| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP 
THERE are two parts of this chapter. The first concerneth the necessity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ; from the beginning unto verse 18. The other is an improvement of the doctrine of it unto faith, obedience, and perseverance; from verse 19 to the end of the chapter. Of the first general proposition of the subject to be treated of there are two parts: 1. A demonstration of the insufficiency of legal sacrifices for the expiation of sin, verses 1-4; 2. A declaration of the necessity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ unto that end, verses 5-18. Of this declaration there are two parts: (1.) The substitution of the sacrifice of Christ in the place and room of all legal sacrifices, because of its efficacy unto the end which they could not attain, and without which the church could not be saved, verses 5-10. (2.) A final comparison of his priesthood and sacrifice with those of the law, and their absolute preference above them, unto verse 18. In the first particular of the first general part, there are three things: [1.] An assertion of the insufficiency of legal sacrifices unto the expiation of sin, wherein a reason of it also is included, verse 1. [2.] A confirmation of the truth of that assertion, from the consideration of the frequency of their repetition, which manifestly evidenceth that insufficiency, verses 2, 3. [3.] A general reason taken from the nature of them, or the matter whereof they did consist, verse 4. The first of these is contained in the first verse. VERSE 1. Skia There is no difficulty in the reading, nor much difference about the translation of the words. Syr., hbe aw;h\ tyai ah;ynil;f] ryge as;Wmn; “for the law, a shadow was in it;” am;Wnqi aw;h\ al; , “not the substance itself.”
Prosercome>nouv , ˆWhl] ˆybiy]q’m]D’, “that shall offer them.” Eijv to< dihneke>v that translator omits, supposing it the same with kat j ejniauto>n . But it hath its own signification: “Continenter,” “in assiduum,” “in perpetuum.” “ ]Ecwn , “habens,” “obtinens,” “continens.” Aujth Ver. 1. — For the law having a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto [the worshippers ] perfect.
There are in these words, 1. A note of inference, giving a connection unto the preceding discourse; “for.” 2. The subject spoken of; “the law.” 3. An ascription made unto it; it had “a shadow of good things to come.” 4. A negation concerning it, derogatory unto its perfection; it had “not the very image of the things” themselves. 5. An inference or conclusion from both; “can never with those sacrifices,” etc.
First, The conjunctive particle ga>r , “for,” intimates that what follows or is introduced thereby is an inference from what he had before discoursed, or a conclusion made thereon. And this is the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ. For having declared that he had perfectly expiated sin thereby, and confirmed the new covenant, he concludes from thence and proves the necessity of it, because the legal sacrifices could not effect those ends which they seemed to be appointed for. Wherefore they must be taken away, to give place unto that whereby they were perfectly accomplished.
This, therefore, he now proceeds to prove. God having designed the complete consummation or sanctification of the church, that which only made a representation of it, and of the way whereby it was to be done, but could not effect it, was to be removed. For there was an appointed time wherein he would perfectly fulfill the counsel of his infinite wisdom and grace towards the church herein. And at this time, which was now come, a full, clear understanding of the insufficiency of all legal sacrifices for that end was to be given unto it. For he requires not faith and obedience in any, beyond the means of light and understanding which he affords unto them.
Therefore the full revelation and demonstration hereof were reserved for this season, wherein he required express faith in the way whereby these things were effected.
Secondly, The subject spoken of is oJ no>mov , the law, — hr;wOT. That which he immediately intends is the sacrifices of the law, especially those which were offered yearly by a perpetual statute, as the words immediately following do declare. But he refers what he speaks unto the law itself, as that whereby those sacrifices were instituted, and whereon all their virtue and efficacy did depend. They had no more of the one or other but what they had by and from the law. And “the law” here, is the covenant which God made with the people at Sinai, with all the institutions of worship thereunto belonging. It is not the moral law, which originally, and as absolutely considered, had no expiatory sacrifices belonging unto it; nor is it the ceremonial law alone, whereby all the sacrifices of old were either appointed or regulated: but it is the first testament, the first covenant, as it had all the ordinances of worship annexed unto it, as it was the spring and cause of all the privileges and advantages of the church of Israel; and whereunto the moral law as given on mount Sinai, and both the ceremonial law and the judicial also did belong. This he calls “the law,” Hebrews 7:19; and the “covenant” or “testament” completely, Hebrews 9.
