Hebrews 10:4

᾿Αδύνατον γὰρ αἷμα ταύρων καὶ τράγων ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας. There is no difficulty in the words, and very little difference in the translations of them. The Vulgar renders ἀφαιρεῖν by the passive: “Impossibile est enim sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata,” “It is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats.” The Syriac renders ἀφαιρεῖν by מַדֵךְ, which is to “purge” or “cleanse,” unto the same purpose.

Hebrews 10:4. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

This is the last determinate resolution of the apostle concerning the insufficiency of the law and its sacrifices for the expiation of sin, and the perfecting of them who come unto God, as unto their consciences. And there is in the argument used unto this end an inference from what was spoken before, and a new enforcement from the nature or subject-matter of these sacrifices.

Something must be observed concerning this assertion in general, and an objection that it is liable unto. For by “the blood of bulls and goats,” he intends all the sacrifices of the law. Now if it be impossible that they should take away sin, for what end then were they appointed? especially considering that, in the institution of them, God told the church that he had given the blood to make atonement on the altar, Leviticus 17:11. It may therefore be said, as the apostle doth in another place with respect unto the law itself, ‘If it could not by the works of it justify us before God, to what end then served the law?' To what end served these sacrifices, if they could not take away sin?

The answer which the apostle gives with respect unto the law in general may be applied unto the sacrifices of it, with a small addition from a respect unto their special nature. For as unto the law, he answers two things:

1. That it was “added because of transgressions,” Galatians 3:19.

2. That it was “a schoolmaster to guide and direct us unto Christ,” because of the severities wherewith it was accompanied, like those of a schoolmaster; not in the spirit of a tender father. And thus it was as unto the end of these sacrifices.

1. They were added unto the promise because of transgressions. For God in them and by them did continually represent unto sinners the curse and sentence of the law; namely, that the soul that sinneth must die, or that death was the wages of sin. For although there was allowed in them a commutation, that the sinner himself should not die, but the beast that was sacrificed in his stead, which belonged unto their second end, of leading unto Christ, yet they all testified unto that sacred truth, that it is “the judgement of God that they who commit sin are worthy of death.” And this was, as the whole law, an ordinance of God to deter men from sin, and so put bounds unto transgressions. For when God passed by sin with a kind of connivance, winking at the ignorance of men in their iniquities, not giving them continual warnings of their guilt and the consequent thereof in death, the world was filled and covered with a deluge of impieties. Men saw not judgment speedily executed, nor any tokens or indications that so it would be; therefore was their heart wholly set in them to do evil. But God dealt not thus with the church. He let no sin pass without a representation of his displeasure against it, though mixed with mercy, in a direction unto the relief against it in the blood of the sacrifice. And therefore, he did not only appoint these sacrifices on all the especial occasions of such sins and uncleannesses as the consciences of particular sinners were pressed with a sense of, but also once a-year there was gathered up a remembrance of all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the whole congregation, Leviticus 16.

2. They were added as the teaching of a schoolmaster to lead unto Christ. By them was the church taught and directed to look continually unto and after that sacrifice which alone could really purge and take away all iniquity. For God appointed no sacrifices until after the promise of sending the Seed of the woman to break the head of the serpent. In his so doing was his own heel to be bruised, in the suffering of his human nature, which he offered in sacrifice unto God; which these sacrifices did represent.

Wherefore the church knowing that these sacrifices did call sin to remembrance, representing the displeasure of God against it, which was their first end; and that although there was an intimation of grace and mercy in them, by the commutation and substitution which they allowed, yet that they could not of themselves take away sin; it made them the more earnestly, and with longing desires, look after him and his sacrifice who should perfectly take away sin and make peace with God; wherein the principal exercise of grace under the old testament did consist.

3. As unto their especial nature, they were added as the great instruction in the way and manner whereby sin was to be taken away. For although this arose originally from God's mere grace and mercy, yet was it not to be executed and accomplished by sovereign grace and power alone. Such a taking away of sin would have been inconsistent with his truth, holiness, and righteous government of mankind, as I have elsewhere at large demonstrated. [2] It must be done by the interposition of a ransom and atonement; by the substitution of one who was no sinner in the room of sinners, to make satisfaction unto the law and justice of God for sin. Hereby they became the principal direction of the faith of the saints under the old testament, and the means whereby they acted it on the original promise of their recovery from apostasy.

[2] Dissertation on Divine Justice, miscellaneous works, vol. 10 p. 481. ED.

These things do evidently express the wisdom of God in their institution, although of themselves they could not take away sin. And those by whom these ends of them are denied, as they are by the Jews and Socinians, can give no account of any end of them which should answer the wisdom, grace, and holiness of God.

