Hebrews 7:27,28

῞Ος οὐκ ἔχει καθ᾿ ἡμέραν ἀνάγκην, ὥσπερ σἰ ἀρχιερεῖς, πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν θυσίας ἀναφέρειν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦv τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίνσεν ἐφάπαξ, ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας. ῾Ο νόμος γὰρ ἀνθρώπους καθίστησιν ἀρχιερεῖς ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν· ὁ λόγος δὲ τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον, Υἱὸν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον.

The words used in this context have been opened in several places before. And in one thing only is there any material difference among the translators of them; and this is in these words, τῆς μετὰ τὸν νόμον. For the Syriac reads them, בָּתַר נָמוּסָא דַּחֲוָת, rendering the article in the masculine gender, “who was after the law;” and so doth the Vulgar Latin also, “qui post legem est,” referring unto λόγος as the antecedent, and not ὁρκωμοσίας. And Erasmus renders μετὰ τὸν νόμον by “supra legem,” “above the law.” But others think, and that rightly, that μετά with an accusative case is never to be rendered by “supra,” or “above.” [12]

[12] EXPOSITION. Καθ᾿ ἡμέραν has occasioned much perplexity; for the high priest only offered the sin-offerings here referred to once a-year, on the day of atonement, Leviticus 16, and Exodus 30:7-10. Wemust either suppose (with Tholuck) that the καθ᾿ ἡμέραν is used for διαπαντός, perpetually, i.e., year after year; or we must suppose a reference to the high priest as taking part in the occasional sacrifices made by all the priests, for sins of ignorance, Leviticus 4; or we must suppose that the regular acts of the priesthood are attributed to the high priests, as representatives and heads of the whole order; or, finally, we must take οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς , as in Matthew 2:4; Acts 5:24, for the heads of the twenty-four classes into which the priests were divided, who officiated in turn. This latter view is perhaps the most natural. Conybeare and Howson. ED.

Hebrews 7:27. Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, the Son, who is perfected for evermore.

As these verses contain other instances of the pre-eminence of our high priest above those of the order of Aaron, so all those mentioned in the former of them do depend directly on and flow from the qualifications and endowments of his person expressed in that foregoing. For whereas he is such an one as is there described, “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens,” for such an one alone “became us,” he was above and freed from all those things and services which the Levitical priests were obliged unto, for want of these qualifications. For all the things ascribed, Hebrews 7:27, unto them and denied concerning him, were all effects of the weakness and imperfection of their persons and their services; which he, as unto his person, was absolutely exempt and free from, so that he had no need to do as they did. And this being declared, the whole matter, with the fundamental reason of all the differences insisted on, is summarily expressed, Hebrews 7:28, as we shall see in the exposition of the words.

Hebrews 7:27. “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for their own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

The words are a negation as they respect our high priest, and include an affirmation with respect unto the priests of the law, both in sundry instances. And the design of them is to exclude all those imperfections from him which they were subject unto. And we may observe in the words,

1. The manner of the negation, Οὐκ ἔχει ἀνάγκην, “He needeth not;” it is not necessary for him. The things expressed were not such as those priests might do or omit, as they saw occasion, but they were necessarily obliged unto them. And the necessity the apostle intends was not only that which arose from God's institution, who appointed them to offer daily, “first for themselves, and then for the people,” but that also which arose from their own state and condition, and from the nature of the sacrifices that they offered: for themselves being weak, infirm, and sinful; and their offerings being only of earthly things, that could never perfectly expiate sin; these things were necessary for them, and so God had ordained. Wherefore there are three grounds or reasons of the necessity here ascribed unto these priests:

(1.) God had appointed them so to do. This comes first to view although there be another reason even of this appointment. And God taught hereby both them and the church their utter incapacity to effect the work committed unto them at once, whereon they were to multiply their oblations.

(2.) The nature of the offerings and sacrifices which they offered did make the manner of it here expressed necessary unto them. For they were such as could not attain the end of expiating sin, but only could represent that which did so; and therefore the repetition of them was needful, because their principal use was to be instructive only. Things that are really efficient themselves may at once produce and perfect their effects; but those which are instructive only must be reiterated.

(3.) This necessity arose from their own state before God, and the state of the people. For they themselves often sinned, and having no other to offer for them, it was necessary that they should often offer for themselves. And so it was with the people also. They sinned still, and still must be offered for. After one offering, their sins again increased on them, and made another necessary.

From all these considerations our high priest was absolutely exempted; and that on a twofold account:

(1.) Of his person; which being “holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” he needed not to offer for himself.

(2.) Of his offering; which being at once perfectly expiatory of the sins of the people, needed not to be repeated. And on these grounds God also had appointed that he should offer himself only “once for all.”

2. The second thing in these words is the declaration of them that lay under this necessity which our high priest was not liable unto, ῝Ωσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς. “As the high priests;” that is, those high priests of the law concerning whom he had treated. So we well render the words, “As those high priests;” in like manner as they were, or as they had need. For the apostle, with respect unto the Levitical priesthood, carrieth on the comparison between Christ and them; especially in the instance of the high priests, and the discharge of their office, for they were the head of the priesthood, and the glory of the church of Israel. Howbeit all other priests, employed in the holy offerings and sacrifices of the people, are included herein. And it is apparent, that if the priesthood of Christ doth so far excel that office in the high priests of the old testament, it must needs excel it in those of a subordinate order or degree. All those priests had need to offer in the manner here expressed.

