Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 10:4
For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
4. it is not possible ] This plain statement of the nullity of sacrifices in themselves, and regarded as mere outward acts, only expresses what had been deeply felt by many a worshipper under the Old Covenant. It should be compared with the weighty utterances on this subject in the O.T., 1Sa 15:22; Isa 1:11-17; Jer 6:20; Jer 7:21-23; Amo 5:21-24; Mic 6:6-8; Psa 40:6-8 (quoted in the next verses), and Pss. 50. and 51; and above all Hos 6:6, which, being a pregnant summary of the principle involved, was a frequent quotation of our Lord. Any value which the system of sacrifices possessed was not theirs intrinsically ( propri virtute) but relatively and typically ( per accidens). “By a rudely sensuous means,” says Lnemann, “we cannot attain to a high spiritual good.” Philo in one of his finest passages shews how deeply he had realised that sacrifices were valueless apart from holiness, and that no mere external acts can cleanse the soul from moral guilt. He adds that God accepts the innocent even when they offer no sacrifices, and delights in unkindled altars if the virtues dance around them ( De plant. Noe). The heathen had learnt the same high truths. Horace ( Od. iii. 23) sings,
“Immunis aram si tetigit manus
Non sumptuos blandior hosti
Mollivit aversos Penates
Farre pio et saliente mic.”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins – The reference here is to the sacrifices which were made on the great day of the atonement, for on that day the blood of bulls and of goats alone was offered; see the notes on Heb 9:7. Paul here means to say, doubtless, that it was not possible that the blood of these animals should make a complete expiation so as to purify the conscience, and so as to save the sinner from deserved wrath. According to the divine arrangement, expiation was made by those sacrifices for offences of various kinds against the ritual law of Moses, and pardon for such offences was thus obtained. But the meaning here is, that there was no efficacy in the blood of a mere animal to wash away a moral offence. It could not repair the Law; it could not do anything to maintain the justice of God; it had no efficacy to make the heart pure. The mere shedding of the blood of an animal never could make the soul pure. This the apostle states as a truth which must be admitted at once as indisputable, and yet it is probable that many of the Jews had imbibed the opinion that there was such efficacy in blood shed according to the divine direction, as to remove all stains of guilt from the soul; see the notes, Heb 9:9-10.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Heb 10:4
The blood of bulls and Of goats
The insufficiency of Mosaic sacrifices
I.
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.
II. THERE MAY RE 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 to the wisdom of faith to use them to their proper end, not to trust to them, as to what they cannot of themselves effect.
III. 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 to 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.
IV. 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.
V. HEREIN ALSO CONSISTS THE GREAT DEMONSTRATION OF THE LOVE, MERCY, AND GRACE OF GOD, WITH AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO 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. (John Owen, D. D.)
The inability of the legal sacrifices
As the legal sacrifices did not of themselves take away sins, so it was impossible that they should. There was an essential defect in them.
1. They were not of the same nature with us that sinned.
2. They were not of sufficient value to make satisfaction for the affronts done to the justice and government of God.
3. The beasts offered up under the law could not consent to put themselves in the sinners room and place. The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must voluntarily substitute himself in the sinners stead. Christ did so. (Matthew Henry.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 4. For it is not possible] Common sense must have taught them that shedding the blood of bulls and goats could never satisfy Divine justice, nor take away guilt from the conscience; and God intended that they should understand the matter so: and this the following quotation from the Psalmist sufficiently proves.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For gives a reason of the precedent proof, that the legal sacrifices did keep sins in remembrance; for they were of such matter as could not have any causal power to take them away.
It is not possible: this is equivalent to a universal negative, the impossibility being absolute as to the things themselves in their very nature; they being corporeal, can have no influence upon a spiritual evil in the soul, Mic 6:6,7; and by Gods constitution they were to lead them to better things, God being not pleased with flesh and blood, Psa 50:13; Isa 1:11.