Thirdly, Concerning this law or covenant the apostle declares two things: 1. Positively, and by way of concession, it had “a shadow of good things to come;” 2. Negatively, that it had “not the very image of the things” themselves: which we must consider together, because they contribute light unto one another.
These expressions are metaphorical, and have therefore given occasion unto various conjectures about the nature of the allusions in them, and their application unto the present subject-matter. I shall not trouble the reader with a repetition of them; they may be found in most commentators. I shall therefore only fix on that sense of the words which I conceive to be the mind of the Holy Ghost, giving the reasons why I conceive it so to be.
Both the expressions used and the things intended in them, a “shadow,” and “the very image,” have respect unto the “good things to come.” The relation of the law unto them is that which is declared. Wherefore the true notion of what these good things to come are, will determine what it is to have a shadow of them, and not the very image of the things themselves. First, The “good things” intended may be said to be me>llonta , either with respect unto the law or with respect unto the gospel; and were so either when the law was given or when this epistle was written. If they were yet to come with respect unto the gospel, and were so when he wrote this epistle, they can be nothing but the good things of heaven and eternal glory. These things were then, are still, and will always be, unto the church militant on the earth, “ good things to come;” and are the subject of divine promises concerning future times: “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began,” Titus 1:2. But this cannot be the sense of the words. For, — 1. The gospel itself hath not the very image of these things, and so should not herein differ from the law. For that “the very image” of these things is the things themselves shall be immediately declared. 2. The apostle in this whole discourse designs to prove that the law, with all the rites of worship annexed unto it, was a type of the good things that were really and actually exhibited in and by the gospel, or by the Lord Christ himself in the discharge of his office. Wherefore they are called “good things to come” with respect unto the time of the administration of the law. They were so whilst the law or first covenant was in force, and whilst the institutions of it were continued. They had, indeed, their original in the church, or were “good things to come,” from the first promise. They were more declared so to be, and the certainty of their coming more confirmed, by the promise made unto Abraham. After these promises, and their various confirmations, the law was given unto the people. Howbeit the law did not bring in, exhibit, or make present, the good things so promised, that they should no more yet be to come. They were still “good things to come” whilst the law was in force. Nor was this absolutely denied by the Jews; nor is yet so to this day. For though they place more in the law and covenant of Sinai than God ever placed in them, yet they acknowledge that there are good ,things to come promised and fore-signified in the law, which, as they suppose, are not yet enjoyed.
Such is the coming of the Messiah; in which sense they must grant that “the law had a shadow of good things to come.”
Hence it is evident what are those “good things to come;” namely, Christ himself, with all the grace, and mercy, and privileges, which the church receiveth by his actual exhibition and coming in the flesh, upon the discharge of his office. For he himself firstly, principally, and evidently, was the subject of all promises; and whatever else is contained in them is but that whereof, in his person, office, and grace, he is the author and cause. Hence he was signally termed oJ e And these things are called ta< ajgaqa> , “these good things,” 1. Because they are absolutely so, without any alloy or mixture. All other things in this world, however in some respect, and as unto some peculiar end, they may be said to be good, yet are they not so absolutely.
Wherefore, 2. These things only are good things: nothing is good, either in itself or unto us, without them, nor but by virtue of what it receives from them.
There is nothing so but what is made so by Christ and his grace. 3. They are eminently “good things;” those good things which were promised unto the church from the foundation of the world, which the prophets and wise men of old desired to see; the means of our deliverance from all the evil things which we had brought upon ourselves by our apostasy from God.
