2. They were a just representation of Christ only, the second pro- perty of such a shadow. They did not signify any thing more or less but Christ himself, and what belongs unto him. He was the idea in the mind of God, when Moses was charged to make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount. And it is a blessed view of divine wisdom, when we do see and understand aright how every thing in the law belonged unto that shadow which God gave in it of the substance of his counsel in and concerning Jesus Christ. .
3. They were but an obscure representation of these things, which is the third property of a shadow. The glory and efficacy of these good things appeared not visible in them. God by these means designed no further revelation of them unto the church of the old
"Exo.
VER. 1] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 423
testament but what was in types and figures; which gave a shadow of them, and no more.
Secondly, This being granted unto the law, there is added there- unto what is denied of it, wherein the argument of the apostle doth consist. It had “not the very image of the things.” t The rpéyware are the same with the ra dyad& widrovra ei i ge before mentioned. The negation is of the same whereof Bere the concession was made, the grant being in one sense, and the denial in another. It had not adriy rqv cixdva,— the very image” itself;—that is, it had not the things themselves; for that is intended by this “image” of them. And the reasons why I so interpret the words are these:—
1. Take “the image” only for a clear, express delineation and description of the things themselves, as is generally conceived, and we invalidate the argument of the apostle. For he proves that the
Aurchy rhy sindvec.
Jaw by all its sacrifices could not take away sin, nor perfect the
church, because it had not thisimage. But suppose the law to have had this full and clear description and delineation of them, were it never so lively and complete, yet could it not by its sacrifices take away sin. Nothing could do it but the very substance of the things themselves, which the law had not, nor could have.
2. Where the same truth is declared, the same things are expressly called “ the body,” and that “of Christ;” that is, the substance of the things themselves, and that in opposition unto “the shadow” which the law had of them, as it is here also: Col. 1. 17, “ Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” And we are not without cogent reasons to depart from the explication of the metaphor there given us; for these expressions are every way the same. They had not the body, which is Christ.
3. That is intended which doth completely expiate sin, which doth consummate and perfect the church; which is denied unto the law. Now this was not done by an express and clear declaration of these things, which we acknowledge to be contained in the gospel; but it was done by the things themselves, as the apostle hath proved in the foregoing chapter, and doth further confirm in this; that is,
~ it was done by Christ alone, in the sacrifice of himself.
4. It is confessed by all that there is an eixay dpyéruros, a “ sub- stantial image;” so called, not because it is a representation of what it is not, but because it is that whereof somewhat else is an image and representation, as the law in its institutions and sacrifices was of these good things. And this the apostle directs us unto by his emphatical expression, airy riy eixéva, “ipsissimam rerum imagi-
nem; “the things themselves.” So it is rendered by the Syriac
4)
translation, “ipsam rem,” or “ipsam substantiam;” the “ substance itself” And <ixay is frequently used in the New Testament in this
A24 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. X.
sense: Rom. i. 23, ’Ev émosmwart cindvos pbuprov dvbpuiarov,— Into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man;” that is, into the like- ness of a corruptible man. The image of the man is not something distinct from him, something to represent him, but the man him- self. See Rom. viii, 29; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15, 11 10.
This, therefore, is that which the apostle denies concerning the law: It had not the actual accomplishment of the promise of good things; it had not Christ exhibited in the flesh; it had not the true, real sacrifice of perfect expiation: it represented these things, it had a shadow of them, but enjoyed not, exhibited not the things them-~* selves. Hence was its imperfection and weakness, so that by none of its sacrifices it could make the church perfect.
Obs. I. Whatever there may be in any religious institutions, and | the diligent observation of them, if they come short of exhibiting Christ himself unto believers, with the benefits of his mediation, they cannot make us perfect, nor give us acceptation with God.— For, 1. It was he himself in his own person that was the principal subject of all the promises of old. Hence they who lived not to enjoy his exhibition in the flesh are said to “ die in faith,” but “not to receive the promise,” Heb. xi. 39. But it is through the promise that all good things are communicated unto us. 2. Nothing is good or useful unto the church but through its relation unto him. So was it with the duties of religious worship under the old testament. All their use and worth lay in this, that they were shadows of him and his mediation. And that of those in the new testament is, that they are more efficacious means of his exhibition and communica- tion unto us. 38. He alone could perfectly expiate sin and consum- mate the state of the church by the sacrifice of himself.