But to declare their apprehension of these things, the same author adds: “ Porro in pontifice legali, apparitio distincta erat ab oblatione, licet utraque erat conjuncta et simul fieret; nempe quia alius erat pontifex, alia victima; et apparebat quidem pontifex, offerebatur autem victima, seu sanguis victime: at nostri pontificis et oblatio bi VOL. XXIII. 25
‘ Se,
386 AN EXPOSITION OF THE - [OHAP. Ix.
et apparitio, quemadmodum et interpellatio, reipsa idem sunt; quia
nimirum idem est pontifex et victima. Dum enim apparet Christus,
selpsum offert ; et dum seipsum offert, apparet ; dum autem et offert
et apparet, interpellak’”
1. It is not true that the oblation or offering of the sacrifice by the high priest, and his appearance in the holy place, “was at the same time;” for he offered his sacrifice at the altar without, and afterwards entered with the blood into the holy place. 2. He grants that the blood of the sacrifice was offered; but will not allow that the blood of Christ was offered at all, nor that Christ offered him- self before he had laid aside both flesh and blood, having no such thing belonging unto him. 3. That the sacrifice of Christ, his ob- lation, appearance, and intercession, are all one and the same, and that nothing but his power and care in heaven for the salvation of the church are intended by them, is an imagination expressly contra- dictory unto the whole design and all the reasonings of the apostle in the context. For he carefully distinguisheth these things one from the other, showeth the different and distinct times of them under the old testament, declareth their distinct natures, acts, and effects, with the different places of their performance. Violence also is offered unto the signification of the words, and the common notion of things intended by them, to make way for this conceit. In common use and force, rpoogopdé or Suo/x are one thing, and zuga- vouss and évrevéi¢ are others. It is true, the Lord Christ is in him self both the priest and the sacrifice; but it doth not thence follow that his offering of himself and his appearance in the presence of God for us are the same, but only that they are the acts of the same person.
This continual appearance of the Lord Christ for us, as our high priest in the presence of God, in the way explained, is the founda- tion of the safety of the church in all ages, and that whereon all our consolation doth depend; whence relief is derived by faith on all occasions. The consideration hereof being rightly improved will carry us through all difficulties, temptations, and trials, with safety unto the end.
VERSE 25. Wi:
\ . ) O00 tha rorrAdass Tpacdipy Ecurov, womep 6 cpyrepeds eioepyeran ei rc ayia nar euaurdy ey aware mier i
ah,
Ov0E. Syr., > PN, “and not alsoy? “neque,” “neither;” nor yet.” “Eav- tov. Syr., “Vb, this soul;” he made his soul an offering for sin, Ioaadxue. Syr., NONTIO NMS, “many times.” Ey ar aénrnrorpig. Syts rom xy N22» “in” or * with *lood that was not his EN properly, Heb., “Gs ‘pa, with other blood, ” or the blood of another. | ial
VER. 25.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 387
Ver. 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 compa- rison 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 ob- securely 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 sacri- fice 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 impos- sible 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.