For it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away.

“"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." So that their being many, and offered "continually," proves that they (the worshipers) were never made clean. For as a medicine, when it is powerful and productive of health, and able to remove the disease entirely, effects all after one application; as, therefore, if being once applied it accomplishes the whole, it proves its own strength in being no more applied, and this is its business, to be no more applied; whereas if it is applied continually, this is a plain proof of its not having strength.”

“Above, the Apostle, having considered the things that are done in each testament, showed the preeminence of the new testament over the old; here he proves one thing that he supposes, namely that the old could not cleanse sins. And this is the last of those five things which he had set forth beforehand concerning Christ. And concerning this he does two things. For first he shows the defect of the old testament concerning the abolition of guilt; second, from this he compares the priest of the new testament to the priest of the old testament, at Every priest indeed. Again, the first is divided into two. For first he proposes what he intends; second he proves it through the authority of Scripture, at Therefore entering into the world. Likewise the first is divided into two. For first he proposes his intention; second he proves it, at Otherwise they cease. Concerning the first, it must be known that the Apostle concludes to this very defect from the condition and rite of the old law. Now through sin there comes about a privation of future goods, and therefore, as it were, because that sin pertains to future goods, namely the heavenly ones, the old law stands to those goods as a shadow to the body, but the new law as an image. Now a shadow and an image agree in this, that each represents something; but a shadow represents in common, and as to the nature of the species, while an image represents in particular, and as to the nature of the individual, and specially. So too the new law, as regards future goods, represents more expressly than the old. First, because in the words of the new testament express mention and promise is made of future goods, but not in the old, but only of carnal things. Second, because the power of the new testament consists in charity, which is the fullness of the law. And although this charity is imperfect, by reason of the faith to which it adheres, nevertheless it is like the charity of our homeland. Hence the new law is called the law of love. And therefore it is called an image, because it has an express likeness of future goods. But the old law represents that likeness through certain carnal things, and from a great distance; and therefore it is called a shadow. Col. 2:17: which are a shadow of things to come. This, then, is the condition of the old testament, that it has a shadow of things to come, not the image of the realities. Now the rite was that year by year they offered on the feast of expiation the same victims, namely the blood of goats and bulls, for the same thing, namely for sin, as is clear from Lev. 23. From these two he concludes to his intention, namely that the law, having a shadow of future goods and not the image of the realities, cannot make perfect those who approach, namely the priests, by the same victims which they offer unceasingly, that is, year by year. Above, 7:19: the law brought no one to perfection. But this perfection is reserved for the new law, which consists in charity, which is the bond of perfection, Col. 3:14. Therefore it is said, Matt. 5:48: Be ye therefore perfect. Then, when he says Otherwise they would have ceased, he proves his intention from two things: first from the rite; second from the condition of the things offered, at For impossible. Now to prove that the law did not cleanse perfectly, he assumes two things. The first is that in it there occurred a frequent repetition of the same victims; and the reasoning is this: if the worshippers had once been cleansed through the same victims, since they would no longer have consciousness of sin, they would have ceased to offer, and if they had ceased, they would not need to offer. But then they did not cease, because, as has been said, year by year they offered the same victims. Therefore, because they did not cease always offering the same thing, it is a sign that they were not being cleansed. Matt. 9:12: There is no need of a physician for those who are well, but for those who are sick. But against this, because it could be said that the reasoning is not conclusive. For it could be said that that oblation cleansed from past sins, not from future ones, and therefore, because they sinned frequently, it was necessary for the oblation to be repeated frequently. I respond. It must be said that the Apostle's manner of speaking excludes this, because, since sin is a certain spiritual thing, which is opposed to the heavenly, that by which sin is cleansed must be spiritual and heavenly, and consequently must have perpetual power. Hence above, speaking of the power of the sacrifice of Christ, he attributes to it perpetual power, saying, having obtained eternal redemption. Now what has perpetual power suffices for both what is to be committed and what has been committed, and therefore it need not be repeated any further. Hence Christ by one oblation cleansed for ever those who are sanctified, as is said below. Likewise, as to what is said here, that it is not repeated: against this, because we offer daily. I respond. It must be said that we do not offer any other than that which Christ offered for us, namely