Hebrews 10:2,3

᾿Επεὶ ἅν ἐπαύσαντο προσφερόμεναι, διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἔτι συνείδησιν ἁμαρτιῶν τοὺς λατρεύοντας, ἅπαξ κεκαθαρμένους, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν αὐταῖς ἀνάμνηοις ἁμαρτιῶν κατ ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν.

The Syriac translation refers that unto the persons which is affirmed of their offerings, אִלוּ גֵּיר גָּמְיִין חֲוָו “for if they had been perfect,” or” made perfect,” referring unto what went before, that they were not made perfect, מֵן קוּרְ בָנַיְהוּן כְּבַר דֵּין אֶתְנִּיחוּ, “they would have long since ceased” or “rested from their oblations” or “offerings.” “They would have offered them no more.” And although it doth not at all express τοὺς λατρεύοντας, which follows in the verse, yet it regulates the sense of the whole by that word, as it more plainly declares in rendering the following words, דַּחֲדָא זְבַן אֶתְדַכִּיו לְהוּן מֶטוּל דְּלָא מֵכִיל טָיְיָא הֲוָת לְהוּן תִארְתְּהוּן בַּחֲטָחֵא לְאִילֵין, “because their conscience would no more have tossed” or “disquieted them for their sins, who had at one time been purified;” which is a good exposition, though not an exact translation of the words. And so it renders the next verse, “but in these sacrifices their sins are remembered (called to mind) every year.” ᾿Επεὶ ἅν ἐπαύσαντο. Many ancient copies add the negative, οὐκ , ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἅν, whereof we shall speak immediately. ᾿Επεί. Vulg., “alioquin;” and so others generally. Of the word, see Hebrews 9:26. “For if so,” ἐπαύσαντο προςφερόμεναι, “cessassent (semel) oblata;” “they would have ceased, being once offered.” Most render the participle by the infinitive mood, “desiissent offerri,” “they would have ceased to be offered.” Τοὺς λατρεύοντας, “cultores,” “the worshippers:” “sacrificantes,” “the sacrificers,” say some, I think improperly, both as to the proper sense of the word and the things intended. The priests only properly were “sacrificantes,” but the people are here intended. Κεκαθαρμένους, (Mss., κακαθαρισμένους ,) “mundati,” “purificati,” “purgati;' “cleansed,” “purified,” “purged.” Διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν ἔχειν ἕτι συνείδησιν αμ᾿αρτιῶν . “Ideo quod nullam habent ultra conscientiam peecati.” Vulg. Lat., “ideo quod,” for “propterea;” “peccati,” for “peccatorum.” “Nullorum peccatorum amplius sibi essent conscii,” Beza; “they should no more be conscious unto themselves of any sin.” The sense is given in the Syriac before mentioned. Arab., “they would have made more mention of the commemoration of sins,” with respect unto the words following. ᾿Ανάμηνσις. Syr., “but in these they remembered their sins.” “Recommemoratio,” “repetita mentio;” a calling to remembrance by acknowledgment.

There is, as was observed, a different reading in the ancient copies of the first words in the second verse. The Syriac and the Vulgar Latin take no notice of the negative particle οὐκ, but read the words positively, “then would they have ceased.” Those who follow other copies take οὐκ for οὐχί , “non” for “nonne,” and render the words interrogatively, as doth our translation; “for then would they not have ceased?” that is, they would have done so. And then ἐπεί is to be rendered adversatively, by “alioquin,” as it is by most, “for otherwise.” But it may be rendered causally, by “for then,” if an interrogation be allowed. But the sense is the same in both readings, as we shall see. [1]

[1] VARIOUS READING. Though the textus receptus omits οὐκ , it is restored in most of the critical editions. Tischendorf in its favor appeals to all the uncial Mss., by far the most of the others, most of the versions, and many fathers. This passage is one in which the A.V. differs from the textus receptus. ED.

