Skip to content

Hebrews 10:4

Hebrews 10:4
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

My Notes

What Does Hebrews 10:4 Mean?

Hebrews 10:4 delivers the verdict on the entire Old Testament sacrificial system in a single sentence. "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins" — adunaton gar haima taurōn kai tragōn aphairein hamartias. Adunaton — impossible. Not unlikely. Not insufficient. Impossible. The blood of animals cannot — structurally, categorically, by nature — take away sins. The verb aphairein means to remove entirely, to carry away, to lift off. Animal blood can't do it. Never could. The system ran for a thousand years and never once produced the result it pointed toward.

The statement is remarkable because God designed the sacrificial system. He commanded the bulls and goats. He prescribed the blood rituals. He authorized the Levitical priesthood to carry them out. And now the author of Hebrews says: it was always impossible for those sacrifices to accomplish the actual removal of sin. The system God designed was never intended to finish the job. It was designed to point to the One who would.

Verse 1 sets up the logic: the law was a shadow (skia) of good things to come, not the very image (eikōn). Shadows indicate the presence of something real. They outline the shape. But you can't touch a shadow. You can't eat a shadow's food. You can't be healed by a shadow's medicine. The sacrifices were the shadow. Christ's sacrifice is the substance. The shadow faithfully represented the shape of what was coming — but it could never do what the substance would do.

The impossibility wasn't a failure. It was the design. The sacrifices were meant to create hunger for the real thing — not to satisfy it.

Reflection Questions

  • 1.What 'bulls and goats' are you offering — what system of self-atonement have you been relying on?
  • 2.How does knowing the sacrificial system was 'designed to be insufficient' change how you read the Old Testament?
  • 3.If the blood of animals couldn't take away sin, what makes Christ's blood different?
  • 4.Where have you been trying to pay an infinite debt with finite currency?

Devotional

A thousand years of sacrifices. Millions of animals. Rivers of blood. And none of it could take away a single sin.

Not because the system was wrong. Because the system was a shadow. God designed it to point, not to accomplish. The bulls and goats did exactly what they were made to do: they symbolized, they foreshadowed, they declared in blood that sin requires death and substitution is necessary. But the blood of an animal can't carry the weight of a human soul's rebellion. The categories don't match. An animal's death can't atone for a person's sin. The transaction doesn't compute.

Adunaton — impossible. The author of Hebrews doesn't say it was difficult or incomplete. He says it was structurally impossible. Like trying to fill an ocean with a teacup. Like trying to pay a billion-dollar debt with pocket change. The sacrifice was real. The blood was real. The worship was genuine. And the result was — always, inherently, by design — inadequate. Not because the worshiper didn't try hard enough. Because the mechanism couldn't carry the weight.

The entire system was designed to produce a question: if this isn't enough, what is? A thousand years of sacrifice that couldn't take away sin was a thousand-year sermon that something better was coming. Every bull on every altar was a sentence in a story that ended at the cross — where the blood that was shed wasn't an animal's but God's own Son's. And that blood didn't symbolize the removal of sin. It accomplished it.

If you've been operating any system of atonement — good deeds, religious performance, moral improvement — hoping it'll be enough to take away your sin, Hebrews says: impossible. Not because you're not trying. Because the mechanism can't carry the weight. Only one sacrifice can. And it's already been made.

Commentary

Trusted original commentary from respected historical Bible scholars and theologians.

Gill's ExpositionBaptist theologian, 1697–1771

For it is not possible,.... There is a necessity of sin being taken away, otherwise it will be remembered; and there…

Barnes' NotesPresbyterian pastor, 1798–1870

For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins - The reference here is to the…

Adam ClarkeMethodist theologian, 1762–1832

For it is not possible - Common sense must have taught them that shedding the blood of bulls and goats could never…

Matthew HenryNonconformist minister, 1662–1714Hebrews 10:1-6

Here the apostle, by the direction of the Spirit of God, sets himself to lay low the Levitical dispensation; for though…

Cambridge BibleAcademic commentary, 1882–1921

it is not possible … This plain statement of the nullity of sacrifices in themselves, and regarded as mere outward acts,…