These being evidently “the good things” intended, the relation of the law unto them, namely, that it had the “shadow,” but “not the very image” of them, will also be apparent, The allusion, in my judgment, unto the art of painting, wherein a shadow is first drawn, and afterwards a picture to the life, or the very image itself, hath here no place, nor doth our apostle anywhere make use of such curious similitudes taken from things artificial, and known to very few; nor would he use this among the Hebrews, who of all people were least acquainted with the art of painting. But he declares his intention in another place, where, speaking of the same things, and using some of the same words, their sense is plain and determined: Colossians 2:17, “They are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” “They are a shadow of things to come,” is the same with this, “The law hath a shadow of good things to come;” for it is the law with its ordinances and institutions of worship concerning which the apostle there discourseth, as he doth in this place. Now the “shadow” there intended by the apostle, from whence the allusion is taken, is the shadow of a body in the light or sunshine, as the antithesis declares, “But the body is of Christ.” Now such a shadow is, 1. A representation of the body. Any one who beholds it, knows that it is a thing which hath no subsistence in itself, which hath no use of its own; only it represents the body, follows it in all its variations, and is inseparable from it. 2. It is a just representation of the body, as unto its proportion and dimensions. The shadow of any body represents that certain individual body, and nothing else: it will add nothing unto it, nor take anything from it, but, without an accidental hinderance, is a just representation of it; much less will it give an appearance of a body of another form and shape, different from that whereof it is the shadow. 3. It is but an obscure representation of the body; so as that the principal concernments of it, especially the vigor and spirit of a living body, are not figured nor represented by it.
Thus is it with the law, or the covenant of Sinai, and all the ordinances of worship wherewith it was attended, with respect unto these “good things to come.” For it must be observed, that the opposition which the apostle makes in this place is not between the law and the gospel, any otherwise but as the gospel is a full declaration of the person, offices, and grace of Christ; but it is between the sacrifices of the law and the sacrifice of Christ himself. Want of this observation hath given us mistaken interpretations of the place.
This shadow of good things the law had: e]cwn , — “having it.” It obtained it, it was in it, it was inlaid in it, it was of the substance and nature of it; it contained it in all that it prescribed or appointed, some of it in one part, some in another, — the whole in the whole. It had the whole shadow, and the whole of it was this shadow. It was so, — 1. Because, in the sanction, dedication, and confirmation of it, by the blood of sacrifices; in the tabernacle, with all its holy utensils; in its high priest, and all other sacred administrations; in its solemn sacrifices and services; it made a representation of good things to come. This hath been abundantly manifested and proved in the exposition of the foregoing chapter. And according unto the first property of such a shadow, without this use it had no bottom, no foundation, no excellency of its own. Take the significancy and representation of Christ, his offices and grace, out of the legal institutions, and you take from them all impressions of divine wisdom, and leave them useless things, which of themselves will vanish and disappear. And because they are no more now a shadow, they are absolutely dead and useless. 2. They were a just representation of Christ only, the second property of such a shadow. They did not signify any thing more or less but Christ himself, and what belongs unto him. He was the idea in the mind of God, when Moses was charged to make all things according to the pattern showed him in the mount. And it is a blessed view of divine wisdom, when we do see and understand aright how every thing in the law belonged unto that shadow which God gave in it of the substance of his counsel in and concerning Jesus Christ. 3. They were but an obscure representation of these things, which is the third property of a shadow. The glory and efficacy of these good things appeared not visible in them. God by these means designed no further revelation of them unto the church of the old testament but what was in types and figures; which gave a shadow of them, and no more. Secondly, This being granted unto the law, there is added thereunto what is denied of it, wherein the argument of the apostle doth consist. It had “not the very image of the things.” The pra>gmata are the same with the ta< ajgaqa< mellonta before mentioned. The negation is of the same whereof the concession was made, the grant being in one sense, and the denial in another. It had not aujth This, therefore, is that which the apostle denies concerning the law: It had not the actual accomplishment of the promise of good things; it had not Christ exhibited in the flesh; it had not the true, real sacrifice of perfect expiation: it represented these things, it had a shadow of them, but enjoyed not, exhibited not the things themselves. Hence was its imperfection and weakness, so that by none of its sacrifices it could make the church perfect.