Hebrews 10:2. For otherwise they would have ceased to be offered; because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

The words contain a confirmation, by a new argument, of what was affirmed in the verse foregoing. And it is taken from the frequent repetition of those sacrifices. The thing to be proved is the insufficiency of the law to perfect the worshippers by its sacrifices. This he proves in the foregoing verse, from the formal cause of that insufficiency; which is, that in them all it had but “a shadow of good things to come,” and so could not effect that which was to be done only by the good things themselves. Here the same truth is proved “ab effectu,” or “a signo,” from a demonstrative sign and evidence of it in their repetition.

The present argument, therefore, of the apostle is taken from a sign of the impotency and insufficiency which he had before asserted. There is, as was observed, a variety in the original copies, some having the negative particle οὐκ, others omitting it. If that note of negation be allowed, the words are to be read by way of interrogation, “Would they not have ceased to be offered?” that is, they would have done so, or, God would not have appointed the repetition of them. If it be omitted, the assertion is positive,

“They would have then ceased to be offered;” there was no reason for their continuance, nor would God have appointed it. And the notes of the inference, ἐπεὶ ἅν, are applicable unto either reading: ‘For then in that case, on this supposition that they could perfect the worshippers, would they not (or, they would) have ceased to be offered? There would have been rest given unto them, a stop put to their offering.'That is, God would have appointed them to have been offered once, and no more. So the apostle observes signally of the sacrifice of Christ, that he “once offered” himself, that he offered “once for all;” because by one offering, and that once offered, he did perfect them that were sanctified or dedicated unto God thereby.

That which the apostle designs to prove, is that they did not by their own force and efficacy for ever perfect the church, or bring it unto that state of justification, sanctification, and acceptance with God, which was designed unto it, with all the privileges and spiritual worship belonging unto that state. That this they did not do he declares in the words following, by a notable instance included in their repetition. For all means of any sort, as such, do cease when their end is attained. The continuance of their use is an evidence that the end proposed is not effected.

In opposition unto this argument in general it may be said, ‘That this reiteration or repetition of them was not because they did not perfectly expiate sins, the sins of the offerers, all that they had committed and were guilty of before their offering; but because those for whom they were offered did again contract the guilt of sin, and so stood in need of a renewed expiation hereof.'

In answer unto this objection, which may be laid against the foundation of the apostle's argument, I say there are two things in the expiation of sin: first, The effects of the sacrifice towards God, in making atonement; secondly, The application of those effects unto our consciences. The apostle treats not of the latter, or the means of the application of the effects and benefits of the expiation of sin unto our consciences, which may be many, and frequently repeated. Of this nature are still all the ordinances of the gospel; and so also are our own faith and repentance. The principal end, in particular, of that great ordinance of the supper of the Lord, which by his own command is frequently to be repeated, and ever was so in the church, is to make application unto us of the virtue and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ in his death unto our souls. For a renewed participation of the thing signified is the only use of the frequent repetition of the sign. So renewed acts of faith and repentance are continually necessary, upon the incursions of new acts of sin and defilement. But by none of these is there any atonement made for sin, or an expiation of it; only the one, the great sacrifice of atonement, is applied unto us, not to be repeated by us. But the apostle treats only of that we mentioned in the first place, the efficacy of sacrifices to make reconciliation and atonement for sin before God; which the Jews expected from them. And actings towards God need no repetition, to make application of them unto him. Wherefore God himself being the only object of sacrifices for the expiation of sin, what cannot be effected towards him and with him by one and at once, can never be done by repetition of the same.

Supposing, therefore, the end of sacrifices to be the making of atonement with God for sin, and the procurement of all the privileges wherewith it is accompanied, which was the faith of the Jews concerning them, and the repetition of them doth invincibly prove that they could not of themselves effect what they were applied unto or used for; especially considering that this repetition of them was enjoined to be perpetual, whilst the law continued in force. If they could at any time have perfected the worshippers, they would have ceased to be offered; for unto what end should that continuance serve? To abide in a show or pretense of doing that which is done already, doth no way answer the wisdom of divine institutions.

And we may see herein both the obstinacy and miserable state thereon of the present Jews. The law doth plainly declare, that without atonement by blood there is no remission of sins to be obtained. This they expect by the sacrifices of the law, and their frequent repetition; not by any thing which was more perfect, and which they did represent. But all these they have been utterly deprived of for many generations; and therefore must all of them, on their own principles, die in their sins and under the curse. The woful, superstitious follies whereby they endeavor to supply the want of those sacrifices, are nothing but so many evidences of their obstinate blindness.

