Hebrews 9:25

Οὐδ᾿ ἵνα πολλάκις προσφέρῃ ἐαυτὸν, ὥσπερ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰσέρχεται εἰς τὰ ἅγια κατ᾿ ἐνιαυτὸν ἐν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ.

Οὐδέ. Syr., אַ לָא, “and not also;” “ neque,” “ neither;” “nor yet.”

῾Εαυτόν. Syr., נַפְשֵׁהּ, “his soul;” he made his soul an offering for sin. Πολλάκις. Syr., זַבְנָתָא סַגְּיָאתָא, “many times.” ᾿Εν αἵματι ἀλλοτρίῳ ,. Syr., בַּדְמָא דְּלָא דִּילֵהּ, “in” or “with blood that was not his own,” properly, Heb., בְּדַּם אַחֵר, “with other blood,” or the blood of another.

Hebrews 9:25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with the blood of others.

In the foregoing verse there is an opposition in the comparison between the Lord Christ and the high priest of the law; yet is it such as hath its foundation in a similitude that is between them, and therefore respects not so much the things themselves opposed as, the manner of them. For as the Lord Christ entered not into the holy place made with hands, but into heaven itself; so the high priest had an entrance also, yet not into heaven, but into that other holy place. But in this verse there is an opposition in the comparison that hath no foundation in any similitude between them, and that is absolutely denied of Christ which belonged essentially unto the discharge of the office of the high priest of old. Many things ensued on the weakness and imperfection of the types which would not allow that there should be a perfect, complete resemblance in them of the substance itself, that all things between them should exactly answer unto one another. Hence they did at best but obscurely represent the good things to come, and in some things it was not possible but there should be a great discrepancy between them.

The assertion in these words proceeds on a supposition of the duty of the high priest, which had that reason for it, as that it was absolutely necessary that our high priest should not do after the same manner. The high priest ended not his work of offering sacrifice by his entrance into the holy place with the blood of it, but he was to repeat the same sacrifice again every year. This, therefore, in correspondence with this type, might be expected from Christ also, namely, that whereas he offered himself unto God through the eternal Spirit, and afterwards entered into the holy place, or heaven itself, he should offer himself again, and so have another entrance into the presence of God. This the apostle denies him to have done; and in the next verse gives a demonstration, proving it was impossible he should so do. And hereof he gives the reason both in the remaining verses of this chapter and the beginning of the next. The repetition of the annual sacrifices under the law was mainly from hence, because they were not able perfectly to effect that which they did signify; but the one sacrifice of Christ did at once perfectly accomplish what they did represent. Herein, therefore, of necessity there was to be a difference, a dissimilitude, an opposition between what those high priests did as unto the repetition of sacrifices, and what was done by our high priest, which is expressed in this verse.

The introduction of the apostle's assertion is by the disjunctive negative, οὐδέ , “nor yet.” It answers the negative in the first part of the preceding verse: ‘He entered not into the holy place made with hands, as the high priest; nor yet did what the high priest did afterwards.'

In the words themselves, there are two things:

1. What is denied of the Lord Christ.

2. The limitation of that denial unto the other part of the comparison, as unto what the high priest did:

First, It is denied of him that he did thus enter into heaven that he should offer himself often. ‘It doth not follow,'saith the apostle, ‘that because as a high priest he entered into heaven, as the high priest of the law entered into the holy place made with hands, he should therefore offer himself often, as that high priest offered every year.'It was not required of him; there was no need of it, for the reasons mentioned; it was impossible he should. For this offering of himself was not his appearance in the presence of God; but the one sacrifice of himself by death, as the apostle declares in the next verse. That he should so offer himself often, more than once, was needless, from the perfection of that one offering, “By one offering he hath for ever perfected them that were sanctified;” and impossible, from the condition of his person, he could not die often. What remains for the exposition of these words will be declared in the removal of those false glosses and wrestings of them whereby some endeavor to pervert them. The Socinians plead from hence that the sacrifice of Christ, or his offering of himself, is the same with his appearance in heaven and the presentation of himself in the presence of God; and they do it out of hatred unto the atonement made by his blood. For, say they, “it is here compared unto the entrance of the high priest into the holy place every year; which was only an appearance in the presence of God.”