3. A threefold difference is intimated between our high priest and them; as,

(1.) In the frequency of their offerings: they were to offer “daily,” which also includes the order of their offering, “first for themselves, and then for the people,” whereas he offered “once” only.

(2.) It is supposed they offered the sacrifices appointed by the law, which were of brute creatures only, whence their insufficiency and frequent repetition did proceed, as declared, Hebrews 10:1-3, he “offered up himself.”

(3.) In the cause of their offering; they offered for their own sins, but he had none of his own to offer for.

Now all the things here ascribed unto the Levitical priests, are weaknesses and imperfections in their office. And hereby the main position of the apostle, and which was destructive of the whole fabric of Mosaical worship, namely, that “the law” whereby they were constituted “made nothing perfect,” was abundantly confirmed. For the greatest effect of that law was the constitution of this priesthood. And what perfection can be expected by such a priesthood, where the priests were obliged continually to offer for their own sins? No sooner was one offering past, but they were providing matter making another necessary. And so it was with respect unto the sins of the people. And what perfection could be comprised in an everlasting rotation of sins and sacrifices? Is it not manifest that this priesthood and these sacrifices could never of themselves expiate sin, nor make perfect them that came to God by them? Their instructive use was excellent: they both directed faith to look unto the great future priest and sacrifice, and established it, in that they were pledges given of God in assurance thereof. The eye of them all was a continual guidance unto the church to look unto Him who alone was to make atonement for sin, and bring in everlasting righteousness. Howbeit they were of that nature, and were so ordained of God, that they could never give perfect ease and peace unto them that were exercised in them. Some relief they found in them, but complete peace they did not afford. Nor can any thing do so that is often to be repeated. The frequent repetition of the sacrifice of the mass in the church of Rome, doth sufficiently manifest that there is no solid, abiding peace with God in that church; for this is not to be attained by any thing that must be frequently repeated. So our apostle affirms expressly, that if the sacrifices of the law could have made perfect them that came to God by them, or. given them perfect peace with God, they would have ceased to be offered. And so it would be with the sacrifice of the mass. Only by the one offering of Christ they are perfected, as to peace with God, for whom he offered. And it gave great evidence unto their instructive efficacy, that in themselves they were so weak, so imperfect, and ineffectual.

It was therefore unbelief heightened unto obstinacy which caused the Hebrews to refuse this high priest and sacrifice when exhibited of God, whereas before they could never attain unto peace firm and stable. But love of carnal worship, and adherence unto self-righteousness, are inseparable companions.

Obs. God requireth our faith and obedience in and unto nothing but what is, as absolutely needful for us, so highly reasonable unto the minds of them that are enlightened. Such was this priesthood of Christ, now proposed unto the faith of the church, in comparison of what was before enjoyed.

4. There is in the words the time and season of the performance of what is here ascribed unto these high priests, as necessary for them. They were to do it καθ᾿ ἡμέραν “daily;” that is, so often as occasion required, according unto the law. For there is no reason to confine the apostle's intention unto the annual expiatory sacrifice only; as though καθ᾿ ἡμέραν were the same with κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτόν, Hebrews 10:1, “daily” as much as “yearly.” It is true, that in that sacrifice the high priest offered “first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people;” but πρότερον, here used, doth not express that order, as we shall see. Nor is it the תָּמִיד, or “daily sacrifice” alone, that is intended, though that be included also; for that “juge sacrificium” had respect unto the sins of the whole church, both priests and people. And we are obliged to pray for the pardon of sin every day, by virtue of that sacrifice which is πρόσφατος καὶ ζῶσα, “new and living” in its efficacy continually, and as occasion doth require. And so there was an obligation on the priest to offer for himself a sin-offering, as often as he “sinned according to the sin of the people:” Leviticus 4:3,

“If the priest that is anointed” (that is, the high priest) “do sin according to the sin of the people, then let him bring, for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin-offering.” And unto this institution the apostle here hath respect.

5. What they were thus obliged unto is declared: Θυσίας ἀναφέρειν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, “To offer sacrifices for sins.” All propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices are intended; but possibly a principal regard is had unto the great anniversary sacrifice, in the feast of expiation, Leviticus 16. For although the apostle mentions θυσίας, “sacrifices,” in the plural number, and that was but one, yet because of the repetition of it, it being “offered year by year continually,” as he speaks, Hebrews 10:1, it maybe signified hereby. And those sacrifices were ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν . And in answer unto them our Lord Jesus Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin. And this is expressed by περὶ ἁμαρτίας, “for sin,” only, without the mention of sacrifice, Romans 8:3. For because חַטָּאת signifies both “the sin and the sacrifice” for it, as the verb, חָטָא, signifies in one conjugation “to sin,” and in another “to expiate sin,” the sacrifice itself is expressed by περὶ ἁμαρτίας, “for sin.”

6. The order of these sacrifices is expressed by πρότερον and ἔπειτα, “first” and “then:” “first for his own, and “then for those of the people.” Either the whole discharge of the office of the high priest may be intended in this order, or that which was peculiar unto the feast of expiation. For he was in general to take care in the first place about offering for his own sins, according to the law, Leviticus 4: for if that were not done in due order, if their own legal guilt were not expiated in its proper season, according to the law, they were no way meet to offer for the sins of the congregation; yea, they exposed themselves unto the penalty of excision. And this order was necessary, seeing the law appointed men to be priests who had infirmities of their own, as is expressed in the next verse. Or the order intended may respect in an especial manner the form and process prescribed in the solemn anniversary sacrifice at the feast of expiation, Leviticus 16. First he was to offer a sin-offering for himself and his house, and then for the people; both on the same day.

