Verse 22

And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

There are two parts of this verse; or there is a double assertion in it. (1) That almost all things are by the Law purged with blood. (2) That without shedding of blood is no remission.

In the first of these there is considerable the assertion itself, and the limitation of it.

1. The assertion itself is, that by the Law all things were purged with blood; [in non-Latin alphabet], according to the Law; the rule, the commands, the institution of it; in that way of worship, faith and obedience, which the people were obliged to by the Law. According to the Law, there was a necessity of the blood of sacrifices for the purging of sin, and making of atonement. This he infers and concludes from what he had said before, concerning the dedication of the covenant, and the purification of the tabernacle with all the vessels of its ministry. And from hence he designs to prove the necessity of the death of Christ, and the efficacy of his blood for the purging of sin, whereof those legal things were types and representations. Of these legal purifications, or purgings by blood, we have treated already.

2. The limitation of this assertion is in the word [in non-Latin alphabet], almost. Some few purifications there were under the Law that were not by blood. Such, as some judge, was that by the ashes of an heifer mingled with water; whereof we have treated on ver. 13. But I am not certain that this may be esteemed a purification without blood. For the heifer whose ashes were used in it was first slain, and its blood poured out. Afterwards the blood as well as the flesh was burnt and reduced to ashes. Therefore that way of purification cannot be said to be without blood. And it was a type of the purifying efficacy of the blood of Christ, who offered himself a whole burnt-offering to God, through the fire of the eternal Spirit. But there were two sorts of purifications under the Law, wherein blood was neither formally nor virtually applied or used. The one was by fire in things that would endure it (Numbers 31:23). And the Apostle speaks of things as well as persons, as the word [in non-Latin alphabet] declares. The other was by water, whereof there were many instances. See Exodus 19:10; Leviticus 16:26, 28; chap. 22:6, 7.

All other representations were [in non-Latin alphabet], in blood; [in non-Latin alphabet] for [in non-Latin alphabet], by the offering and sprinkling of blood.

From the consideration of the purifications mentioned, the Apostle adds the limitation of almost. For the conceit of some of the ancients, that [in non-Latin alphabet] is as much as ferè, and is to be joined with purged, were almost purged, that is, they were so only ineffectually, is most improper. For it is contrary to the natural construction of the words, and the direct intention of the Apostle.

Only we may observe, that the purifications which were by fire and water, were of such things as had no immediate influence into the worship of God, or in such cases as wherein the worship of God was not immediately concerned; nor of such things wherewith conscience was defiled. They were only of external pollutions, by things in their own nature indifferent; and had nothing of sin in them. And the sacred institutions which were not concerning the immediate worship of God, nor things which in themselves did defile the consciences of men, were as hedges and fences about those which really did so. They served to warn men not to come near those things which had a real defilement in themselves. See Matthew 15:16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Thus almost all things, that is, absolutely all, which had any inward real moral defilement, were purged with blood, and directed to the purging efficacy of the blood of Christ. And we may observe, that

1. There was a great variety of legal purifications. For as all of them together could not absolutely purge sin, but only direct to what would do so; so none of them by themselves could fully represent that one sacrifice by blood, whereby all sin was to be purged; therefore were they multiplied.

2. This variety argues that in ourselves we are ready to be polluted on all occasions. Sin cleaves to all that we do, and is ready to defile us even in our best duties.

3. This variety of institutions was a great part of the bondage-state of the Church under the Old Testament; a yoke that they were not able to bear. For it was almost an insuperable difficulty to attain an assurance that they had observed them all in a due manner; the penalties of their neglect being very severe. Besides, the outward observation of them was both burdensome and chargeable. It is the glory of the Gospel that we are directed to make our address by faith on all occasions to that one sacrifice by the blood of Christ, which cleanses us from all our sins. Howbeit many that are called Christians, being ignorant of the mystery thereof, do again betake themselves to other ways for the purification of sin, which are multiplied in the Church of Rome.

4. The great mystery wherein God instructed the Church from the foundation of the world, especially by and under legal institutions, was that all purging of sin was to be by blood. This was that which by all sacrifices from the beginning, and all legal institutions, he declared to mankind. Blood is the only means of purging and atonement. This is the language of the whole Law. All was to manifest, that the washing and purging of the Church from sin, was to be looked for from the blood of Christ alone.