That the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins; the blood of these were only carried into the holy of holiest on the atonement day, yearly, Lev 16:1-34, to which this is chiefly applied; nor could the blood of all the other sacrifices by expiation pardon their offerers, nor by sanctification cleanse them, nor by removing the sense of them comfort the soul; they could neither pacify God, nor the sinners conscience, having no virtue or power to satisfy Gods justice, or merit his grace, only it had by his constitution a power to typify that blood which could do both.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. For, c.reason why,necessarily, there is a continually recurring “remembrance ofsins” in the legal sacrifices (Heb10:3). Typically, “the blood of bulls,” &c.,sacrificed, had power but it was only in virtue of the power of theone real antitypical sacrifice of Christ; they had no power inthemselves; they were not the instrument of perfect vicariousatonement, but an exhibition of the need of it, suggesting to thefaithful Israelite the sure hope of coming redemption, according toGod’s promise.
take away“takeoff.” The Greek, Heb10:11, is stronger, explaining the weaker word here, “takeaway utterly.” The blood of beasts could not take awaythe sin of man. A MANmust do that (see on Heb 9:12-14).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For it is not possible,…. There is a necessity of sin being taken away, otherwise it will be remembered; and there will be a conscience of it, and it must be answered for, or it will remain marked, and the curse and penalty of the law must take place: but it is impossible
that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins; which was shed on the day of atonement: sin is a breach of the moral law, but these sacrifices belong to, the ceremonial law, which are less acceptable to God than moral duties; sin is committed against God, and has an objective infiniteness in it, and therefore can never be atoned for by the blood of such creatures; it leaves a stain on the mind and conscience, which this blood cannot reach; besides, this is not the same blood, nor of the same kind with the person that has sinned; yea, if this could take away sin, it would do more than the blood of the man himself could do; such blood shed can never answer the penalty of the law, satisfy divine justice, or secure the honour of divine holiness: but what the blood of these creatures could not do, the blood of Christ has done, and does: that takes away sin from the sight of justice, and from the consciences of the saints. Compare with this the Septuagint version of Jer 11:15.
“what, has the beloved committed abomination in my house? shall prayers, and the holy flesh take away thy wickednesses from thee, or by these shall thou escape?”
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Should take away (). Present active infinitive of . Old verb and common in N.T., only here and Ro 11:27 with “sins”. Cf. 9:9.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “For it is not possible,” (adunaton gar) “For it is impossible;” It exists as an impossibility, a fact of no potentiality – – Simply not possible; Heb 10:11 states that these same sacrifices, though repeatedly offered, “can never take away or remit sins.”
2) “That the blood of bulls and of goats,” (haima tauron kai tragon) “That blood of bulls and of goats,” the blood of clean beasts, sanctioned for sacrifice shadows of the Law, could not do more than typically show how Jesus one day would and did “bear our sins in his body on the tree,” 1Pe 2:24; Rom 8:3-4; Rom 1:16.
3) “Should take away sins,” (aphairein hamartias) “To bear away or remit sins; Mic 6:6-7; Heb 9:13-14, What the Law forms, shadows- in-sacrifice, could not do in taking away sins and imparting Divine life and righteousness to believers, Jesus came to do and now does, Joh 1:29; Gal 2:21; Gal 3:21; Gal 3:25.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
4. For it is not possible, etc. He confirms the former sentiment with the same reason which he had adduced before, that the blood of beasts could not cleanse souls from sin. The Jews, indeed, had in this a symbol and a pledge of the real cleansing; but it was with reference to another, even as the blood of the calf represented the blood of Christ. But the Apostle is speaking here of the efficacy of the blood of beasts in itself. He therefore justly takes away from it the power of cleansing. There is also to be understood a contrast which is not expressed, as though he had said, “It is no wonder that the ancient sacrifices were insufficient, so that they were to be offered continually, for they had nothing in them but the blood of beasts, which could not reach the conscience; but far otherwise is the power of Christ’s blood: It is not then right to measure the offering which he has made by the former sacrifices.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) This verse explains those which precede. No inconsistency really belonged to these sacrifices and this ceremonial, though so often repeated; for it was impossible that any such sacrifice should really remove sin. The offering was necessary, and it answered its purpose; but it could not remove the necessity for another and a better offering.