(1.) ᾿Υπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἀμαρτιῶν, “For his own sins.” And this upon a double account:

[1.] Because he was really a sinner, as the rest of the people were: “If he do sin according to the sin of the people,” Leviticus 4:3.

[2.] That upon the expiation of his own sins in the first place, he might be the more meet to represent Him who had no sin. And therefore he was not to offer for himself in the offering that he made for the people, but stood therein as a sinless person, as our high priest was really to be.

(2.) Τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ, “For the sins of the people;” that is, for the whole congregation of Israel, according to the law, Leviticus 16:21.

This was the duty, the order and method of the high priests of old, in their offerings and sacred services. This their weaknesses, infirmities, and sins, as also the sacrifices which they offered, did require. All that could be learned from it was, that some more excellent priest and sacrifice were to be introduced. For no perfection, no consummation in divine favor, no settled peace of conscience, could in this way be obtained; all things openly declared that so they could not be. And hence have we an evidence of what is affirmed, John 1:17, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” And the privilege or advancement of the church, in its deliverance from those various, multiplied, obscure means of instruction, into the glorious light of the way and causes of our adoption, justification, and salvation, is inexpressibly great and full of grace. No longer are we now obliged unto a rigid observance of those things which did not effect what they did represent. An increase in thankfulness, fruitfulness, and holiness, cannot but be expected from us.

These are the things that are here denied of our high priest: lie had no need to offer sacrifice in this way, order, and method. The offering of sacrifice is not denied, that is, sacrifice for the sins of the people; yea, it is positively asserted in the next words: but that he offered daily, many sacrifices, or any for himself, or had need so to do, this is denied by the apostle. That alone which he did is asserted in the remaining words of the verse: “For this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

And two things are in the words:

1. What he did in general;

2. In particular, how he did it:

For the first, it is said, Τοῦτο γὰρ ἐποίησεν, “This he did.” Τοῦτο refers only unto one clause of the antecedent, namely, “offering for the sins of the people.” “This he did once, when he offered up himself.” For himself he did not offer.

But contrary unto the sense of the whole church of God, contrary to the analogy of faith, and with no small danger in the expression, Socinus first affirmed that the Lord Christ offered also for himself, or his own sins. And he is followed herein by those of his own sect, as Schlichtingius on this place: and so he is also by Grotius and Hammond; which is the channel whereby many of his notions and conceptions are derived unto us. It is true, that both he and they do acknowledge that the Lord Christ had no sins of his own properly so called, that is, “transgressions of the law;” but his infirmities, say some of them, whereby he was exposed unto death, his sufferings, say others, are called his sins. But nothing can be more abhorrent from truth and piety than this assertion. For,

1. If this be so, then the apostle expressly in terms affirms that Christ “offered for his own sins,” and that distinctly from “the sins of the people.” And from this blasphemy we are left to relieve ourselves by an interpretation that the Scripture nowhere gives countenance unto, namely, that by “sins,” infirmities or miseries are intended. It is true that “infirmity,” ἀσθένεια , doth sometimes signify sin, or obnoxiousness unto sin; but “sin” doth nowhere signify natural infirmities, but moral evils always. It is true, Christ was “made sin:” but where it is said so, it is also added that it was “for us;” and, to take off all apprehensions of any thing in him that might be so called, that “he knew no sin.” He was “made sin for us,” when he “offered for the sins of the people;” and other distinct offering for himself he offered none. And therefore in sundry places where mention is made of his offering himself, it is still observed that he “did no sin,” but was “as a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Let, therefore, men put what interpretation they please on their own words (for they are not the words of the apostle, that “Christ offered himself for his own sins”), the language is, and must be, offensive unto every holy heart, and hath an open appearance of express contradiction unto many other testimonies of the Scripture.

2. The sole reason pretended to give countenance unto this absurd assertion is, that τοῦτο, “this,” must answer to the whole preceding proposition, which is its antecedent. Now therein is mention of the priests “offering first for their own sins, then for the sins of the people;” and this, it is said, Christ did, that is, he offered first for his own sins, and then for the people's. But to answer the whole antecedent, in both parts of it, it is indispensably necessary that he must, as they did, offer two distinct offerings, one, namely the “first,” for himself; and the other, or “then,” for the people. For so did they, so were they obliged to do by the law; and other offerings for themselves and the people, in any other order or method, there never were, nor could be. But this is expressly contradictory unto what is here affirmed of the Lord Christ and his offering, namely, that he “offered himself once” only: and if but once, he could not offer “first for himself, then for the people;” nor at all for himself and them in the same offering, which the high priests themselves could not do.

3. This insinuation not only enervates, but is contradictory unto the principal design of the apostle in the verse foregoing, and in that which follows. For verse 26, he on purpose describes our high priest by such properties and qualifications as might evidence him to have no need to offer for his own sins, as those other priests had; for from this consideration, that “he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners,” the apostle makes this inference, that “he needeth not to offer for himself, as those high priests did.” But according unto this interpretation, no such thing ensues thereon; but notwithstanding all those qualifications, he had need to offer for his own sins. And Hebrews 7:28, the difference he puts between him and them is this, that they were “men subject to infirmities,” but he is “the Son, consecrated for ever:” which apparently exempts him from any necessity of offering for himself; for, as is apparent from the antithesis, he was not subject unto any of those infirmities which made it necessary unto them to offer for themselves. Wherefore the whole design of the apostle in these verses is utterly perverted and overthrown by this interpretation.

