Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

Hebrews IX. 26. 519
superfluous. In this the author draws a third inference from the
old principal theme at ver. 12. He had laid down at ver. 12, as
principal theme of the section, the proposition that Christ offered
his oivn blood. In ver. 13, 14, he had drawn a first inference from
this, namely, the internal and spiritual nature of Christ's sacrifice.
In ver. 15-23 is a second inference: that through Christ's selfsacrifice,
that long promised new covenant mentioned in cliap. viii. 8,
seq. had been founded. In ver. 25 he now brings in a third inference,
that of the once offering of Christ's sacrifice, which likewise follows
from the proposition, that Christ entered into the presence of the
Father, not with the blood of another, but with his oivn blood.
" He entered, not that he might offer frequently as the high
priest who entered yearly into the holy of holies with the hlood of
another." The main emphasis lies evidently on the words iv al^an
aXXoTpcG) : hence they are placed after (just as, at chap, vii. 4,
6 -naTpLdpxqg is placed at the end of the sentence). The reason
why the high priest had to offer frequently was, that he offered afiother's
blood. Thus the idea is easily extended : the reason why Christ
did not offer frequently was, that he did not offer a7iother's hlood.
And it is this that is now proved in ver. 26. This verse is not
intended to prove, that Christ has offered himself only once (for
then it would be mere reasoning in a circle thus :
Christ has offered
himself only once. For otherwise he must have offered himself repeatedly.
But he has not offered himself repeatedly, ergo, etc.). In
ver. 26 it is rather intended to be proved that Christ needed not to
offer himself repeatedly, because he has offered himself How, from
his having offered his own blood, the once offering of his sacrifice
follows—it is this which is to be proved in ver. 26. The words t-n-a
— noofiov are not a parenthesis (Mill, De Wette, etc.), but belong to
the substance of the reasoning ;
" for, otherwise (if he had not
offered his own blood), he must often have suffered from the foundation
of the world onwards." We should rather have expected :
" then he
must often have offered sacrifice." That the sacrificial act is here
denoted by suffering is logically inaccurate, as, on the supposition
that Christ had not offered his own blood but another's, his sacrifice
would not then have consisted of siffering. The author has therefore
put nadelv here, unconsciously, because he was in the habit of
using naOdv and -npoacpepeiv promiscuously of Christ. The reason
why Christ, if he had ofiered another's blood, must have done this
repeatedly—as the Levitical high priest : from of old ever and ever
again—lies in what is said at ver. 13.— " But now he has appeared
once in the end of the time {i. e., in the time of the fulfilment,
the Messianic time, in opposition to the time of expectation and
prophecy, comp. i. 2 and 1 Pet. i. 20), to take away sin by his own
sacrifice." As the sacrifice of Christ was not a typical sacrifice, but