his own blood. Hence it is not another oblation, but it is a commemoration of that victim which Christ offered. Luke 22:19: Do this in commemoration of me. The second thing he sets forth beforehand is that in the old testament a commemoration was made year by year of his own sins and those of the people; therefore they were not abolished. Hence he says that in them a commemoration is made, etc., which is true. For in general mention was made of sins, namely that one was conscious of sin, but in particular mention is made in the new. James 5:16: Confess your sins one to another. Then, when he says For it is impossible, etc., he proves the same thing from the condition of the things offered. For the most solemn of these was the oblation of goats and calves, which took place on the day of expiation. And since this was a certain obscure and imperfect representation of heavenly things, like a shadow, it is impossible for sin to be taken away by the blood of these. This is true as regards its own power. But if sins were forgiven to anyone, this was by the power of the blood of Christ, who was prefigured in that. Jer. 11:15: shall the holy flesh take away from thee thy wickednesses, in which thou hast gloried? As if to say: no. Then, when he says Therefore entering into the world, etc., he adduces the authority of Scripture, and concerning this he does two things. For first he sets it down; second he expounds it, at Saying above. This authority can be divided into two, according to the Gloss, because first it treats of the incarnation of Christ prefigured in the legal rites; second, of the passion of Christ, at Then said I. However, according to the intention of the Apostle it can be said otherwise, that first he touches on that which pertains to the rejection of the old testament; second, that which pertains to the acceptance of the new testament, at Then said I. Now this authority applies to Christ according as he enters into the world; therefore, because those things could not take away sins, the Son of God, entering into the world, says. Against this, because it is said, John 1:10: he was in the world. I respond. It must be said that it is true that he was in the world, as it were governing the whole, inasmuch as he is said to be in all things by essence, presence, and power; but he is outside the world, because he is not comprehended by the world, but has a goodness separate from the whole world, from which the goodness of the universe is caused. But because for our sake he was made a suppositum of human nature, he is said to enter into the world on account of his assumption of it, as above, 1:6: when he bringeth again the firstborn into the world, etc. Entering, therefore, into the world he says. But what does he say? Sacrifice and oblation thou wouldest not. Now he sets down four things which existed in the old testament, because a sacrifice was either of inanimate things, for instance bread or incense, and then it was called an oblation. Or of animate things, and then either for placating God, and it is called a holocaust, which was the most worthy, because the whole was burnt up and went to the honor of God. Or it was for the cleansing of sin, and it is called a sacrifice for sin. And this had two parts, because one part was burnt on the altar, the other went for the use of the ministers. Or it was for the benefits of God, and this was less worthy, because only a third part was burnt, and one part was given to the ministers, another to those offering. And this is called the sacrifice of peace offerings. To all these, in the new testament, there corresponds the oblation of the body of Christ, because through the body of Christ God was placated, namely in the offering of it on the cross. Rom. 5:10: when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Likewise through him sin was taken away. 1 Pet. 3:18: Christ died once for our sins. Likewise through him we are brought into eternal goods, and are advanced to the benefits of God. He says therefore, Victim, that is, sacrifice, and oblation thou wouldest not; and he interposes afterward, But a body hast thou fitted to me, that is, thou hast made it fit for immolation. And this as to two things. First, because it was most pure, that it might blot out every sin. Ex. 12:5: it shall be a lamb without blemish. Likewise, because it was passible, that it might be able to be immolated. Rom. 8:3: God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Now this body is a true victim and a true oblation. Eph. 5:2: he delivered himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness. Holocausts also for sin did not please thee. It is greater to please than to will, because those things please which have in themselves something such that we will them. But we sometimes will certain things not for their own sake, but for the sake of something else. Therefore, because holocausts were the more worthy things, of which nevertheless he says that they did not please, therefore much less the others. But against this, because it is said, Lev. 1:9, that the priest burned them upon the altar for a holocaust and a sweet odor to the Lord. Moreover, if he did not will them, why did he command these to be offered to him? I respond. It must be said that this, that God says he does not will those things, can be understood in two ways. In one way, that he does not will them for this present time, in which, the truth having arrived, the shadow ceases; hence now he who would offer them would sin. In another way, that he does not will them on account of the sins of those offering. Is. 1:15: for your hands are full of blood. The third response, to which the Apostle tends, is that these things never pleased