4. When those priests offered for their own sins, their sins were of the same nature with the sins of the people: “If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people,” Leviticus 4:3. If, therefore, this be to be repeated ἐκ τοῦ κοινοῦ, “this he did when he offered for his own sins and for the people's,” “sins” being only expressed in the first place and understood in the latter, sins properly so called must be intended; which is the height of blasphemy.

5. If the Lord Christ offered for himself, or his own infirmities, then those infirmities were such as were obstructions and hinderances unto his offering for others; for that is the only reason why he should offer for their removal or taking away. But this is so far otherwise, as that indeed he was obnoxious unto no infirmity but what was necessary that he might be a meet high priest and sacrifice for us, for so was every thing that is inseparable from human nature, which is utterly destructive of this figment.

6. This imagination will admit of no tolerable sense in its exposition or application. For how can we conceive that the Lord Christ offered for his own infirmities; that is, his sorrows, sufferings, and obnoxiousness unto death? It must be by his sufferings and death; for in and by them he offered himself unto God. But this is absurd and foolish: By his sufferings he offered for his sufferings! What he offered for, he took away, as he did the sins of the people; but his own sorrows and sufferings he took not away, but underwent them all.

7. It is contradictory unto the principal maxim of the Socinians with respect unto the priesthood of Christ. For they maintain that his one perfect offering, or expiatory sacrifice, was in heaven only, and not on the earth. But he could not at his appearance in the holy place offer for his own infirmities and miseries, for they were all past and finished, himself being exalted in immortality and glory.

These things are sufficient to repress the vanity of this figment. But because there is no small danger in the proposal that hath been made of it, I shall briefly examine what reasons its authors and promoters do produce to give countenance unto it. Thus proceeds and argues Crellius or Schlichtingius on the place: “Peccata proprie dicta, id est, divinarum legum transgressiones, cum in Christo locum non habeant ullum, 1. Necesse est ut in voce ‘peccatorum'sit improprietas, significenturque Christi infirmitates et perpessiones, 2. Qua de re jam egimus, cap. 5, Hebrews 7:2; Hebrews 3:3. Sic vidimus istarum infirmitatum et perpessionum contraria, sanctitatis et innocentiae nomine paulo ante versu superiore describi; qui duo versiculi mutuo se illustrant: (‘seipsum offerens.') 4. Docet quando Christus pro se obtulerit, preces nimirum et supplicationes ut cap. 5, Hebrews 7:7, vidimus: tune nempe cum in eo esset, ut seipsum Deo offerret, cum sese ad oblationem sui ipsius accingeret, hoe est, cum tanquam victima mactaretur. 5. Oblatio enim Christi sic hoc loco extendenda est ut mortem ipsius tanquam necessarium antecedens, et quoddam veluti initium complectatur. 6. Cum vero hic versiculus ex superiori commate pendent et inferatur, vel hinc apparet, non agi isthic de moribus, sed de natura, deque felici statu ac conditione nostri pontificia Nec enim ideo Christus opus non habet amplius pro se offerre, quod sanctus sit et inculpatus, ratione morum sen actionum suarum, cum semper talis fuerit; sed quod in perpetuum ab omnibus malis et afflictionibus sit liberatus.”

I have transcribed his words at large, because what is offered by others unto the same purpose is all included in them. But the whole of it will be easily removed; for,

1. The impropriety of speech pretended, that “sins” should be put for “infirmities,” is that which the use of the Scripture will give no countenance unto. It is only feigned by these men at their pleasure. Let them, if they can, produce any one place where by “sins,” not moral evils, but natural infirmities, are intended. But by feigning improprieties of speech at our pleasure, we may wrest and pervert the Scripture also even as we please.

2. Of the infirmities of the human nature of Christ, which were necessary that he might be a sacrifice, and useful unto his being a priest, we have also treated in the place quoted, Hebrews 5:2-3; whereunto the reader is referred.

3. Not the contrary unto these infirmities, but the contrary unto sin original and actual, is intended by “holiness” and “innocency” in the verse foregoing; as hath been proved in the exposition of that verse, whereunto the reader is referred.

4. The Lord Christ offered up prayers and supplications unto God “when he offered up himself;” not to expiate his own infirmities by his offering, but that he might be carried through and supported in his oblation which he offered for the sins of the people; and had success therein. See the exposition on Hebrews 5:7.

5. He is more kind than ordinary, in extending the oblation of Christ unto his death also. But he recalls his grant, affirming that he did only prepare himself for his offering thereby. And this also casts his whole exposition into much confusion. Christ “offered himself once,” saith the apostle; ἐφάπαξ, once, and at one time. This, I suppose, is agreed. Then ‘he offered for himself and his own sins,'or not at all; for he offered but once, and at one time. Where then did he thus offer himself and when? ‘In heaven, upon his ascension,'say the Socinians with one accord. Where then and when did he offer for himself? ‘On the earth.'Then he offered himself twice? ‘No, by no means; he offered not himself on the earth.' How then did he offer for himself on the earth? ‘He did not, indeed, offer himself on the earth, but he prepared himself for his offering on the earth, and therein he offered for himself;' that is, he did and he did not offer himself upon the earth! For they cannot evade by saying that he did it when he offered up prayers on the earth; for the apostle says expressly in this place, that what he did he did it when he offered himself. And it must be by such an offering as answered the offering of the high priest for himself, which was bloody.