And it is hence also evident, that the superstition of the church of Rome in their mass, wherein they pretend to offer, and every day to repeat, a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, doth evidently demonstrate that they disbelieve the efficacy of the one sacrifice of Christ, as once offered, for the expiation of sin. For if it be so, neither can it be repeated, nor any other used for that end, if we believe the apostle. The remaining words of this verse confirm the argument insisted on, namely, that those sacrifices would have ceased to be offered if they could have made the church perfect; for, saith he, “The worshippers being once purged, they should have had no more conscience of sins.” And we must inquire,

1. Who are intended by “the worshippers.”

2. What it is to be “ purged.”

3. What is the effect of this purging, in “having no more conscience of sins.”

4. How the apostle proves his intention hereby.

1. The “worshippers,” οἱ λατρεύοντες, are the same with οἱ προσερχόμενοι, the “comers,” in the verse foregoing: and in neither place the priests who offered the sacrifices, but the people for whom they were offered, are intended. They it was who made use of those sacrifices for the expiation of sin.

2. Concerning these persons it is supposed, that if the sacrifices of the law could make them “perfect” then would they have been” purged; wherefore καθαρίζεσθαι is the effect of τελειῶσαι, to be “purged,” of being “made perfect.” For the apostle supposeth the negation of the latter from the negation of the former: ‘If the law did not make them perfect, then were they not purged.'

This sacred καθαρισμός respects either the guilt of sin or the filth of it. The one is removed by justification, the other by sanctification. The one is the effect of the sacerdotal actings of Christ towards God in making atonement for sin; the other of the application of the virtue and efficacy of that sacrifice unto our souls and consciences, whereby they are purged, cleansed, renewed, and changed. It is the purging of the first sort that is here intended; such a purging of sin as takes away the condemning power of sin from the conscience on the account of the guilt of it. ‘If they had been purged, (as they would have been had the law made the comers unto its sacrifices perfect);'that is, if there had been a complete expiation of sin made for them.

And the supposition denied hath its qualification and limitation in the word ἅπαξ, “once.” By this word he expresseth the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, which being one, at once effected what it was designed unto. And it doth not design only the doing of a thing at one time, but the so doing of it as that it should never more be done.

3. That these worshippers were not thus purged by any of the sacrifices which were offered for them the apostle proves from hence, because they had not the necessary effect and consequence of such a purification. For if they had been so purged, “they would have had no more conscience of sins;” but that they had so he proves in the next verse, from the legal recognition that was made of them every year. And if they had had no more conscience of sins, there would have been no need of offering sacrifices for their expiation any more.

(1.) The introduction of the assertion is by the particles “because that;” which direct unto the argument that is in the words,'” they would have ceased to be offered,” because their end would have been accomplished, and so themselves taken away.'

(2.) On the supposition made, there would have been an alteration made in the state of the worshippers. When they came unto the sacrifices, they came with conscience of sin. This is unavoidable unto a sinner before expiation and atonement be made for it. Afterwards, if they were purged, it should be so no more with them; they should no more have conscience of sin. “They should no more have conscience of sins;” or rather, “they should not any more” (or “further”) “have any conscience of sins; or, “they should have no conscience of sins any more.” The meaning of the word is singularly well expressed in the Syriac translation: “They should have no conscience agitating, tossing, disquieting, perplexing for sins;” no conscience judging and condemning their persons for the guilt of sin, so depriving them of solid peace with God. It is conscience with respect unto the guilt of sin, as it binds over the sinner unto punishment in the judgment of God. Now this is not to be measured by the apprehension of the sinner, but by the true causes and grounds of it. Now these lie herein alone, that sin was not perfectly expiated; for where this is not, there must be a conscience of sin, that is, disquieting, judging, condemning for sin.