Ans. 1. There is no such comparison intended in the words. The apostle mentioning the entrance of the high priest with blood into the holy place, intends only to evince the imperfection of that service, in that after he had done so he was again to offer renewed sacrifices every year; a sufficient evidence that those sacrifices could never make them perfect who came unto God by them. With Christ it was not so, as the apostle declares. So that there is not herein a comparison between the things themselves, but an opposition between their effects.

2. It is granted that the entrance of the high priest into the holy place belonged unto the complement or perfection of his service in the expiatory sacrifice. But the sacrifice itself did not consist therein. So likewise did the entrance of Christ into heaven belong unto the perfection of the effects and efficacy of his sacrifice, as unto the way of its application unto the church. So far there is a comparison in the words, and no farther.

3. That the sacrifice of Christ, or his offering himself once for all, once, and not often, is the same with his continual presentation of himself in the presence of God, is both false in itself and contrary to the express design of the apostle. For,

(1.) It is θυσία , a slain or bloody sacrifice, whereof he treats, as he expressly calls it, verse 26; but there is no shedding of blood in the appearance of Christ in heaven; nor, according to these men, any such thing appertaining unto his nature.

(2.) These things are distinguished in the Scripture, from their different natures and effects, 1 John 2:1-2.

(3.) His sacrifice, or the offering of himself, is so affirmed to be one, as to consist in one individual act. It is not only said that it was “one offering,” but that. it was “once” only “offered,” verses 26, 28. This is no way reconcilable unto his continual appearance in the presence of God.

(4.) His offering is mentioned by the apostle as that which was then past, and no more to be repeated: “He hath by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

(5.) His oblation was accompanied with, and inseparable from suffering; so he declares in the next verse, proving that he could not often offer himself, because he could not often suffer. But his presentation of himself in heaven is not only inconsistent with actual suffering, but also with any obnoxiousness thereunto. It belongs unto his state of exaltation and glory.

(6.) The time of the offering of himself is limited unto the end of the world, “Now once in the end of the world,” in opposition unto the season that passed before; denoting a certain determinate season in the dispensation of times; of which afterwards.

(7.) This imagination is destructive of the principal design and argument of the apostle. For he proves the imperfection of the sacrifices of the law, and their insufficiency to consummate the church, from their annual repetition; affirming, that if they could have perfected the worshippers they would have ceased to have been offered: yet was that sacrifice which he respects repeated only once a-year. But on this supposition, the sacrifice of Christ must be offered always, and never cease to be actually offered; which reflects a greater imperfection on it than was on those which were repeated only once a year. But the apostle expressly affirms that the sacrifice which could effect its end must “cease to be offered,” Hebrews 10:2. Whereas, therefore, “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” he doth not continue to offer himself; though he doth continue to appear in the presence of God to make application of the virtue of that one offering unto the church.

The expositors of the Roman church do raise an objection on this place, for no other end but that they may return an answer unto it perniciously opposite unto and destructive of the truth here taught by the apostle; though some of them do acknowledge that it is capable of another answer. But this is that which they principally insist upon as needful unto their present cause. They say, therefore, “That if Christ cease to offer himself, then it seems that his sacerdotal office ceaseth also; for it belongs unto that office to offer sacrifices continually.” But there is no force in this objection; for it belonged to no priest to offer any other or any more sacrifices but what were sufficient and effectual unto the end of them and their office. And such was the one sacrifice of Christ. Besides, though it be not actuallyrepeated, yet it is virtually applied always; and this belongs unto the present discharge of his sacerdotal office. So doth also his appearance in heaven for us, with his intercession; where he still continues in the actual exercise of his priesthood, so far as is needful or possible. But they have an answer of their own unto their own objection. They say, therefore, that “Christ continueth to offer himself every day in the sacrifice of the mass, by the hands of the priests of their church.” And, “This sacrifice of him, though it be unbloody, yet is a true, real sacrifice of Christ; the same with that which he offered on the cross.”

It is better never to raise objections than thus to answer them. For this is not to expound the words, but to dispute against the doctrine of the apostle, as I shall briefly evince:

1. That the Lord Christ hath “by the one offering of himself for ever perfected them that are sanctified,” is a fundamental article of faith. Where this is denied or overthrown, either directly or by just consequence, the church is overthrown also. But this is expressly denied in the doctrine of the frequent repetition of his sacrifice, or of the offering of himself. And there is no instance wherein the Romanists do more expressly oppose the fundamental articles of religion.