Obs. I. Whatever there may be in any religious institutions, and the diligent observation of them, if they come short of exhibiting Christ himself unto believers, with the benefits of his mediation, they cannot make us perfect, nor give us acceptation with God. — For, 1. It was he himself in his own person that was the principal subject of all the promises of old. Hence they who lived not to enjoy his exhibition in the flesh are said to “die in faith,” but “not to receive the promise,” Hebrews 11:39. But it is through the promise that all good things are communicated unto us. 2. Nothing is good or useful unto the church but through its relation unto him. So was it with the duties of religious worship under the old testament. All their use and worth lay in this, that they were shadows of him and his mediation. And that of those in the new testament is, that they are more effcacious means of his exhibition and communication unto us. 3. He alone could perfectly expiate sin and consummate the state of the church by the sacrifice of himself.
Fourthly, This being the state of the law, or first covenant, the apostle makes an application of it unto the question under debate in the last words of the verse: “Can never with those sacrifices, which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect.” We must first speak unto the reading of the words, and then unto the sense and meaning.
Expositors generally take notice that in the original there is a trajection in the words, or that they are placed out of their proper order; which translators do rectify: Kat j ejniauto But neither the signification of the word nor the use of it in this epistle will allow it in this place to belong unto the words and sentence going before; for it doth not anywhere signify a duration or continuance with a limitation. And the apostle is far from allowing an absolutely perpetual duration-unto the law and its sacrifices, were they of what use soever, especially in this place, where he is proving that they were not perpetual, nor had an efficacy to accomplish any thing perfectly; which is the other signification of the word. And it is used only in this epistle, Hebrews 7:3, in this place, and verses 12, 14, of this chapter. But in all these places it is applied only unto the office of Christ, and the efficacy of it in his personal ministry. It is of the same signification with eijv to< pantele>v , Hebrews 7:25, “for ever,”” to the uttermost,” “perfectly.” Wherefore that which is affirmed of Christ and his sacrifice, verses 12, 14, of the chapter, is here denied of the law. And the words should be joined with those that follow: “The law by its sacrifices could not perfect for ever” (or “unto the utmost’) “the comers thereunto.”
In the words thus read there are three things: 1. The impotency of the law; Oujde>pote du>natai , — “It can never.” 2. That with respect whereunto this impotency is charged on it; that is, “the sacrifices which it offered.” 3. The effect itself denied with respect unto that impotency; which is, “to perfect for ever the comers thereunto.” 1. The impotency of the law as unto the end mentioned is emphatically expressed, Oujde>pote du>natai , — “It can never do it:” ‘it can do it by no means, no way; it is impossible it should.’ And it is thus expressed to obviate all thoughts in the minds of the Hebrews of all expectations of perfection by the law. For thus they were apt to think and hope, that, by one way and means or another, they might have acceptance with God by the law. Wherefore it was necessary thus to speak unto them who had an inveterate persuasion unto the contrary. 2. That with respect whereunto this impotency is ascribed unto the law is its “sacrifices” For from them was the perfect expiation of sin to be expected, or from nothing prescribed by the law. To deny this power unto them, is to deny it absolutely unto the whole law, and all its institutions.
And these sacrifices are expressed with respect unto their nature, the time of their offering, and those by whom they were offered. (1.) For their nature, he says, Tai~v aujtai~v zusi>aiv: “Iisdem sacrificiis;” “iis ipsis hostiis” or “sacrificiis.” Our translation rendereth not the emphasis of the expression. “lis hostiis quas quotannis, — “with the same sacrifices,” or “those sacrifices which were of the same kind and nature.”
