oix ix"

Οὐκ ἔχει ἀνάγκην.

1. The manner of the negation, Oix ïxu áváynnv,--" 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.

دو

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."

"Ωσπερ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς.

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, "noTep of axispss,-"As the high "Ωσπερ ἀρχιερεῖς, 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, Heb. x. 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 Καθ' ἡμέραν. necessary for them. They were to do it xas'épar 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 xao' uspav were the same with xar' iviauróv, Heb. x. 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 pórepov, here used, doth not express that order, as we shall see. Nor is it the TA, 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 pooparos xai Lãoa, "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:" Lev. iv. 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.

All

Θυσίας ἀνα

5. What they were thus obliged unto is declared: Ovoías ȧvapéρειν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν, Τo offer sacrifices for sins.” propitiatory and expiatory sacrifices are intended; but és è àμpossibly a principal regard is had unto the great anni- priv. versary sacrifice, in the feast of expiation, Lev. xvi. For although the apostle mentions Jurías, "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, Heb. x. 1, it may be signified hereby. And those sacrifices were rip aμapriv. And in ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν. answer unto them our Lord Jesus Christ offered himself a sacrifice for sin. And this is expressed by spì àμaprías, “for sin," only, without the mention of sacrifice, Rom. viii. 3. For because signifies both "the sin and the sacrifice" for it, as the verb, 7, signifies in one conjugation "to sin,” and in another “to expiate sin," the sacrifice itself is expressed by rep? àμaprías, "for sin." 6. The order of these sacrifices is expressed by pórepov and TEITA,-"first" and "then" "first for his own sins," and "then for those of the people." Either the whole Πρότερον καὶ 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, Lev. iv.: 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, Lev. xvi. First he was to offer a sin-offering for himself and his house, and then for the people; both on the same day.

ἔπειτα.

(1.) 'Trip Tuv ¡díwv aμaptiv,-"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 dia papia. to the sin of the people," Lev. iv. 3. [2.] That upon the

Ὑπὲρ τῶν

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.) Tãv roũ λaoũ,-"For the sins of the people;" that is, for the whole congregation of Israel, according to the law, Lev. xvi. 21.

Τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ.

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 favour, 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 i. 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: He 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, TouTO yàp Tоínosy," This he did." Touro refers only unto one clause of the antecedent, Touro yàp namely, "offering for the sins of the people." "This he did once; when he offered up himself." For him

ἐποίησεν.

self 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 incalled,—that firmities, 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 our