6. The close of his discourse, whereby he would prove the truth of his exposition of the verse foregoing from his interpretation of this, is absurd; as that which would give countenance unto an evident falsehood, from what is more evidently so.

Grotius adds little unto what Schlichtingius offers in this case. Only he tells us that ἁμαρτία is taken for “those griefs which are commonly the punishment of sin, Romans 6:10.” But it is a mistake: ἁμαρτία, in that place, signifies nothing but the guilt of sin, which Christ died to expiate and take away. “He died once for sin;” that is, he suffered once for sin. He says, moreover, that profluvium mulierum is called חֲטָאָה, Leviticus 12:8; Leviticus 15:30; as also is the leprosy, Leviticus 14:13. But herein also he ismistaken; both the one and the other subject unto those defiling distempers were appointed to offer a sin-offering for the sins which those defilements were tokens of, and the sin of nature which they proceeded from. Again he says, that “Christ in his offering was freed from those infirmities and miseries per mortem acceleratam.” But his death was not hasted one moment until all was finished; nor did he offer for the hastening of his death. And his ensuing words are most ambiguous: “Christ offered pro doloribus istis qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quos Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit.” If the “sorrows” intended were not true “punishments of sin,” they could not be “offered for.” And what sorrows Christ underwent, so far as they were penal, he offered for them when he offered for “the sins of the people,” and not otherwise. But those which are called “his own sins,” must be every way distinct from the sins of the people, and have no relation unto them; as the sins of the high priests of old had not. Wherefore, if by the “occasion of the sins of men,” he intend that his sufferings and griefs were for the sins of men, then he offered for them when he offered for the sins of the people, when he bare our sins and sorrows, and had no need to offer distinctly for them as his own. And if it were a sorrow that was not for sin, it cannot be called sin. Christ's suffering on the “occasion of the sins of mankind,” is well understood by those who are any way skilled in the Socinian mysteries.

Hammond says the same. “He both,” saith he, “offered for himself, that is, made expiation, as it were, not to deliver himself from sin, for he was never guilty of any, but from the infirmities assumed by him, but especially from death itself; and so is now never likely to die, and to determine his Melchisedecian priesthood.”

Ans. 1. To “make expiation, as it were, from the infirmities assumed by him,” or to be “delivered from them,” is hard to be understood.

2. Much more is it, how “by death, wherein he offered himself,” he should “make expiation to be delivered from death itself.”

3. And it is as hard to say, that Christ “offered for himself once by death,” that he might die no more; seeing “it is appointed unto all men only once to die.”

I have digressed thus far, to crush this novel invention; which, as it is untrue and alien from the sense of the apostle, so it hath in the expression of it an ungrateful sound of impiety. But I expect not so much sobriety, as that, considering the means of its conveyance unto the minds of men at present, it should not be vented again until what hath been here pleaded in its confutation be answered. At present I shall proceed with the exposition of the remainder of the words.

How and what Christ offered for the sins of the people is declared in the words remaining.

1. For the way or manner of it. He did it ἐφάπαξ, “once only.” This is directly opposed unto the frequency of the legal sacrifices, repeated “daily” as there was occasion. Those high priests offered καθ᾿ ἡμέραν, “daily,” on all occasions; he ἐφάπαξ, “once only.”

And I cannot but observe by the way, that this assertion of the apostle is no less absolutely exclusive of the missatical sacrifices of the priests of the Roman church than it is of the Levitical sacrifices of the high priest of the church of the Jews. Their expositors on this place do generally affirm, in plea for their church, that they offer it not to make expiation of sins, but only to represent and make application of the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross. But in their mass itself they speak otherwise, and expressly “offer it to God a sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead.” Neither yet do we inquire unto what end they do what they do'and this is all they say, that they offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, that is, himself. And this they do a thousand times more frequently than the expiatory sacrifices were among the Jews. Neither were their sacrifices offered properly, by God's appointment, to make atonement for sin by their own virtue and efficacy; but only to be a representation and application of the sacrifice of Christ to come. Whatever ends they therefore fancy unto themselves, by pretending to offer the same sacrifice that Christ did, they contradict the words of the apostle, and wholly evert the force of his argument. For if the same sacrifice which the Lord Christ offered be often offered, and had need so to be, the whole argument to prove the excellency of his priesthood, in that he offered himself but once, above them who often offered the same sacrifices, falls to the ground. And hence also the foundation of this fiction is raised. For it is, that the Lord Christ offered himself at the supper, the night before he was betrayed, as the Trent council affirms, sess. 22, cap. 1. For if he did so, he offered himself more than once, twice at least; which being a matter of fact, is to give the apostle the lie.

2. What he offered is expressed in the last place; and therein the reason is contained why he offered but once, and needed not to do so daily, as those priests did. And this is taken from the excellency of his offering: he offered ἑαυτόν, himself. And this gives the highest preference of the priesthood of Christ above that of Levi. For,

(1.) Those priests had nothing of their own to offer, but must be furnished with offerings from among the other creatures.

(2.) Though they had the best from them, the blood and fat, yet it was but the blood of calves, and sheep, and goats. And what can this do for the real expiating of the sins of our souls? See Micah 6:6-7. Wherefore, when at any time the people were brought under any serious conviction of sin, they could not but apprehend that none of those sacrifices, however multiplied, could deliver them from their guilt. But the Lord Christ had something of his own to offer, that which was originally and absolutely his own, not borrowed or taken from any thing among the creatures. And this was “himself,” a sacrifice able to make atonement for all the sins of mankind.