Aujtai~v is omitted in our translation. Tai~v zusi>aiv , is “with those sacrifices;” the article being demonstrative. “The same;” — not individually the same, for they were many, and offered often, or every year, when a sacrifice was offered again materially the same; but they were of the same kind. They could not by the law offer a sacrifice of one kind one year, and a sacrifice of another the next; but the same sacrifices in their substance and essence, in their matter and manner, were annually repeated, without variation or alteration. And this the apostle urgeth, to show that there was no more in any one of them than in another; and what one could not do, could not be done by its repetition, for it was still the same. Great things were effected by these sacrifices: by them was the first covenant consecrated and confirmed; by them was atonement and expiation of sin made, — that is, typically and declaratively; by them were the priests themselves dedicated unto God; by them were the people made holy.
Wherefore this impotency being ascribed unto them, it absolutely concludes unto the whole law, with all other privileges and duties of it. (2.) He describes them from the time and season of their offering. It was kat j ejniauto>n , “yearly, every year, year by year.” It is hence manifest what sacrifices he principally intends, namely, the anniversary sacrifices of expiation, when the high priest entered into the most holy place with blood, Leviticus 16. And he instanceth therein, not to exclude other sacrifices from the same censure, but as giving an instance for them all in that which was most solemn, had the most eminent effects, at once respecting the whole church, and that which the Jews principally trusted unto. Had he mentioned sacrifices in general, it might have been replied, that although the sacrifices which were daily offered, or those on especial occasions, might not perfect the worshippers, at least not the whole congregation, yet the church itself might be perfected by that great sacrifice which was offered yearly, with the blood whereof the high priest entered into the presence of God. Accordingly, the Jews have such a saying among them, “That on the day of expiation all Israel was made as righteous as in the day wherein man was first created.” But the apostle, applying his argument unto those sacrifices, and proving their insufficiency unto the end mentioned, leaves no reserve unto any thoughts that it might be attained by other sacrifices which were of another nature and efficacy. And besides, to give the greater cogency unto his argument, he fixeth on those sacrifices which had the least of what he proves their imperfection by. For these sacrifices were repeated only once a-year. And if this repetition of them once a-year proves them weak and imperfect, how much more were those so which were repeated every day, or week, or month! (3.) He refers unto the offerers of those sacrifices: “Which they offer,” — that is, the high priests, of whom he had treated in the foregoing chapter.
And he speaks of things in the present tense. “The law cannot,” and “which they offer:” not “The law could not,” and “which they offered.”
The reason hereof hath been before declared. For he sets before the Hebrews a scheme and representation of all their worship at its first institution, that they might discern the original intention of God therein.
And therefore he insists only on the tabernacle, making no mention of the temple. So he states what was done at the first giving of the law, and the institution of all its ordinances of worship, as if it were now present before their eyes. And if it had not the power mentioned at their first institution, when the law was in all its vigor and glory, no accession could be made unto it by any continuance of time, any otherwise but in the false imsgination of the people. 3. That which remains of the words is an account of what the law could not do or effect by its sacrifices: “It could not make the comers thereunto perfect for ever.”
There are in the words, (1.) The effect denied. (2.) The persons with respect unto whom it is denied. (3.) The limitation of that denial. (1.) The effect denied; what it cannot do, is teleiw~sai , — “dedicate,” “consummate, “consecrate,” “perfect,” “sanctify.” Of the meaning of the word in this epistle I have spoken often before. As also, I have showed at large what that telei>wsiv is which God designed unto the church in this world, wherein it did consist, and how the law could not effect it. See the exposition on Hebrews 7:11. Here it is the same with teleiw~sai kata< sunei>dhsin , Hebrews 9:9, — “perfect as pertaining unto the conscience;” which is ascribed unto the sacrifice of Christ, verse 14.