4. The apostle speaks on the one side and the other of them, who were really interested in the sacrifices whereunto they might trust for the expiation of sin. The way hereof, as unto them of old, and the legal sacrifices, was the due attendance unto them, and performance of them according unto God's institution. Hence are the persons so interested called the “comers” to them, and the “worshippers.” The way and means of our interest in the sacrifice of Christ are by faith only. In this state it often falls out that true believers have a conscience judging and condemning them for sin, no less than they had under the law; but this trouble and power of conscience doth not arise from hence, that sin is not perfectly expiated by the sacrifice of Christ, but only from an apprehension that they have not a due interest in that sacrifice and the benefits of it. Under the old testament they questioned not their due interest in their sacrifices, which depended on the performance of the rites and ordinances of service belonging unto them; but their consciences charged them with the guilt of sin, through an apprehension that their sacrifices could not perfectly expiate it. And this they found themselves led unto by God's institution of their repetition; which had not been done if they could ever make the worshippers perfect.

It is quite otherwise as unto conscience for sin remaining in believers under the new testament; for they have not the least sense of fear concerning any insufficiency or imperfection in the sacrifice whereby it is expiated. God hath ordered all things concerning it so as to satisfy the consciences of all men in the perfect expiation of sin by it; only they who are really purged by it may be in the dark sometimes as unto their personal interest in it.

But it may be objected, ‘That if the sacrifices neither by their native efficacy, nor by the frequency of repetition, could take away sin, so as that they who came unto God by them could have peace of conscience, or be freed from the trouble of a continual condemnatory sentence in themselves, then was there no true, real peace with God under the old testament, for other way of attaining it there was none. But this is contrary unto innumerable testimonies of Scripture, and the promises of God made then unto the church.'In answer hereunto, I say, The apostle did not, nor doth in these words, declare what they did and could, or could not attain unto under the old testament; only what they could not attain by the means of their sacrifices (so he declares it in the next verse); for in them “remembrance is made of sins.” But in the use of them, and by their frequent repetition, they were taught to look continually unto the great expiatory sacrifice, whose virtue was laid up for them in the promise; whereby they had peace with God.

Obs. 1. The discharge of conscience from its condemning right and power, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, is the foundation of all other privileges we receive by the gospel. Where this is not, there is no real participation of any other of them.

Obs. 2. All peace with God is resolved into a purging atonement made for sin: “Being once purged.”

Obs. 3. It is by a principle of gospel light alone that conscience is directed to condemn all sin, and yet to acquit all sinners that are purged. Its own natural light can give it no guidance herein.

Hebrews 10:3. But in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins every year.

It is the latter part of the foregoing assertion, namely, that the worshippers were not purged or perfected by them, in that they had still remaining a conscience for sins, which is proposed unto confirmation; for this being a matter of fact might be denied by the Hebrews. Wherefore the apostle proves the truth of his assertion from an inseparable adjunct, of the yearly repetition of these sacrifices, according unto divine institution.

There are four things to be opened in the words:

1. The introduction of the reason intended, by an adversative conjunction, ἀλλά, “but.”

2. The subject spoken of; “those sacrifices.”

3. What belonged unto them by divine institution; which is, a renewed remembrance of sin.

4. The seasons of it; it was to be made every year.

1. The note of introduction gives us the nature of the argument insisted on: ‘Had the worshippers been perfect, they would have had no more conscience for sins. But,'saith he, ‘it was not so with them; for God appoints nothing in vain, yet he had not only appointed the repetition of these sacrifices, but also that in every repetition of them there should be a remembrance made of sin, as of that which was yet to be expiated.'

2. The subject spoken of is expressed in these words, ἐν αὐταῖς, “in them.” But this relative is remote from the antecedent, which is in the first verse, by the interposition of the second, wherein it is repeated. We transfer it hither from the first verse in our translation, “but in those sacrifices;” and we supply the defect of the verb substantive by “there is:” for there is no more in the original than “but in them a remembrance again of sins.” The sacrifices intended are principally those of the solemn day of expiation: for he speaks of them that were repeated yearly; that is, “ once every year.” Others were repeated every day, or as often as occasion did require; these only were so yearly. And these are peculiarly fixed on, because of the peculiar solemnity of their offering, and the interest of the whole people at once in them. By these, therefore, they looked for the perfect expiation of sin.