And from the words thus expounded we may observe,

Obs. 1. That no sinful man was meet to offer the great expiatory sacrifice for the church; much less is any sinful man fit to offer Christ himself. As the first part of this assertion declares the insufficiency of the priests of the church of the Jews, so doth the latter the vain pretense of the priests of the church of Rome. The former the apostle proves and confirms expressly. For no other high priest but such a one as was in himself perfectly sinless did become us, or our state and condition. He that was otherwise could neither have any thing of his own to offer, and must in the first place offer for himself; and this he must be doing day by day. And the latter, on many accounts, is a vile, presumptuous imagination. For a poor sinful worm of the earth to interpose himself between God and Christ, and offer the one in sacrifice unto the other, what an issue is it of pride and folly!

Obs. 2. The excellency of Christ's person and priesthood freed him in his offering from many things that the Levitical priesthood was obliged unto. And the due apprehension hereof is a great guide unto us in the consideration of those types. For many things we shall meet withal which we cannot see how they had a particular accomplishment in Christ, nor find out what they did prefigure. But all of them were such as their own infirm state and condition did require. Such were their outward call and consecration, which they had by the law, in the sacrifice of beasts, with certain washings and unctions; their sacrificing often, and for themselves; their succession one to another; their purifications for legal pollutions. These, and sundry things of like nature, were made necessary unto them from their own sins and infirmities, and so had no particular accomplishment in Christ. However, in general, all the ordinances and institutions about them all, taught the church thus much, that nothing of that was to be found in the true high priest wherein they were defective.

Obs. 3. No sacrifice could bring us unto God, and save the church to the utmost, but that wherein the Son of God himself was both priest and offering. Such a high priest became us, who offered himself once for all. And we may consider,

1. That this was one of the greatest effects of infinite divine wisdom and grace. His incarnation, wherein he had a body prepared for him for this purpose, his call to his office by the oath of the Father and unction of the Spirit, his sanctifying himself to be a sacrifice, and his offering up himself through the eternal Spirit unto God, are all full of mysterious wisdom and grace. All these wonders of wisdom and love were necessary unto this great end of bringing us unto God.

2. Every part of this transaction, all that belongs unto this sacrifice, is so filled up with perfection, that no more could be required on the part of God; nor is any thing wanting, to give countenance unto our unbelief. The person of the priest, and the offering itself, are both the same; both the Son of God. One view of the glory of this mystery, how satisfactory is it unto the souls of believers!

3. A distinct consideration of the person of the priest and of his sacrifice will evidence this truth unto the faith of believers. What could not this priest prevail for, in his interposition on our behalf? Must he not needs be absolutely prevalent in all he aims at? Were our cause intrusted in any other hand, what security could we have that it should not miscarry? And what could not this offering make atonement for? what sin, or whose sins could it not expiate? “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.”

Obs. 4. It was burdensome and heavy work, to attain relief against sin and settled peace of conscience under the old priesthood, attended with so many weaknesses and infirmities. Herein lies the greatest part of that yoke which the apostle Peter affirms that “neither they nor their fathers were able to bear,” Acts 15:10; which the Lord Christ gives us deliverance from, Matthew 11:27-30.

Hebrews 7:28. “For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.”

The apostle in this verse summeth up the whole of his precedent discourse, so as to evidence the true and proper foundation, which all along he hath built and proceeded on.

1. One principle there was agreed upon between him and the Hebrews who adhered unto Mosaical institutions; and this was, that a high priest over the church there must be, and without such an one there is no approach unto God. So it was under the law; and if the same order be not continued, the church must needs fall under a great disadvantage. To lose the high priest out of our religion, is to lose the sun out of the firmament of the church. This was a common principle agreed on between them, whereon the apostle doth proceed.

2. He grants unto them that the high priests who officiated in the tabernacle and the temple were called and appointed by God unto their office in the law.

3. Hereon ensued the main difference between him and them. They were persuaded and hoped that these priests should continue for ever in the church, without change or alteration. He contends that there was a time designed wherein they were to be removed, and a priest of another order introduced in their room; which would be so far from being any disadvantage unto the church, as that the whole safety, glory, and blessedness thereof, did depend thereon. And this he proves by many cogent and irrefragable arguments unto them; as,

(1.) That before the erection of the Levitical priesthood by the law, there was another priest of the most high God, who was far greater and more excellent than those priests, yea, than Abraham himself, from whom they derived all their privileges.

(2.) Because, after the giving of the law and the setting up of the Levitical priesthood thereby, God again promiseth to raise up another priest, in another kind, after another order, after the manner of him who was called unto that office long before the giving of the law. Wherefore he was prefigured before the law, and promised after the law, so that his introduction could not be prejudiced by the law.

(3.) That this high priest, thus promised, neither was to be nor could be of the same stock, nature, or order, with the Levitical priests, but one that was not only distinct from them, but really inconsistent with them. He manifests that there was no possibility they should be priests together, or that the church should be under the conduct of them both.

(4.) Whereas hereon it may be said, ‘Who knows whether this change and alteration will be to the advantage of the church or no; whether it were not better to adhere unto those priests which we have already, than, relinquishing them and all benefits by them, to betake ourselves unto this new high priest?'the apostle, in answer unto this possible objection, declares in sundry instances the excellency of this other priest above them. And not only so, but he proves undeniably, that by all which those other priests did perform in divine service, and by all that the law could, effect, whereby they were constituted and made priests, there was no access unto God, no perfection or consummation in peace of conscience, to be obtained. For there were so many defects and weaknesses that accompanied them and their services, as rendered them wholly unable to attain those great ends. On the other hand, he manifesteth and proveth, that by this one single high priest now introduced, and his one sacrifice, offered once for all, by reason of the perfection of the one and the other, all those blessed ends were completely accomplished.