God in themselves, nor were they accepted, but they are said to be accepted on account of two things. First, because they were a figure of Christ, whose passion was accepted by God. For he was not delighted in the slaying of animals, but in the faith of his passion. For all these things happened to them in figure, 1 Cor. 10:11. Second, that he might call us back from idolatry through these sacrifices; hence in the first giving of the law no mention is made of sacrifices, but only after they made the calf. Hence Jer. 7:22: I spoke not to your fathers, and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning the matter of holocausts and victims. Then, when he says Then said I, etc., he continues concerning the approbation of the new testament, and according to the Gloss it is read thus: then, namely when thou hadst fitted a body to me, namely at the conception, I said, Behold I come, that is, I proposed to come, namely to the passion. 1 John 5:6: this is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ. Or it is better that it be referred to the coming into the world thus: then, namely when holocausts did not please thee, I said, I come, through the incarnation. John 16:28: I came out from the Father, and am come into the world. And this, that I might offer myself unto the passion. And therefore he says: behold. But will this sacrifice indeed be accepted? Certainly so, because in the head of the book it is written of me. This book is Christ according to his human nature, in whom are written all things necessary for man unto salvation. Is. 8:1: take thee a great book. Now the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11:3. In the head of the book, that is, in the ordination of God, who is the head of Christ, who is the book, it is written that the Son of God was to be incarnate and to die. Or the book, that is, the Psalter, whose first Psalm is about Christ. Or better, the book of life, which is nothing other than the knowledge which God has of the predestination of the saints who are saved through Christ. Therefore in this book it is written of me, because the saints are predestined through me. Eph. 1:4: he chose us in him before the foundation of the world. Rom. 8:29: whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son. If therefore predestination is called a book, it is manifest that Christ is the head of the book. Apoc. 21:27: who are not written in the book of life of the Lamb. Who is simply predestined. Rom. 1:4: who was predestinated the Son of God in power. Therefore in the head of the book, that is, in me according to the divine nature, it is written of me according to the human nature, that I should do the will, namely thine, that is, this was foreordained, that through thy grace I should do thy will, by offering myself for the redemption of the human race. Then, when he says Saying above, he expounds the authority set forth before. And concerning this he does two things. For first, by assigning the order of the things to be said, he sets down the difference between the new and the old testament; second he expounds specially a certain thing supposed in the authority, at In which will. Now it has been said that two things were touched on in the authority alleged. One, which pertains to the rejection of the old testament; the other, to the approbation of the new testament. Now the old testament is rejected in two ways, both because God does not will its sacrifices, and because they do not please him; and thus David the prophet, saying above, that is, at the beginning. And what does he say? That sacrifices, and oblations, and holocausts, and for sin thou wouldest not. Is. 1:11: the holocaust of rams, and the fat of fatlings, and the blood of calves, and lambs, and goats, I would not, etc. Thou wouldest not — this is true in itself; nor are the things pleasing to thee which are offered according to the law, that is, thou dost not delight in these, Ps. 50:17: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted — unless because they are a figure, or insofar as through them men were drawn back from idolatry. Therefore, having said this first, he subjoins Then said I, namely when thou hadst fitted flesh to me for the passion, or when these things did not please: Behold I come, whether unto the incarnation or unto the passion. But unto what? That I may do thy will. John 6:38: I came down from heaven, that I may do the will of him that sent me. John 4:34: my meat is to do the will of him that sent me. The prophet, therefore, saying this, takes away the first, that he may establish the second. In which he shows the difference between the old and the new testament, because speaking of the old he says that he does not will them, nor are they pleasing to God, namely in themselves; therefore they are taken away. But when he speaks of the new, he says that he wills it, because unto this I come, that I may do thy will. Therefore the new is established, that is, it is confirmed to be according to the will of God. Lev. 26:10: you shall cast away the old, the new coming on. Then, when he says In which will, he expounds that which he had said about the will of God, which Christ came to fulfill, namely what that will is. Now this is as it is said, 1 Thess. 