am concerned. Changing it he speaks in this way about the person of Christ, saying, “I will establish a body” instead of “I will establish ears.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 10.5.

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE PREDICTIONS OF CHRIST. PHOTIUS: Christ spoke, “while coming into the world,”not “after he had entered it.” But manifestly he was already entering it when he promised David and maintained that he would seat one from the fruit of his loins on his throne until the age would come. Therefore, “while entering into the world” because of the promises made to David, he also says this through him, since “you did not wish for sacrifice and offering, neither were you well pleased” with the rites in the law. And he did not say, “you are not well pleased nor wish,” but “you did not want nor were you well pleased,” all but saying, “From their very institution and introduction the sacrifices were not entirely satisfactory and well pleasing. But really if any of them were accepted by you, it was accepted owing to the weakness of the one who brought them. Since then I reject these things and ‘I prepare a body for myself,’ then ‘I have come’ in order ‘to do your will.’ For this also is spoken concerning me not in a simple manner and in passing, but as the chief matter and the supposition of the book which foretold about me.” And he calls the book the whole Old Testament. For the chief thing and the most noteworthy supposition of the Old Testament are the predictions about Christ. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 10.5-9.

NOT THROUGH THE BLOOD OF BEASTS. THEODORET OF CYR: How could the blood of brute beasts declare guiltless some murderer or parricide? This is the reason blessed David also said, “Had you wanted it, I would have offered sacrifice; you will take no delight in burned offerings.”INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 10.

THE LORD’S BODY IS THE COMMON SACRIFICE. CHRYSOSTOM: Do you see that the law takes its force from the place? And, since the city is gone, there can no longer be a priesthood. There can be no emperor if there are no armies, no crown, no purple robe, none of the other things that weld together an empire. So, too, there can be no priesthood if sacrifice has been destroyed, if offerings are forbidden, if the sanctuary has been trampled into the dust, if everything that constituted it has disappeared. For the priesthood depended on all these things. . . .

That great and wonderful prophet, David … made it clear that the one kind of sacrifice would be abolished and another brought in to take its place when he said, “You have multiplied, O Lord my God, your wondrous deeds and your thoughts toward us; none can compare with you! Were I to proclaim and tell of them, they would be more than can be numbered.” See how wise the prophet is. He said, “You have multiplied your wondrous deeds,” and he stood aghast at God’s power to work miracles. But he did not go on to tell us about the creation of the things we see—of heaven, earth, and oceans, of water in Egypt or of any other miracles like those. What did he say were wondrous works? “Sacrifice and offering you do not desire.” . . .

David went on to say, “But a body you have fitted to me.”By this he meant the Lord’s body which became the common sacrifice for the whole world, the sacrifice which cleansed our souls, canceled sin, put down death, opened heaven, gave us many great hopes and made ready all the other things which Paul knew well and spoke of when he exclaimed, “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways.”

David, then, foresaw all this when he said, “Many are the wondrous works you have done, O Lord my God.” He went on to say, speaking of the person of Christ, “In holocausts and sin offerings you had had no pleasure,” and then continued, “Then I said, ‘Lo, I come.’” When was “then”? When the time was ripe for more perfect instructions. We had to learn the less perfect lessons through his servants, but the loftier lessons which surpass the nature of humankind we had to learn from the lawgiver himself. DISCOURSES AGAINST JUDAIZING CHRISTIANS 7.2.1-7.

THE ABOLITION OF SACRIFICE. CHRYSOSTOM: Here he does not blame those who offer, showing that it is not because of their wickednesses that he does not accept them, as he says elsewhere, but because the thing itself has been convicted for the future and shown to have no strength or any suitableness to the times. What then has this to do with the “sacrifices” being offered “oftentimes”? Not only from their being “oftentimes” offered, he means, is it manifest that they are weak and that they effected nothing, but also from God’s not accepting them, as being unprofitable and useless. And in another place it is said, “If you had desired sacrifice, I would have given it.”Therefore by this also he makes it plain that he does not desire it. Therefore sacrifices are not God’s will, but the abolition of sacrifices. Wherefore they sacrifice contrary to his will. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 18.1.

HE ABOLISHES THE FIRST. THEODORET OF CYR: By “first” he meant the sacrifice of brute beasts, by the “second” the rational one, offered by himself. … He brought out clearly that God’s will is the salvation of humankind. The Lord also said as much, “This is the will of my Father, that everyone who believes in me may not be lost but may have eternal life.” INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 10.

THE SAME SACRIFICES. PHOTIUS: He calls them “the same sacrifices” because they are always being offered for the same things, since those sacrifices and offerings which have taken place and are taking place are not strong enough to strip away any sin purely and completely. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 10.11.