The second assertion of the Apostle is, that without shedding of blood there is no remission. Some would have these words to contain an application of what is spoken before, to the blood of Christ. But it is manifest that the Apostle yet continues in his account of things under the Law, and enters on the application of them not before the next verse. Therefore these words, [in non-Latin alphabet], according to the Law, or by virtue of its institutions, are here to be repeated. By the Law without shedding of blood, that is, in sacrifice, there was no remission. Yet, though that season be particularly intended, the axiom is universally true, and applicable to the New Covenant; even under it, without shedding of blood is no remission.

The curse of the law was, that he that sinned should die; but whereas there is no man that lives and sins not, God had provided that there should be a testification of the remission of sins, and that the curse of the law should not be immediately executed on all that sinned. This he did by allowing the people to make atonement for their sins by blood, that is, the blood of sacrifices (Leviticus 17:11). For hereby God signified his will and pleasure in two things: (1) That by this blood there should be a political remission granted to sinners, that they should not die under the sentence of the law, as it was the rule of the government of the nation. And in this sense, for such sins as were not politically to be spared, no sacrifice was allowed. (2) That real spiritual forgiveness, and gracious acceptance with himself, was to be obtained alone by that which was signified by this blood, which was the sacrifice of Christ himself.

And whereas the sins of the people were of various kinds, there were particular sacrifices instituted to answer that variety. This variety of sacrifices with respect to the various sorts or kinds of sins, for which they were to make atonement, I have elsewhere discussed and explained. Their institution and order is recorded (Leviticus 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). And if any person neglected that especial sacrifice which was appointed to make atonement for his especial sin, he was left under the sentence of the law, politically and spiritually, there was no remission. Yes also, there might be, there were sins that could not be reduced directly to any of those for whose remission sacrifices were directed in particular. Therefore God graciously provided against the distress or ruin of the church on either of these accounts. For whether the people had fallen under the neglect of any of those especial ways of atonement, or had contracted the guilt of such sins, as they knew not how to reduce to any sort of them that were to be expiated, he had graciously prepared the great anniversary sacrifice, wherein public atonement was made for all the sins, transgressions and iniquities of the whole people, of whatever sort they were (Leviticus 16:21). But in the whole of his ordinances he established the rule, that without shedding of blood was no remission.

There seems to be an exception in the case of him who was so poor that he could not provide the meanest offering of blood for a sin-offering. For he was allowed by the law to offer the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for his sin, and it was forgiven him (Leviticus 5:11, 12, 13). Therefore the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], almost, may be here again repeated, because of this single case. But the Apostle has respect to the general rule of the law. And this exception was not an ordinary constitution, but depended on the impossibility of the thing itself, whereunto it made a gracious condescension. And this necessity oftentimes of itself without any constitution suspends a positive law, and gives a dispensation to the infringers of it. So was it in the case of David, when he ate of the shewbread in his hunger; and as to works of mercy on the Sabbath day, which instances are given by our Savior himself. Therefore the particular exception on this consideration did rather strengthen than invalidate the general rule of the law. Besides the nearest approach was made to it that might be. For fine flour is the best of the bread, whereby man's life is sustained; and in the offering of it, the offerer testified that by his sin he had forfeited his own life and all whereby it was sustained, which was the meaning of the offering of blood.

The expositors of the Roman Church do here greatly perplex themselves, to secure the sacrifice of their Mass, from this destroying sentence of the Apostle. For a sacrifice they would have it to be, and that for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead. Yet they say it is an unbloody sacrifice. For if there be any blood shed in it, it is the blood of Christ, and then he is crucified by them afresh every day; as indeed in some sense he is, though they cannot shed his blood. If it be unbloody, the rule of the Apostle is, that it is no way available for the remission of [illegible] sins. Those that are sober have no way to deliver themselves, but by denying the Mass to be a proper sacrifice for the remission of sins, which is done expressly by Estius upon the place. But this is contrary to the direct assertions contained in the Mass itself, and razes the very foundation of it.

Now if God gave them so much light under the Old Testament, as that they should know, believe, and profess, that without shedding of blood is no remission, how great is the darkness of men under the New Testament, who look, seek, or endeavour any other way after the pardon of sin, but only by the blood of Christ.

2. This is the great demonstration of the demerit of sin, of the holiness, righteousness, and grace of God. For such was the nature and demerit of sin, such was the righteousness of God with respect to it, that without shedding of blood it could not be pardoned. They are strangers to the one and the other, who please themselves with other imaginations. And what blood must this be? That the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, was utterly impossible, as our Apostle declares. It must be the blood of the Son of God (Romans 3:24, 25; Acts 20:28). And herein were glorified both the love and grace of God, in that he spared not his only Son, but gave him up to be a bloody sacrifice in his death for us all.