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. For Reason why they do not abolish sin. The death of an animal is no real atonement for the sins of a man. There is no rational adequacy in the case. A sacrifice of a higher nature is demanded.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Heb 10:4. For it is not possible, &c. “And indeed the reason of this is plain: for it is in the nature of things impossible, that the blood of bulls and of goats should on the whole take away sins, or make a real atonement to God as the great Governor of the world, for the moral guilt of any transgression; though it may by divine appointment purifyfrom legal defilements, and put a stop to any further prosecution which might proceed in Jewish courts, or any such extraordinary judgment as the peculiar state of things among that people would otherwise require.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 10:4 . Proof that it cannot be otherwise, drawn from the matter itself which is under consideration. By a rudely sensuous means we cannot attain to a high spiritual good.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Ver. 4. Should take away sins ] And so pacify conscience; for sin is to the conscience as a mote to the eye, as a dagger to the heart, 2Sa 24:10 , as an adder’s sting to the flesh, Pro 23:32 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 .] And that on account of inherent defect in the sacrifices themselves: for it is impossible, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin (the Writer by no means denies the typical virtue of the O. T. sacrifices, but asserts that which the schoolmen explained by saying that they wrought remission of sin not ‘propria virtute,’ but ‘per accidens,’ viz. by means of the grace of the true Propitiation which was to come, and of faith directed to it. And thus only is it said, Lev 17:11 , that the blood upon the altar makes an atonement for the soul: it was shed, as Ebrard well observes, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate of vicarious propitiation).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
take away. See Rom 11:27.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] And that on account of inherent defect in the sacrifices themselves: for it is impossible, that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin (the Writer by no means denies the typical virtue of the O. T. sacrifices, but asserts that which the schoolmen explained by saying that they wrought remission of sin not propria virtute, but per accidens, viz. by means of the grace of the true Propitiation which was to come, and of faith directed to it. And thus only is it said, Lev 17:11, that the blood upon the altar makes an atonement for the soul: it was shed, as Ebrard well observes, not as the instrument of complete vicarious propitiation, but as an exhibition of the postulate of vicarious propitiation).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 10:4. , to take away) ,[58] to remove entirely; Heb 10:11. In the writings of Moses, great effects are ascribed to these elementary ordinances of worship, in order that it might appear that it is not in themselves that these have so great efficacy.
[58] is to remove on every side () and in every respect: prorsus tollere. , to take off or away.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
. There is no difficulty in the words, and very little difference in the translations of them. The Vulgar renders 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 by , which is to purge or cleanse, unto the same purpose.
Heb 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, Lev 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, Gal 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 Gods 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 Heb 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 Heb 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 Lev 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 Heb 9:13-14.
3. That which is denied of these sacrifices, is , the taking away of sins. The thing intended is variously expressed by the apostle, as by , Heb 2:17; , Heb 1:3; , Heb 9:14; , Heb 9:26; , Heb 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:
, quod supra et , 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 , that which it is exercised about, is . 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.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
not: Heb 10:8, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:13, Psa 50:8-12, Psa 51:16, Isa 1:11-15, Isa 66:3, Jer 6:20, Jer 7:21, Jer 7:22, Hos 6:6, Amo 5:21, Amo 5:22, Mic 6:6-8, Mar 12:33
take: There were essential defects in these sacrifices. 1st – They were not of the same nature with those who sinned. 2nd – They were not of sufficient value to make satisfaction for the affronts done to the justice and government of God. 3rd – The beasts offered up under the law could not consent to put themselves in the sinner’s room and place. The atoning sacrifice must be one capable of consenting, and must voluntarily substitute himself in the sinner’s stead: Christ did so. Heb 10:11, Hos 14:2, Joh 1:29, Rom 11:27, 1Jo 3:5
