There are two parts of the words: 1. A reason confirming the foregoing assertion, that Christ was not often to offer himself, as the high priest did offer sacrifice every year when he entered into the holy place: “For then must he,” etc. 2. A confirmation of that reason, from the nature and end of the sacrifice of Christ, as stated in matter of fact according unto the appointment of God: -“ But now once in the end,” etc.
In the First, we may consider, 1. The note of connection and of the introduction of the reason insisted on. 2. The signification or sense of the words. 3. The ground and nature of the argument contained in them.
First, The note of connection is ére/, which we render, “ for then:” ‘Tf it were so, namely, that Christ should often offer himself;’ ‘Had it been otherwise, that Christ had so offered himself:’ so we observed that most translate the word by “alioquin.” Hither way the intention of the apostle is expressed, which is to confirm what he had before affirmed, by the introduc- tion of a new reason of it.
Secondly, From a supposition of the contrary unto what he had affirmed, the apostle proves not only the truth but the necessity of his assertion.
“For then,” 1. “He must,” “he ought,” “he would have been a debtor,” as the Syriac speaks; it would have been due from him, and indispensably required of him. It would have been so “necessitate medii,” which is the greatest in divine institutions and duties, There could have been no such thing, un- less that which he now infers from it be allowed, which was utterly
impossible.
"Eel.
Uj 4 ¢ "Eder airoy.
396 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [OHAP. IX.
2. That which he ought so to have done, is “to suffer” in the
offering of himself, All the sufferings of Christ, in the whole course of his. humiliation and obedience, are sometimes expressed by this word, as Heb. v. 8 But the suffer- ing here intended is that of his death, and the shedding of his blood therein alone; that which accompanied and was inseparable from his actual sacrifice, or the mactation of himself;—‘ to have died, to have shed his blood, to have underwent the penalty and curse of the law.’
3. “ Often,” “frequently,” as the high priest offered
sacrifice of old once every year. 4, “Since,” or rather, “from the foundation of the world.” This expression is sometimes used absolutely for the original of the world in its creation, for the absolute beginning of time and all things measured by it, Eph, i. 4; Matt, xxv. 84; John xvii. 24; 1 Pet. i. 20;—sometimes for what imme- diately succeeded on that beginning, Matt. xiii, 85; Luke xi, 50; Heb. iv. 8; Rev. xii, 8 And it is in the latter sense that it is here used. “ rom the foundation of the world;” that is, from the first entrance of sin into the world, and the giving of the first pro- mise, which was immediately after Che creation of it, or its founda- tion and constitution in its original frame. This is the first thing on record in the Scripture. So “God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began,” Lule i, 70; that is, the first revelation of God unto the church concerning the Messiah, with all that sueceeded. So Christ is said to be a “ Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,’ Rev. xiii. 8; because of the efficacy of his sacrifice extending itself unto the first entrance of sin, and the promise thereon, immediately on the foundation of the world, Wherefore, “'The foundation of the world” *absolutely is in its creation, “ Before the foundation of the world,” is an expression of eternity, and the counsels of God therein, Nph. i. 4; 1 Pet, i. 20. “From the foundation of the world,” is mostly from the first entrance of sin, and God's dispensation of grace in Christ thereon,
Thirdly, The third thing considerable in the words is the nature and force of the argument contained in them. And it is taken from the most cogent topics; for it is founded on these evident suppositions;—
1. That the suffering and offering of Christ are inseparable. Wor although, abstracted from the present subject-matter, suffering is one thing and offering another, yet the Lord Christ offered him- self unto God in and by his suffering of death. And the reason hereof is, because he himself was both the priest and the sacrifice. The high priest of old offered often, yet never once suffered therein. Hor he was not the sacrifice itself, It was the lamb that was slain
~
ladevy,
TlOAAG Mies
"Agtd nara Bodie wooo
4
ad
VER. 26.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 397
that suffered. Christ being both, he could not offer without suffer- ing; no more than the high priest could offer without the suffering of the beast that was slain.
And herein doth the force of the argument principally consist. For he proves that Christ did not, nor could offer himself often; not absolutely, as though the reiteration of any kind of oblation were impossible, but from the nature of his especial offering or sacrifice, which was with and by suffering,—that is, his death and blood-shedding. And this wholly explodes the Socinian imagination of the nature of the offering of Christ. For if his offering might be separated from his suffering, and were nothing but the presentation of himself in the presence of God in heaven, it might have been reiterated without any inconvenience, nor would there have been any force in the arguing of the apostle; for if his oblation be only that presentation of himself, if God had ordered that it should have been done only at certain seasons, as once every year, nothing inconvenient would have ensued.