4:3: this is the will of God, your sanctification. Therefore he says, In which will we are sanctified, and this, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, namely made. Eph. 5:2: he offered himself an oblation and a sacrifice to God. And this, once. 1 Pet. 3:18: Christ died once for our sins. Then, when he says And every priest indeed, he shows the comparison of the priest of the new and of the old testament. Now it must be known that in the law there were two solemn sacrifices. One on the day of expiation, which was done by the high priest alone, concerning which much has already been said. The other was the continual sacrifice, in which one lamb was offered in the morning, and another in the evening, concerning which Num. 28:4. Of this also the Apostle here intends, and concerning this he does three things. For first he sets down that which pertains to the priest of the old testament; second he sets down that which pertains to the priest of the new; third he confirms it through authority. The second, at But this one, one; the third, at But he testifies. He says therefore, Every priest, etc. He says every, to differentiate from the sacrifice of expiation, which was done only by the high priest; but in this one, every priest is ready at hand, ministering the whole day, and often offering the same victims, because he always offered a lamb. These, namely the daily victims, could not take away sins, because they were repeated. Jer. 11:15: shall the holy flesh take away from thee thy wickednesses, in which thou hast gloried? Through this continual sacrifice is figured Christ, and the eternity of him who is the spotless lamb. Then, when he says But this one, one for sins, he shows that which pertains to the priesthood of Christ. And concerning this he does two things. For first he sets down his intention; second he assigns the reason, at For one. He says therefore, But this one, namely Christ, offering one victim for sins, namely one that takes away sins. But that old law offered many victims that did not expiate sins; this one, therefore, namely Christ, offering one victim, because he offered himself once for our sins, sits, not as a minister, as the legal priest who is always ready at hand, but as lord. Ps. 109:1: the Lord said to my Lord: sit thou at my right hand. Mark, last chapter: he sitteth at the right hand of God. At the right hand of God the Father, as to equality of power according to the divinity, but in the more excellent goods according to the humanity. Above, 1:3: he sitteth at the right hand of majesty, etc. And this forever. For he will not die again, because Christ rising from the dead, etc. Rom. 6:9; Dan. 7:14: his power, an everlasting power. For the rest, waiting until his enemies be made the footstool of his feet. This waiting does not suggest any anxiety in Christ, as in men. Hope that is deferred afflicts the soul, as is said, Prov. 13:12. But it designates the will of showing mercy, which God has toward us. Is. 30:18: the Lord waiteth, that he may have mercy on us. There are subjected, therefore, to his feet, that is, to the humanity of Christ, some who are willing, and in this their salvation consists, namely in doing his will. Ex. 10:3: how long refusest thou to be subject to me? But the wicked, unwilling, are themselves subjected, because even if they do not of themselves fulfill his will, nevertheless it is fulfilled concerning them as to the work of justice. And thus all things are subjected to him in one or another of these ways. Ps. 8:7: thou hast subjected all things under his feet. Then, when he says For by one oblation, he assigns the reason, namely why he sits as lord, and not as a minister, like the legal priest, because that one did not take away sins by one victim, and therefore it was necessary to offer many others, and frequently. Above, 5:1: for every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices. But the victim which Christ offered takes away all sins. Above, 9:28: Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many. And therefore he says that by one oblation he consummated, that is, perfected, that which he accomplished by reconciling and joining us to God as to our principle — those sanctified forever, because the victim of Christ, who is God and man, has an eternal power of sanctifying. Below, 13:12: Jesus, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, etc. For through Christ we are perfected and joined to God. Rom. 5:2: through whom we have access to God. Then, when he says But he testifies, he confirms what he had said through the authority which is taken from Jer. 31:33, which, because it was expounded above in the eighth chapter, is for the present omitted. And nevertheless it can be divided into two parts. First he sets down the authority; second he argues from it, at But where there is remission of these. And he makes such an argument: in the new testament sins are remitted through the oblation of Christ, because the blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins; therefore in the new testament, in which sins and iniquities are remitted, as was said in the authority, there is no oblation for sin — supply, to be repeated any further. Matt. 9:12: there is no need of a physician for those who are well, but for those who are sick. Where therefore there is remission of these, etc. For an injury would be done to the victim of Christ.”

“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?''”

“For, &c.--reason why, necessarily, there is a continually recurring "remembrance of sins" in the legal sacrifices (Heb 10:3). Typically, "the blood of bulls," &c., sacrificed, had power; but it was only in virtue of the power of the one real antitypical sacrifice of Christ; they had no power in themselves; they were not the instrument of perfect vicarious atonement, but an exhibition of the need of it, suggesting to the faithful Israelite the sure hope of coming redemption, according to God's promise. take away--"take off." The Greek, Heb 10:11, is stronger, explaining the weaker word here, "take away utterly." The blood of beasts could not take away the sin of man. A MAN must do that (see on Heb 9:12-14).”