Reciprocal: Exo 24:8 – Behold Exo 29:12 – the blood Lev 1:4 – atonement Lev 4:29 – General Lev 9:9 – General Lev 16:14 – General Num 8:12 – the one Num 19:21 – General 1Sa 3:14 – the iniquity 1Sa 15:22 – Hath the Lord 2Sa 21:3 – wherewith Job 42:8 – seven bullocks Psa 50:9 – General Eze 18:22 – his transgressions Eze 43:18 – to offer Eze 45:18 – and cleanse Dan 9:27 – cause Mat 26:28 – my Joh 1:17 – grace Joh 13:8 – If Act 13:38 – that Act 13:39 – from which Rom 3:25 – remission 1Co 15:17 – ye are Gal 1:4 – according Gal 3:13 – redeemed Eph 1:7 – whom Heb 9:12 – by the Heb 9:19 – the blood Heb 9:23 – the heavenly Heb 9:26 – he appeared Heb 10:6 – burnt
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 10:4. It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Any explanation of a passage that contradicts another plain one is bound to be wrong, for the Bible does not contradict itself. To say that sins were not forgiven under the Old Testament is a contradiction of the following. Leviticus 4 describes the sin offerings under the Mosaic system that were required of various Hebrews who had sinned. Verses 20, 26, 31 and 35 state these persons are to offer these sacrifices for sin, and in each case after doing it the passage plainly declares, “And it shall be forgiven him.” Perhaps someone replies that it does not say they were to be forgiven then. Well, we will consider another place in the Old Testament, namely, 1 Kings 8. After the temple was completed, Solomon offered a prayer on behalf of the people in which he asked God to forgive them upon their prayer to Him. Verse 30 makes it definite as to when the forgiveness was to take place, for it says, “When they shall pray toward this place; hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and when thou hearest, forgive.” This is very definite; when they prayed was the time God was to hear and when He heard was the time the forgiveness was to be granted. But was this prayer of Solomon granted? Chapter 9 and verse 3 of that book says, “And the Lord said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication that thou hast made before me.” That settles the point that sins were actually forgiven under the Old Testament times. This is another place where we should remember the main subject of this book. The Judaizers were insisting on the permanence of the old law and its ordinances of religious service. They thought that the benefits to be obtained from those performances were by reason of the virtue of those things and hence that they were good enough to be continued. Were Paul to write an epistle to many disciples and others today, he would use the same argument about baptism and the other items of service to Christ. He would say that it is impossible for baptism and the other formalities of the Gospel to take away sin. Indeed, the denominational world actually does see that and that only with reference to the ordinances. They will say “there is no salvation in water,” and that is true in the same sense that the blood of animals could not take away sins. No, the saving virtue is in the blood of Christ and it is the purchasing power for salvation on behalf of mankind in whatever age he lives. But He will not apply that blood to any man unless he has enough faith in the Lord to do whatever he is told to do. That may be the command to offer animal sacrifices or be baptized, depending on what age he is under. Hence in any of the dispensations that God has placed among men, all who will do whatever they are told to do, will be forgiven on the strength of the blood of Christ. The virtue is in the blood is why it never had to be repeated.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 10:4. Nor could it be otherwise, for the sacrifices themselves are inherently defective. This teaching may seem to contradict the statement that the blood upon the altar makes an atonement for the soul (Lev 17:11), and is appointed (given) for that purpose. The fact is, that the blood of the bullock or of the goat (the sin offering on the Day of Atonement) could not weigh against the guilt of a nation, or even of a single worshipper. It could only sanctify to the purifying of the flesh (Heb 9:13), restoring the sinner to living membership with the literal Israel. It cancelled ceremonial guilt, not spiritual sin, and gave legal outward purity, not spiritual regeneration. The annual sacrifice was only a shadow and prophecy of another sacrifice, in which the Divine will was to be perfectly accomplished.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The intendment of our apostle in these words, is to prove that the sacrifices of the law could not expiate sin, nor make reconciliation with God, wich the sacrifice of Christ alone was ordained and appointed to.
Here observe, 1. The subject-matter spoken of, The blood of bulls and goats: They were accompanied with great solemnity and pomp of ceremony in their celebration; and the people had a great esteem and veneration of them in their minds; but when all was done, that which was offered was no more than the blood was done, that which was offered was no more than the blood of bulls and goats.
Observe, 2. That which is denied of these sacrifices, namely, the taking away of sins: To take away sin, is to make atonement for sin, to expiate the guilt of it before God, by a satisfaction given, or price paid, that it shall never bind over the penitent sinner unto punishment.
Observe, 3. The manner of the negation; It was impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. Impossible from divine institution; they were never designed for that end therefore could never effect it; for the virtue of every institution depends upon its designation to its end.