This objection being removed, I shall proceed unto the exposition of the words in particular. And there are four things in them as a negative proposition:

1. The illative conjunction, declaring its respect unto what went before.

2. The subject-matter spoken of; “the blood of bulls and goats.”

3. What is denied concerning it; “it could not take away sins.”

4. The modification of this negative proposition; “it was impossible they should do so.”

1. The illative cojunction, “for,” declares what is spoken to be introduced in the proof and confirmation of what was before affirmed. And it is the closing argument against the imperfection and impotency of the old covenant, the law, priesthood, and sacrifices of it, which the apostle maketh use of. And indeed it is comprehensive of all that he had before insisted on; yea, it is the foundation of all his other reasonings unto this purpose. For if in the nature of the thing itself it was impossible that the sacrifices consisting of the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, then however, whensoever, and by whomsoever they were offered, this effect could not be produced by them. Wherefore in these words the apostle puts a close unto his argument, and resumes it no more in this epistle, but only once or twice makes mention of it in the way of an illustration to set forth the excellency of the sacrifice of Christ; as verses 11, 12, of this chapter, and Hebrews 13:10-12.

2. The subject spoken of is “the blood of bulls and goats.” The reason why the apostle expresseth them by “bulls and goats,” which were calves and kids of the goats, hath been declared on Hebrews 9:11-12. And some things must be observed concerning this description of the old sacrifices:

(1.) That he makes mention of the “blood” of the sacrifices only, whereas in many of them the whole bodies were offered, and the fat of them all was burned on the altar. And this he doth for the ensuing reasons:

[1.] Because it was the blood alone whereby atonement was made for sin and sinners. The fat was burned with incense, only to show that it was accepted as a sweet savor with God.

[2.] Because he had respect principally unto the anniversary sacrifice, unto the consummation whereof, and atonement thereby, the carrying the blood into the holy place did belong.

[3.] Because life natural is in an especial manner in the blood, which signified that atonement was to be made by death, and that by the effusion of blood, as it was in the sacrifice of Christ. See Leviticus 17:11-12. And in the shedding of it there was an indication of the desert of sin in the offerer.

(2.) He recalls them, by this expression of their sacrifices, “the blood of bulls and goats,” unto a due consideration of what effect might be produced by them. They were accompanied with great solemnity and pomp of ceremony in their celebration. Hence arose a great esteem and veneration of them in the minds of the people. But when all was done, that which was offered was but “the blood of bulls and goats.” And there is a tacit opposition unto the matter of that sacrifice whereby sin was really to be expiated, which was “the precious blood of Christ,” as Hebrews 9:13-14.

3. That which is denied of these sacrifices, is ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας, the “taking away of sins.” The thing intended is variously expressed by the apostle, as by ἱλάσκεσθαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 2:17; καθαρισμὸν ποιῆσαι , Hebrews 1:3; καθαρίζεσθαι , Hebrews 9:14; ἀθέτησις ἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 9:26; ἀναφέρειν ἁμαρτίας, Hebrews 9:28; to “make reconciliation,” to “purge sin,” to “purge the conscience,” to “abolish sin,” to “bear it.” And that which he intendeth in all these expressions, which he denies to the law and its sacrifices, and ascribes unto that of Christ, is the whole entire effect thereof, so far as it immediately respected God and the law. For all these expressions respect the guilt of sin, and its removal, or the pardon of it, with righteousness before God, acceptance and peace with him. To “take away sin,” is to make atonement for it, to expiate it before God by a satisfaction given, or price paid, with the procurement of the pardon of it, according unto the terms of the new covenant.

The interpretation of these words by the Socinians is contrary unto the signification of the words themselves, and the whole design of the context:

“‘Impossibile est,'saith Schlichtingius, ‘ut sanguis taurorum et hircorum peccata tollat;'hoc est, efficiat ut homines in posterum a peccatis abstinerent, et sic nullam amplius habeant peccatorum conscientiam, sive ullas eorum poenas metuant; quam enim quaeso vim ad haec praestandum sanguis animalium habere potest? Itaque hoc dicit, taurorum et hircorum sanguinem earn vim nequaquam habere, et ut habeat, impossibile esse, ut homines a peccatis avocet, et ne in posterum peccent efficiat.”

And Grotius after him speaks to the same purpose:

“ Ἀφαιρεῖν ἁμαρτίας , quod supra ἀθετεῖν et ἀναφέρειν, est extinguere peccata, sive facere ne ultra peccetur. Id sanguis Christi facit, tum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus dat nobis auxilia necessaria impetrandi. Pecudum sanguis nihil efficit tale.”

(1.) Nothing can be more alien from the design of the apostle and scope of the context. They are both of them to prove that the sacrifices of the law could not expiate sins, could not make atonement for them, could not make reconciliation with God, could not produce the effect which the sacrifice of Christ alone was appointed and ordained unto. They were only signs and figures of it. They could not effect that which the Hebrews looked for from them and by them. And that which they expected by them was, that by them they should make atonement with God for their sins. Wherefore the apostle denies that it was possible they should effect what they looked for from them, and nothing else. It was not that they should be arguments to turn them from sin unto newness of life, so as they should sin no more. By what way, and on what consideration they were means to deter men from sin, I have newly declared. But they can produce no one place in the whole law to give countenance unto such an apprehension that this was their end; so that the apostle had no need to declare their insufficiency with respect thereunto. Especially, the great anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation was appointed so expressly to make atonement for sin, to procure its pardon, to take away its guilt in the sight of God, and from the conscience of the sinner, that he should not be punished according unto the sentence of the law, as that it cannot be denied. This is that which the apostle declares that of themselves they could not effect or perform, but only typically and by way of representation.

