1. This assertion is not universal and absolute concerning every
“Yorke coprcep=
472 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. Vv.
hich priest, but every high priest that was “under the law,” who was appointed to be a type of Christ, so far as was possible by rea- son of his infirmities.
2. It is not without danger, to say that “Christ offered for him- self ixtp dwapriay.” He “knew no sin,” he “ did no sin,” and there- fore could not offer a sin-offering for himself. His “ offering himself to God for us,’—“making his soul an offering for sin,” our sins,—his
being “ made sin for us,” to make “atonement” or “reconciliation”
for our sins, is fully declared; but this offering for himself, especially for sin, is nowhere taught nor intimated.
3. If he be intended here, then must he offer for himself, as the high priest did of old; this the letter of the text enforceth. But the high priest of old was to offer distinctly and separately, “ first for himself, and then for the people.” So the words require it in this place, by the notes of comparison and distinction, xééw¢ and otrw, “as for the people, so” (or “in like manner”) '“ for himself” Therefore if the Lord Christ be intended, he must offer two distinct sacrifices, one for himself, another for us. Now, whereas this he needed not to do, nor did, nor could do, it is undeniably manifest that he hath no concern in this expression.
There remaineth one difficulty only to be removed, which may arise from the consideration of this discourse. For it the high priest of old, notwithstanding his own sins, could first offer for himself and then for the people, and so make expiation for all sin, what neces- sity was there that our high priest should be absolutely free from all sin, as our apostle declares that he was, and that it was necessary he should be, chap. vii. 26, 27; for it seems he might first have offered for his own sin, and then for ours?
Ans. 1. It is one thing to expiate sin typically, another to do it really; one thing to do it in representation, by virtue of somewhat else, another to do it effectually by itself. The first might be done by them that were sinners, the latter could not.
2. On that supposal it would have been indispensably necessary that our high priest must have offered many sacrifices. Once he must have offered for himself, wherein we should have had no con- cern; and then he must again have offered himself for us. Hence, whereas he had nothing to offer but himself, he must have died and been offered more than once; which lay under all manner of impos- sibilities,
3. That a real atonement might be made for sin, it was required
that our nature, which was to suffer and to be offered, should be united unto the divine nature in the person of the Son of God; but this it could not be had it not been absolutely sinless and holy. Some observations ensue. ~
The order of God’s institution, with respect unto the sacrificing
a
:
VER. 3.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 473
of the high priest for himself and the people, is observable; and this was, that he should first offer for himself, and then for them. This order was constant, and is especially observable in the great anni- versary sacrifice for atonement on the day of expiation, Lev. xvi. Now the reason of this was,—1. Typical, that having first received pardon and purification for himself, he might the better prefigure and represent the spotless holiness of our high priest in his offering of himself for us. 2. Moral, to declare how careful they ought to be of their own sins who deal about the sins of others. And we may observe that,—
Obs. I. The absolute holiness and spotless innocency of the Lord Christ in his oftering of himself had a signal influence into the effi- cacy of his sacrifice, and is a great encouragement unto our faith and consolation.
This our apostle informs us to have been necessary, chap. vii. 26, Tonitrog yap jut txperev dpysepeds,—< It was meet” (convenient, necessary for and unto us) “ that we should have such an high priest as was holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” No other sort of high priest could have done what was to be done for us. Had he had any sin of his own he could never have taken all sin from us. | From hence it was that what he did was so acceptable with God, and that what he suffered was justly imputed unto us, seeing there was no cause in himself why he should suffer at all. This, there- fore, is frequently mentioned and insisted on where his sacrifice is declared: 2 Cor. v. 21, “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” He was “ made sin for us” when he was made a “ sacrifice for sin,” when “ his soul was made an offering for sin.” Hereon depends our being “‘ made the righteousness of God in him,” or righteous before God through him; but not on this as absolutely considered, but as “he was made sin who knew no sin,” who was absolutely innocent and holy. So the apostle Peter, mentioning the redemption which we have by his blood, which was in the sacrifice of himself, says it was “as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Pet. i. 19, And treating again of the same matter, he adds, “ Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth,” chap. ii, 22. So Rom, viii. 3. And we may see herein,—1. Pure, unmixed love and grace. He had not the least concern in what he did or suffered herein for him- self. This was “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” that being “rich, for our sakes he became poor.” All that he did was from sovereign love and grace. And will he not pursue the same love