Wherefore the word principally in this place respects the expiation of sin, or the taking away the guilt of it by atonement; and so the apostle expounds it in the following verses, as shall be declared. (2.) Those with respect unto whom this power is denied unto the law are proserco>menoi ; say we, “the comers thereunto; “accedentes.” The expression is every way the same with that of Hebrews 9:9, Teleiw~sai kata< sunei>dhsin to The word signifies “to draw nigh,” “to come near with an oblation:’ These are the “comers,” those who draw nigh with, and bring their oblations unto the altar. And such was the nature of the service itself.. It consisted in coming with their sacrifice unto the altar, with the priests approaching unto the sacrifice; in all which an access was made unto God. Howbeit the word here is of a larger signification, nor is it to be limited unto them who brought their own sacrifices, but extends unto all that came to attend unto the solemnity of them; whereby, according to God’s appointment, they had a participation in the benefit of them. For respect is had unto the anniversary sacrifice, which was not brought by any, but was provided for all. But as the priests were included in the foregoing words, “which they offer;” so by these “comers,” the people are intended, for whose benefit these sacrifices were offered. For, as was said, respect is had unto the great anniversary sacrifice, which was offered in the name and on the behalf of the whole congregation. And those, if any, might be made perfect by the sacrifices of the law, namely, those that came unto God by them, or through the use of them, according unto his institution. (3.) That wherein the law failed, as unto the appearance it made of the expiation of sin, was that it could not effect it eijv to< dihneke>v , “absolutely, completely,” and “for ever.” It made an expiation, but it was temporary only, not for ever. It did so both in respect unto the consciences of the worshippers and the outward effects of its sacrifices. Their effect on the consciences of the worshippers was temporary; for a sense of sin returned on them, which forced them unto a repetition of the same sacrifices again, as the apostle declares in the next verse. And as unto the outward effects of them, they consisted in the removal of temporal punishments and judgments, which God had threatened unto the transgressors of the old covenant. This they could reach unto, but no farther. To expiate sin fully, and that with respect unto eternal punishment, so as to take away the guilt of sin from the consciences, and all punishments from the persons of men, — which is to “perfect them for ever,” which was done by the sacrifice of Christ, — this they could not do, but only represent what was to be done afterwards.
If any shall think meet to retain the ordinary distinction of the words, and refer eijv to< dihneke>v to what goes before, so taking the word adverbially, “they offer them year by year continually,” then the necessity of the annual repetition of those sacrifices is intended in it. This they did, and this they were to do always whilst the tabernacle was standing, or the worship of the law continued. And from the whole verse sundry things may be observed.
Obs. II. Whatever hath the least representation of Christ, or relation unto him, the obscurest way of teaching the things concerning his person and grace, whilst it is in force, hath a glory in it. — He alone in himself originally bears the whole glory of God in the worship and salvation of the church; and he gives glory unto all institutions of divine worship. The law had but a shadow of him and his office, yet was the ministration of it glorious. And much more is that of the gospel and its ordinances so, if we have faith to discern their relation unto him, and experience of his exhibition of himself and the benefits of his mediation unto us by them.
Without this they have no glory, whatever order or pomp may be applied unto their outward administration.
Obs. III. Christ and his grace were the only good things, that were absolutely so, from the foundation of the world, or the giving of the first promise. — In and by them there is not only a deliverance from the curse, which made all things evil; and a restoration of all the good that was lost by sin, in a sanctified, blessed use of the creatures; but an increase and addition is made unto all that was good in the state of innocency, above what can be expressed. Those who put such a-valuation on the meaner, uncertain enjoyment of other things, as to judge them their “good things,” their “goods,” as they are commonly called, so as not to see that all which is absolutely good is to be found in him alone; much more they who seem to judge almost all things good besides, and Christ with his grace good for nothing; will be filled with the fruit of their own ways, when it is too late to change their minds.