(2.) He declares directly and positively what he intends by this taking away of sin, and the ceasing of legal sacrifices thereon, verses 17, 18, “Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” The cessation of offerings for sin follows directly on the remission of sin, which is the effect of expiation and atonement; and not upon the turning away of men from sin for the future. It is therefore our justification, and not our sanctification, that the apostle discourseth of.

(3.) The words themselves will not bear this sense. For the object of ἀφαιρεῖν , that which it is exercised about, is ἁμαρτία. It is an act upon sin itself, and not immediately upon the sinner. Nor can it signify any thing but to take away the guilt of sin, that it should not bind over the sinner unto punishment; whereon conscience of sins is taken away. But to return.

4. The manner of the negation is, that “it was impossible” that it should be otherwise. And it was so,

(1.) From divine institution. Whatever the Jews apprehended, they were never designed of God unto that end; and therefore had no virtue or efficacy for it communicated unto them. And all the virtue of ordinances of worship depends on their designation unto their end. The blood of bulls and goats, as offered in sacrifice, and carried into the most holy place, was designed of God to represent the way of taking away sin, but not by itself to effect it; and it was therefore impossible that so it should do.

(2.) It was impossible from the nature of the things themselves, inasmuch as there was not a condecency unto the holy perfections of the divine nature that sin should be expiated and the church perfected by the blood of bulls and goats. For,

[1.] There would not have been so unto his infinite wisdom. For God having declared his severity against sin, with the necessity of its punishment unto the glory of his righteousness and sovereign rule over his creatures, what condecency could there have been herein unto infinite wisdom? what consistency between the severity of that declaration and the taking away of sin by such an inferior, beggarly means, as that of the blood of bulls and goats? A great appearance was made of infinite displeasure against sin, in the giving of the fiery law, in the curse of it, in the threatening of eternal death; but should all have ended in an outward show, there would have been no manner of proportion to be discerned between the demerit of sin and the means of its expiation. So that,

[2.] It had no condecency unto divine justice. For,

1st . As I have elsewhere proved at large, [3] sin could not be taken away without a price, a ransom, a compensation and satisfaction made unto justice for the injuries it received by sin. In satisfaction unto justice, by way of compensation for injuries or crimes, there must be a proportion between the injury and the reparation of it, that justice may be as much exalted and glorified in the one as it was depressed and debased in the ether. But there could be no such thing between the demerit of sin and the affront put on the righteousness of God on the one hand, and a reparation by the blood of bulls and goats on the other. No man living can apprehend wherein any such proportion should lie or consist. Nor was it possible that the conscience of any man could be freed from a sense of the guilt of sin, who had nothing to trust unto but this blood to make compensation or atonement for it.

2dly . The apprehension of it (namely, a suitableness unto divine justice in the expiation of sins by the blood of bulls and goats) must needs be a great incentive unto profane persons unto the commission of sin. For if there be no more in sin and the guilt of it but what may be expiated and taken away at so low a price, but what may have atonement made for it by the blood of beasts, why should they not give satisfaction unto their lusts by living in sin?

[3] Dissertation on Divine Justice, vol. 10 p. 481. ED.

3dly . It would have had no consistency with the sentence and sanction of the law of nature, “In the day thou eatest thou shalt die.” For although God reserved unto himself the liberty and right of substituting a surety in the room of a sinner, to die for him, namely, such an one as should by his suffering and dying bring more glory unto the righteousness, holiness, and law of God, than either was derogated from them by the sin of man, or could be restored unto them by his eternal ruin, yet was it not consistent with the veracity of God in that sanction of the law that this substitution should be of a nature no way cognate, but ineffably inferior unto the nature of him that was to be delivered. For these, and other reasons of the same kind, which I have handled at large elsewhere, “it was impossible,” as the apostle assures us, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” And we may observe,

Obs. 1. It is possible that things may usefully represent what it is impossible that, in and by themselves, they should effect. This is the fundamental rule of all institutions of the old testament. Wherefore,

Obs. 2. There may be great and eminent uses of divine ordinances and institutions, although it be impossible that by themselves, in their most exact and diligent use, they should work out our acceptance with God. And it belongs unto the wisdom of faith to use them unto their proper end, not to trust unto them as unto what they cannot of themselves effect.

Obs. 3. It was utterly impossible that sin should be taken away before God, and from the conscience of the sinner, but by the blood of Christ. Other ways men are apt to betake themselves unto for this end, but in vain. It is the blood of Jesus Christ alone that cleanseth us from all our sins; for he alone was the propitiation for them.

Obs. 4. The declaration of the insufficiency of all other ways for the expiation of sin is an evidence of the holiness, righteousness, and severity of God against sin, with the unavoidable ruin of all unbelievers.

Obs. 5. Herein also consists the great demonstration of the love, grace, and mercy of God, with an encouragement unto faith, in that when the old sacrifices neither would nor could perfectly expiate sin, he would not suffer the work itself to fail, but provided a way that should be infallibly effective of it, as is declared in the following verses.