3. That which is affirmed of these sacrifices is, their inseparable adjunct, that in them there was a “remembrance of sins again;” that is, there was so by virtue of divine institution, whereon the force of the argument doth depend. For this remembrance of sin by God's own institution was such as sufficiently evidenced that the offerers had yet a conscience condemning them for sins. Respect is had unto the command of God unto this purpose, Leviticus 16:21-22. ᾿Ανὰμνησις is an “express remembrance,” or a remembrance expressed by confession or acknowledgment. See Genesis 41:9; Genesis 42:21. For where it respects sin, it is a recalling of it unto the sentence of the law, and a sense of punishment. See Num 5:15; 1 Kings 17:18. And hereby the apostle proves effectually that these sacrifices did not make the worshippers perfect; for notwithstanding their offering of them, a sense of sin still returned upon their consciences, and God himself had appointed that every year they should make such an acknowledgment and confession of sin as should manifest that they stood in need of a further expiation than could be attained by them.

But a difficulty doth here arise of no small importance. For what the apostle denies unto these offerings of the law, that he ascribes unto the one only sacrifice of Christ. ‘Yet notwithstanding this sacrifice and its efficacy, it is certain that believers ought not only once a-year, but every day, to call sins to remembrance, and to make confession thereof; yea, our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath taught us to pray every day for the pardon of our sins, wherein there is a calling of them unto remembrance. It doth not, therefore, appear wherein the difference lies between the efficacy of their sacrifices and that of Christ, seeing after both of them there is equally a remembrance of sin again to be made.'

Ans. The difference is evident between these things. Their confession of sin was in order unto, and preparatory for, a new atonement and expiation of it; this sufficiently proves the insufficiency of those that were offered before; for they were to come unto the new offerings as if there had never been any before them: our remembrance of sin and confession of it respect only the application of the virtue and efficacy of the atonement once made, without the least desire or expectation of a new propitiation. In their remembrance of sin respect was had unto the curse of the law which was to be answered, and the wrath of God which was to be appeased; it belonged unto the sacrifice itself, whose object was God: ours respects only the application of the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ unto our own consciences, whereby we may have assured peace with God. The sentence or curse of the law was on them, until a new atonement was made; for the soul that did not join in the sacrifice was to be cut off: but the sentence and curse of the law was at once taken away, Ephesians 2:15-16. And we may observe,

Obs. 4. An obligation unto such ordinances of worship as could not expiate sin, nor testify that it was perfectly expiated, was part of the bondage of the church under the old testament.

Obs. 5. It belongs unto the light and wisdom of faith so to remember sin, and make confession of it, as not therein or thereby to seek after a new atonement for it, which is made “once for all.” Confession of sin is no less necessary under the new testament than it was under the old; but not for the same end. And it is an eminent difference between the spirit of bondage and that of liberty by Christ: the one so confesseth sin as to make that very confession a part of atonement for it; the other is encouraged unto confession because of the atonement already made, as a means of coming unto a participation of the benefits of it. Wherefore the causes and reasons of the confession of sin under the new testament are,

1. To affect our own minds and consciences with a sense of the guilt of sin in itself, so as to keep us humble and filled with self-abasement. He who hath no sense of sin but only what consists in dread of future judgment, knows little of the mystery of our walk before God, and obedience unto him, according unto the gospel.

2. To engage our souls unto watchfulness for the future against the sins we do confess; for in confession we make an abrenunciation of them.

3. To give unto God the glory of his righteousness, holiness, and aversation from sin. This is included in every confession we make of sin; for the reason why we acknowledge the evil of it, why we detest and abhor it, is its contrariety unto the nature, holy properties, and will of God.

4. To give unto him the glory of his infinite grace and mercy in the pardon of it.

5. We use it as an instituted means to let in a sense of the pardon of sin into our own souls and consciences, through a fresh application of the sacrifice of Christ and the benefits thereof, whereunto confession of sin is required.

6. To exalt Jesus Christ in our hearts, by the application of ourselves unto him, as the only procurer and purchaser of mercy and pardon; without which, confession of sin is neither acceptable unto God nor useful unto our own souls. But we do not make confession of sin as a part of a compensation for the guilt of it; nor as a means to give some present pacification unto conscience, that we may go on in sin, as the manner of some is.