This being the design of the apostle's discourse in this chapter, he giveth us a summary of the whole, and of the principal grounds which he proceeds upon, with wonderful brevity, in this last verse. For upon an acknowledgment of the different principles mentioned, he shows us, in an elegant antithesis,

1. The different means of the constitution of these different priests: on the one hand, the law; and on the other, the word of the oath.

2. The different times of their constitution: the one in the giving of the law; the other after the law.

3. The difference of their persons: those of the first sort were men, and no more; the other was the Son.

4. The difference in their state and condition: the former had infirmities; the latter is consecrated for ever. This also is included in the words, that those of the first sort were many (“men that have infirmity”); he of the latter was one only.

And in these things, as we shall briefly see, lie the springs of all the arguments which the apostle hath used in this case, and a plain representation is given us of the truth he contended for.

1. The first difference is in the constituting principles of these distinct offices: That on the part of the Levitical priesthood was ὁ νόμος, “the law;” that is, the ceremonial law, as we call it, the law given in Horeb concerning religious rites, the way and manner of the solemn worship of God in the tabernacle. It was not the moral law, not immediately the commands of the decalogue, but the especial law of divine service and worship, that is intended.

And what doth the law do? Καθίστησι, “It appointeth.” It did so morally; God appointed them in and by the law. And he speaks in the present tense:

‘So long as the law continueth in force and efficacy it appointeth such priests. None other are to be looked for in or expected from the law.'

Now, a moral rule or institution is sufficient to convey power and authority of office unto men. So is it under the new testament. It is the gospel that makes ministers, and not the people, or any others, who have no power but only. to act in obedience unto the laws thereof. Hereby those other priests came so to be.

Hereunto is opposed λόγος τῆς ὁρκωμοσίας, “the word of the oath,” as the constituting cause of this new priest and priesthood. Thus much it had in common with the other way; it was a “word,” as that was also. The law was λόγος λαληθεὶς δι᾿ ἀγγέλων, “the word spoken by angels,” Hebrews 2:2;-the word of God, though spoken by them. And a word in this sense is either a mere word of command or a word of promise; either of which is sufficient to constitute an office, being declarations of the authority of God himself. By this word was both the office of the priesthood of Christ consecrated, and himself called to be a priest. See the exposition on Hebrews 5:5-6. But herein especially did this word excel the word of the law, in that it was confirmed by the oath of God. It was the word, the will, the promise of God, declared in and by his oath. And herein hath it many advantages above the law, which was not so; as,

(1.) A high federal solemnity. Things confirmed by an oath are peculiarly sacred, and are distinguished from all things that are not so; and therefore the interposition of an oath was originally (it may be solely) used in t, he confirmation of covenants about things of moment, and wherein several parties were highly concerned.

(2.) An oath declares the immutability of that counsel whence the matter sworn unto doth proceed. In the giving of the law, God declared his will, so far as to what he would have the people at present obliged unto; but he did not by any means declare that he had in his unchangeable counsel determined that the kind of worship and state of the church then erected should continue for ever; yea, he did many ways intimate that he did reserve unto himself the power of altering the whole. But now the immutability of God's counsel is declared by his oath. What was this oath of God, and how the Lord Christ was made a priest thereby, hath been before at large declared. The apostle takes notice of it here only as it was given out in prophecy by David; which was but a solemn declaration of the eternal compact between the Father and the Son.

2. The difference of the time wherein these priesthoods were ordained is included on the one hand and expressed on the other. For the former, it was when the law was given whereby they were made priests: the latter was μετὰ τὸν νόμον, “after the law,” or the giving of it. This, I confess, doth not appear at first view to be to the advantage of the apostle's design, namely, that this oath was after the law; for in another place he expressly argues on the other hand, that what is first in such cases hath the pre- eminence, and cannot be disannulled by what doth ensue: Galatians 3:17, “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.” May it not be as well said, that this oath, which was declared about four hundred years after the giving of the law, could not disannul it, or make it of none effect? The objection being not without its difficulty, I shall spend a little time in the full solution of it. I answer, therefore, that what followeth after cannot disannul what went before,

(1.) If that which is afterwards introduced be consistent with what was before established. For in that case there is no intimation of the pleasure of God that it should be disannulled. He may add what he will unto what is already ordained, so it be consistent with it, without prejudicing the first institution.

(2.) Especially it cannot do so if it be inferior unto that which went before, either in dignity or use and benefit, and so be made subservient unto it.

(3.) And it must be invalid unto any such purpose if it had no other antecedent foundation, that did indeed precede the former grant: for if it have so, it may rationally be supposed to be further declared on purpose to supersede it.

Now thus it was with the law in respect unto the promise, which, as the apostle proves, going before it, could not be disannulled by it. For,

(1.) The law, as it was then ordained of God, was consistent with the promise, yea, and given in the pursuit of it; so as that there was no need that any should forsake the promise to comply with the will of God in giving the law.

(2.) The law, as it was inferior in dignity and use unto the promise, so it was made subordinate and subservient unto it; for the main end of giving the law, was to guide and direct the church unto the right use and benefit of the promise.

(3.) The promise had an absolute priority above the law. There was no ground or foundation laid for the law, no intimation of its future introduction, before the giving of the promise: and therefore the promise could not be disannulled by it.