Now the blood of bulls was only designed to represent the taking away of sin, but never by itself to effect it. And it was also impossible from the nature of the thing; for how could the blood of a beast expiate the sin of a man? Satisfaction must be made for sin in and by the same nature that had sinned.
Learn hence, That it was utterly impossible that sin should be taken away before God, and from the conscience of a sinner by any other blood than the blood of Christ: It is this alone that cleanseth us from all sin, for he alone was the propitiation for them.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Heb 10:4. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats Or of any brute animals; should take away sins Should make full satisfaction and atonement for them, so as to procure the pardon of them on its own account. To understand the apostle, we must remember, that though remission of sins be originally from mere grace and mercy, yet it is not to be accomplished by sovereign grace alone, which would be inconsistent with Gods truth, holiness, and righteous government of the world. Hence shedding of blood has been the appointed means of obtaining it in all ages; and the psalmist, Psa 50:5, represents all Gods true people as making a covenant with him by sacrifice. And for this appointment much may be said on the principles of reason. For as the most ancient way of teaching was by symbols, emblems, or hieroglyphics, God, by requiring sacrifices of mankind in order to the pardon of their sins, intended hereby to teach them, 1st, Their guilt, and desert of death and destruction: 2d, The great evil of sin, its odious nature, and destructive consequences, in that it could not be expiated without blood: 3d, The necessity of mortifying it, and the carnal principle whence it proceeds: 4th, Hereby to lay a foundation for the confidence and hope of the sinner, with respect to pardon, as the substitution, by divine appointment, of the life of the animal in the stead of the life of the sinner, manifested grace and promised forgiveness: 5th, Hereby also provision was made both for condemning and pardoning sin, both which things, in order to the glory of God and the salvation of mankind, were absolutely necessary to be done. Now, though these ends might be answered, in some faint degree, or, to speak more properly, though a shadow of them might be exhibited in the sacrifices of brute animals, yet they could not be accomplished in an adequate manner, nor the very images of the things be exhibited thereby. For, 1st, These sacrifices could not fully manifest the great evil of sin, and its destructive nature. For what great evil was there in it, if only the death of an inferior creature, or of a number of inferior creatures, was required in order to the expiation of it? Nor, 2d, For the same reason could the sacrifice of these animals adequately manifest the great guilt of mankind in committing sin, and the punishment they thereby deserved: nor, 3d, Gods infinite hatred to it, and the infinite rectitude of his nature, and dignity of his government. Add to this, as the sacrificed animals were not of the same nature with man, who had sinned, their death could not dissolve the debt of death and destruction which the human nature had contracted. Nay, being irrational, they were of an inferior nature, and the lives of ten thousands of them were not worth the life of one man, even if man were no more immortal than they. In satisfaction to justice, by way of compensation for injuries, there must be a proportion between the injury and the reparation, that justice may be as much exalted and glorified in the one, as it is depressed and debased in the other. But there could be no such proportion between the affront put on the righteousness of God by sin, and the reparation by the blood of bulls, &c. If a nobleman forfeit his head by high treason, his giving up his flocks and herds would not expiate his offence, and satisfy the law. And if the blood of thousands of them would not be an adequate ransom for the life of one man, much less for the lives of all men. They are in their own nature mortal; man is immortal; and surely the sacrifice of their temporal, yea, short lives, could be no adequate price for mens everlasting lives. The appointment of these sacrifices, however, was not made in vain. Though they could not take away sin, they had their use. 1st, They purified the flesh from ceremonial defilement, and gave, or restored, to those that offered them, a right to the benefits of the Mosaic dispensation, namely, access to God in his worship, and life and prosperity in the land of Canaan; although they did not purify their conscience so as to procure them admission into the heavenly Canaan. 2d, They continually represented to sinners the curse and sentence of the law, or that death was the wages of sin. For although there was allowed in them a commutation, namely, that the sinner himself should not die, but the beast sacrificed in his stead; yet they all bore testimony to the sacred truth, that, in the judgment of God, they who commit sin are worthy of death. 3d, They were intended, as we have repeatedly seen, to be typical of the sacrifice of Christ; and the temporal benefits obtained for the Israelites by them were emblematical of the everlasting blessings procured for believers by his sacrifice.