Obs. IV. There is a great difference between the shadow of good things to come, and the good things themselves actually exhibited and granted unto the church. This is the fundamental difference between the two testaments, the law and the gospel, from whence all others do arise, and whereinto they are resolved. Some, when they hear that there was justification, sanctification, and eternal life, to be obtained under the old covenant and its administrations, by virtue of the promise which they all had respect unto, are ready to think that there was no material difference between the two covenants. I have spoken at large hereunto in the eighth chapter. I shall now only say, that he who sees not, who finds not a glory, excellency, and satisfaction, producing peace, rest, and joy in his soul, from the actual exhibition of these good things, as declared and tendered in the gospel, above what might be obtained from an obscure representation of them as future, is a stranger unto gospel light and grace.
Obs. V. The principal interest and design of them that come to God, is to have assured evidence of the perfect expiation of sin. — This of old they came unto God by the sacrifices of the law for; which could only represent the way whereby it was to be done. Until assurance be given hereof, no sinner can have the least encouragement to approach unto God. For no guilty person can stand before him. Where this foundation is not laid in the soul and conscience, all attempts of access unto God are presumptuous.
This, therefore, is that which the gospel in the first place proposeth unto the faith of them that do receive it.
Obs. VI. What cannot be effected for the expiation of sin at once by any duty or sacrifice, cannot be effected by its reiteration or repetition. — Those generally who seek for atonement and acceptation with God by their own duties, do quickly find that no one of them will effect their desire. Wherefore they place all their confidence in the repetition and multiplication of them; what is not done at one time, they hope may be done at another; what one will not do, many shall. But after all, they find themselves mistaken. For, — Obs. VII. The repetition of the same sacrifices doth of itself demonstrate their insufficiency unto the end sought after. — Wherefore those of the Roman church who would give countenance unto the sacrifice of the mass, by affirming that it is not another sacrifice, but the very same that Christ himself offered, do prove, if the argument of the apostle here insisted on be good and cogent, an insufficiency in the sacrifice of Christ for the expiation of sin; for so he affirms it is with all sacrifices that are to be repeated, whereof he esteems the repetition itself a sufficient demonstration.
Obs. VIII. God alone limiteth the ends and efficacy of his own institutions. — It may be said, that if these sacrifices did not make perfect them that came unto God by them, then their so coming unto him was lost labor, and to no purpose. But there were other ends and other uses of this their coming unto God, as we have declared; and unto them all they were effectual. There never was, there never shall be, any loss in what is done according unto the command of God. Other things, however we may esteem them, are but hay and stubble, which have no power or efficacy unto any spiritual ends.
VERSES 2, 3. jEpei< a[n ejpau>santo prosfero>menai , dia< to< mhdemi>an e]cein e]ti sunei>dhsin aJmartiw~n tou The Syriac translation refers that unto the persons which is affirmed of their offerings, ww;j\ ˆyyim]G; ryGe Wlai “for if they had been perfect,” or” made perfect,” — referring unto what went before, that they were not made perfeet, — WjyNit]a, ˆyDe rb’K] ˆWhy]n’b; r]Wq ˆme , “they would have long since ceased” or “rested from their oblations” or “offerings.” “They would have offered them no more.” And although it doth not at all express tou Kekaqarme>nouv , (Mss., kakaqarisme>nouv,) “mundati,” “purificati,” “purgati;’ “cleansed,” “purified,” “purged.” Dia< to< mhdemi>an e]cein e[ti sunei>dhsin amjartiw~n. “Ideo quod nullam habent ultra conscientiam peecati.” Vulg. Lat., “ideo quod,” for “propterea;” “peccati,” for “peccatorum.” “Nullorum peccatorum amplius sibi essent conscii,” Beza; “they should no more be conscious unto themselves of any sin.” The sense is given in the Syriac before mentioned. Arab., “they would have made more mention of the commemoration of sins,” with respect unto the words following. jAna>mhnsiv . Syr., “but in these they remembered their sins.” “Recommemoratio,” “repetita mentio;” a calling to remembrance by acknowledgment.