But in the present case all things are otherwise; for,

(1.) The priesthood confirmed by an oath, and introduced after the law, was utterly inconsistent with the law and the priesthood thereof. This the apostle hath fully proved before. Wherefore of necessity either the law and the priesthood of it must be disannulled, or the oath of God must be of none effect; for what he had sworn unto was inconsistent with the continuance of what was before appointed for a time.

(2.) This new priesthood could no way be made subordinate or subservient unto the other, so as to leave it a place in the church; but as it was eminently above it in dignity and benefit, so the use of the other was only to be an introduction unto it, and therefore must cease thereon.

(3.) This priesthood had its reasons, grounds, foundation, and representation, long before the giving of the law. For besides that it had a virtual constitution in the first promise, two thousand years before the giving of the law, it had also a typical representation before it, in the priesthood of Melchisedec; and it received only a declaration and confirmation in the account given of the oath of God after the law.

Wherefore the direct contrary is here the matter in hand unto what is spoken unto in that other argument of the apostle. And therein the first thing, namely, the promise, was confirmed by an oath; the latter was not. But here the latter, which was after the law, was confirmed by the oath of God; which the law was not. And hereon its being after the law is a sufficient evidence of its preeminence above the law, and all the institutions of it; for hereby was that introduced which was to supply all the defects and weaknesses of the law and its priesthood, and so to disannul them and take them out of the way.

3. The third difference is, that the law made ἀνθρώπους, “men,” to be high priests; that is, those who were mere men, and no more. And therefore, notwithstanding the office and dignity which they were called and exalted unto, they were all but servants in the house of God; nor could they be any other, as the apostle proves, Hebrews 3:5. In opposition hereunto, “the word of the oath maketh Υἱόν,” “the Son,” an high priest; that Son who is Lord over the whole house, and whose the house is, as he declares in the same place, verses 5, 6. And in this word the apostle openeth the necessity and dignity of the priesthood of the new testament; for it consists in the dignity of the person designed unto that office. This was no other, nor could be other, but the Son, the eternal Son of God. “Filium, nempe Dei, non hominem, caeteris parem, nascendi sorte,” saith Grotius; as though Christ were here called “the Son,” that is, the Son of God, because he was differenced from other men in the way and manner of his birth, being born of a virgin. But this is not the true and formal reason of this denomination. Christ is the Son of God by eternal generation; and thereon alone doth his sonship depend. But many ways there were whereby he was manifested so to be, especially by his miraculous conception and nativity, and by his resurrection from the dead. Hence with respect unto them he is sometimes called the Son of God; not that he became so thereby, but was only “declared” so to be. This, therefore, the apostle resolves the force of his argument into, namely, the dignity of the person of our high priest, he was the Son of God; for hereon the whole excellency and efficacy of his priesthood doth depend.

4. It is added, in the last place, that the law made men priests ἔχοντας ἀσθένειαν , “that had infirmity,” subject to infirmities. And these were of two sorts, moral and natural; neither could they be freed from either of them during the whole time of their priesthood. The first were their sins: hence they were obliged continually to offer sacrifice for their own sins, and that to the very last day of their lives. The sum and issue of their natural weakness was death itself. This seized on every one of them, so as to put an everlasting end unto their sacerdotal administrations.

But wherefore did the law make such priests, men, mere men, that had infirmity, subject to sin and death, so as to put an end unto their office? The reason is, because it could neither find any better, nor make them any better whom it found in that condition. The law must be content with such as were to be had, and in itself it had no power to make them better. In opposition hereunto it is said, “the word of the oath made the Son, τετελειωμένον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,” “consecrated for ever.” What was the consecration of the Lord Christ unto his office, and wherein it did consist, I have before at large declared. That which the apostle intends here, in an especial manner, is his absolute freedom from the infirmities which those other priests were obnoxious unto, namely, such infirmities in the first place as with respect whereunto sacrifice was to be offered unto God; that is, their own sins. And the apostle here, opposing the consecration of Christ unto their having infirmities, showeth sufficiently that he intended not to insinuate that he offered for any infirmities of his own, seeing he is wholly different from them and opposed unto them who had such infirmities. And if he had offered for his own infirmities, the apostle could not have objected it as the weakness of the law, that it made priests which had infirmity; for, in that sense, the word of the oath should have done so also. But whereas his exaltation into heaven for the discharge of the remaining duties of his priesthood, in his intercession for the church, belonged unto the perfection of his consecration, he was therein also freed from all those natural infirmities which were necessary unto him that he might be a sacrifice. The ensuing observations offer themselves unto us:

Obs. 5. There never was, nor ever can be, any more than two sorts of priests in the church; the one made by the law, the other by the oath of God. Wherefore,

Obs. 6. As the bringing in of the priesthood of Christ after the law and the priesthood constituted thereby, did abrogate and dis-annul it; so the bringing in of another priesthood after his will abrogate and disannul that also. And therefore,

Obs. 7. Plurality of priests under the gospel overthrows the whole argument of the apostle in this place; and if we have yet priests that have infirmities, they are made by the law, and not by the gospel.

Obs. 8. The sum of the difference between the law and the gospel is issued in the difference between the high priest of the one and the other state; which is inconceivable.

Obs. 9. The great foundation of our faith, and the hinge whereon all our consolation depends, is this, that our high priest is the Son of God.

Obs. 10. The everlasting continuance of ‘the Lord Christ in his office is secured by the oath of God.

Μόνῳ τῷ Θεῷ δόξα.