2. The repetition of sacrifices arose solely from their imperfection, as the apostle declares, Hebrews 10:1-2. And if it undeniably proved an imperfection in the sacrifices of the law that they were repeated once every year, in one place only, how great must the imperfection of the sacrifice of Christ be esteemed, if it be not effectual to take away sin and perfect them that are sanctified unless it be repeated every day, and that, it may be, in a thousand places!

3. To say that Christ offereth himself often, is expressly and in terms contradictory to the assertion of the apostle. Whatever, therefore, they may apprehend of the offering of him by their priests, yet most certain it is that he doth not every day offer himself. But as the faith of the church is concerned in no offering of Christ but that which he offered himself, of himself, by the eternal Spirit, once for all, so the pretense to offer him often by the priests is highly sacrilegious.

4. The infinite actings of the divine nature in supporting and influencing of the human, the inexpressible operation of the Holy Ghost in him unto such a peculiar acting of all grace, especially of zeal unto the glory of God and compassion for the souls of men, as are inimitable unto the whole creation, were required unto the offering of himself a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savor unto God. And how can a poor sinful mortal man, such as are the best of their priests, pretend to offer the same sacrifice unto God?

5. An unbloody sacrifice is,

(1.) A contradiction in itself. Θυσία, which is the only sacrifice which the apostle treats of, is “victimae mactatio,” as well as “victimae mactatae oblatio.” It is a sacrifice by death, and that by blood-shedding; other θυσία there never was any.

(2.) If it might be supposed, yet is it a thing altogether useless; for “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” The rule, I acknowledge, is firstly expressed with respect unto legal sacrifices and oblations: yet is it used by the apostle, by an argument drawn from the nature and end of those institutions, to prove the necessity of blood- shedding in the sacrifice of Christ himself for the remission of sin. An unbloody sacrifice for the re-minion of sin overthrows both the law and the gospel

(3.) It is directly contrary unto the argument of the apostle in the next verse; wherein he proves that Christ could not offer himself often. For he doth it by affirming, that if he did so then must he “often suffer;” that is, by the effusion of his blood, which was absolutely necessary in and unto his sacrifice. Wherefore an unbloody sacrifice, which is without suffering, whatever it be, is not the sacrifice of Christ; for if he be often offered, he must often suffer, as the apostle affirms. Nor is it unto any purpose to say, that this unbloody sacrifice of the mass receiveth its virtue and efficacy from the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross, as is pleaded by the defenders of it; for the question is not what value it hath, nor whence it hath it, but whether it be the sacrifice of Christ himself or no.

To sum up the substance of this whole controversy: The sacrifice or offering of Christ was,

1. By himself alone, through the eternal Spirit.

2. Was of his whole human nature, as to the matter of it. He made his soul an offering for sin.

3. Was by death and blood-shedding; whereon its entire efficacy as unto atonement, reconciliation, and the sanctification of the church, do depend.

4. Was once only offered, and could be so no more, from the glory of his person and the nature of the sacrifice itself.

5. Was offered with such glorious internal actings of grace as no mortal creature can comprehend.

6. Was accompanied with his bearing the curse of the law and the punishment due unto our sins; which were taken away thereby. And in all this the human nature was supported, sustained, and acted by the divine in the same person; which gave the whole duty its efficacy and merit.

That pretended in the mass is,

1. Offered by priests, without him, or those which call themselves so; who therefore rather represent them by whom he was crucified than himself who offered himself alone.

2. Is only of bread and wine, which have nothing in them of the soul of Christ, allowing their transubstantiation.

3. Can have no influence into the remission of sins, being confessedly unbloody, whereas “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.”

4. Is often offered, that is, every day; declaring a greater imperfection in it than was in the great expiatory sacrifice of the law, which was offered only once a year.

5. Requires unto it no grace in the offerer, but only an intention to do his office.

6. Doth in nothing answer the curse of the law, and therefore makes no atonement. Wherefore these things are so far from being the same sacrifice, as that they are opposite, inconsistent, and the admission of the one is the destruction of the other.

Some observations we may take from the text.

Obs. 1. Such is the absolute perfection of the one offering of Christ, that it stands in need of, that it will admit of no repetition in any kind. Hence the apostle affirms that if it be despised or neglected, “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.” There is none of any other kind, nor any repetition to be made of itself, as there was of the most solemn legal sacrifices. Neither of them is consistent with its perfection. And this absolute perfection of the one offering of Christ ariseth,

1. From the dignity of his person, Acts 20:28. There needs no newoffering after that, wherein he who offered and who was offered was God and man in one person. The repetition of this offering is inconsistent with the glory of the wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and grace of God, and would be utterly derogatory to the dignity of his person.

2. From the nature of the sacrifice itself:

(1.) In the internal gracious actings of his soul; He “offered himself unto God through the eternal Spirit.” Grace and obedience could never be more glorified.

(2.) In the punishment he underwent, answering and taking away the whole curse of the law; any further offering for atonement is highly blasphemous.

(3.) From the love of the Father unto him, and delight in him. As in his person, so in his one offering, the soul of God resteth and is well pleased.

(4.) From its efficacy unto all the ends of a sacrifice. Nothing was ever designed therein but was at once accomplished by this one offering of Christ. Wherefore,

Obs. 2. This one offering of Christ is always effectual unto all the ends of it, even no less than it was in the day and hour when it was actually offered. Therefore it needs no repetition like those of old, which could affect the conscience of a sinner only for a season, and until the incursion of some new sin. This is always fresh in the virtue of it, and needs nothing but renewed application by faith for the communication of its effects and fruits unto us. Wherefore,

Obs. 3. The great call and direction of the gospel is to guide faith, and keep it up unto this one offering of Christ, as the spring of all grace and mercy. This is the immediate end of all its ordinances of worship. In the preaching of the word, the Lord Christ is set forth as evidently crucified before our eyes; and in the ordinance of the supper especially is it represented unto the peculiar exercise of faith.

Secondly. But we must proceed to a brief exposition of the remainder of this verse. The one offering of Christ is not here proposed absolutely, but in opposition unto the high priest of the law, whose entrance into the holy place did not put an end unto his offering of sacrifices, but his whole service about them was to be annually repeated. This sacrifice of the high priest we have treated of before, and shall therefore now only open these words wherein it is expressed:

1. The person spoken of is “the high priest;” that is, any one, every one that is so, or that was so in any age of the church from the institution of that priesthood unto the expiration of it. “As the high priest;” in like manner as he did.

2. It is affirmed of him, that he “entereth,” in the present tense. Some think that respect is had unto the continuance of the temple-service at that time. “He entereth;” that is, he continueth so to do. And this the apostle sometimes admits of, as Hebrews 8:4. But in this place he intends no more but the constitution of the law. ‘According unto the law, he entereth. This is that which the law requires.'And hereby, as in other instances, the apostle lays before their consideration a scheme of their ancient worship, as it was at first established, that it might be the better compared with the dispensation of the new covenant and the ministry of Christ.

3. This entrance is limited unto “the holy place;” the most holy place in the tabernacle or temple, the holy place made with hands.

4. There is the season of his entrance; “yearly:” once in an annual revolution, on the day fixed by the law, the tenth day of the month Tizri, or our September.

5. The manner of his entrance was, “with the blood of others;” “blood that was not his own,” as the Syriac expresseth it. The blood of the sacrifice of Christ was his own. He “redeemed the church διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος ,”

Acts 20:28. Hereunto ἀλλότριον is opposed, דַּם אַחֵר, “other blood,” “the blood of others;” that is, the blood of bulls and goats offered in sacrifice: “in” for “cum,” say most expositors; which is not unusual. See 1 John 5:6; Genesis 32:10; Hosea 4:3. The meaning is, by virtue of the blood of others, which he carried with him into the holy place. That which is denied of Christ, the antitype, is the repetition of this service, and that because of the perfection of his sacrifice; the other being repeated because of their imperfection. And we may observe, that

Obs. 4. Whatever had the greatest glory in the old legal institutions, carried along with it the evidence of its own imperfection, compared with the thing signified in Christ and his office. The entrance of the high priest into the holy place was the most glorious solemnity of the law; howbeit the annual repetition of it was a sufficient evidence of its imperfection, as the apostle disputes in the beginning of the next chapter.