There is, as was observed, a different reading in the ancient copies of the first words in the second verse. The Syriac and the Vulgar Latin take no notice of the negative particle oujk , but read the words positively, “then would they have ceased.” Those who follow other copies take oujk for oujci>, — “ non” for “nonne,” and render the words interrogatively, as doth our translation; “for then would they not have ceased?” that is, they would have done so. And then ejpei> is to be rendered adversatively, by “alioquin,” as it is by most, “for otherwise.” But it may be rendered causally, by “for then,” if an interrogation be allowed. But the sense is the same in both readings, as we shall see. f26 Ver. 2. — For otherwise they would have ceased to be offered; because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
The words contain a confirmation, by a new argument, of what was affirmed in the verse foregoing. And it is taken from the frequent repetition of those sacrifices. The thing to be proved is the insufficiency of the law to perfect the worshippers by its sacrifices. This he proves in the foregoing verse, from the formal cause of that insufficiency; which is, that in them all it had but “a shadow of good things to come,” and so could not effect that which was to be done only by the good things themselves. Here the same truth is proved “ab effectu,” or “a signo,” from a demonstrative sign and evidence of it in their repetition.
The present argument, therefore, of the apostle is taken from a sign of the impotency and insufficiency which he had before asserted. There is, as was observed, a variety in the original copies, some having the negative particle oujk , others omitting it. If that note of negation be allowed, the words are to be read by way of interrogation, “Would they not have ceased to be offered?” that is, they would have done so, or, God would not have appointed the repetition of them. If it be omitted, the assertion is positive, “They would have then ceased to be offered;” there was no reason for their continuance, nor would God have appointed it. And the notes of the inference, ejpei< a[n , are applicable unto either reading: ‘For then in that case, on this supposition that they could perfect the worshippers, would they not (or, they would) have ceased to be offered? There would have been rest given unto them, a stop put to their offering.’ That is, God would have appointed them to have been offered once, and no more. So the apostle observes signally of the sacrifice of Christ, that he “once offered” himself, that he offered “once for all;” because by one offering, and that once offered, he did perfect them that were sanctified or dedicated unto God thereby.
That which the apostle designs to prove, is that they did not by their own force and efficacy for ever perfect the church, or bring it unto that state of justification, sanctification, and acceptance with God, which was designed unto it, with all the privileges and spiritual worship belonging unto that state. That this they did not do he declares in the words following, by a notable instance included in their repetition. For all means of any sort, as such, do cease when their end is attained. The continuance of their use is an evidence that the end proposed is not effected.
In opposition unto this argument in general it may be said, ‘That this reiteration or repetition of them was not because they did not perfectly expiate sins, the sins of the offerers, all that they had committed and were guilty of before their offering; but because those for whom they were offered did again contract the guilt of sin, and so stood in need of a renewed expiation hereof.’
In answer unto this objection, which may be laid against the foundation of the apostle’s argument, I say there are two things in the expiation of sin: first, The effects of the sacrifice towards God, in making atonement; secondly, The application of those effects unto our consciences. The apostle treats not of the latter, or the means of the application of the effects and benefits of the expiation of sin unto our consciences, which may be many, and frequently repeated. Of this nature are still all the ordinances of the gospel; and so also are our own faith and repentance.
The principal end, in particular, of that great ordinance of the supper of the Lord, which by his own command is frequently to be repeated, and ever was so in the church, is to make application unto us of the virtue and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ in his death unto our souls. For a renewed participation of the thing signified is the only use of the frequent repetition of the sign. So renewed acts of faith and repentance are continually necessary, upon the incursions of new acts of sin and defilement. But by none of these is there any atonement made for sin, or an expiation of it; only the one, the great sacrifice of atonement, is applied unto us, not to be repeated by us. But the apostle treats only of that we mentioned in the first place, the efficacy of sacrifices to make reconciliation and atonement for sin before God; which the Jews expected from them. And actings towards God need no repetition, to make application of them unto him. Wherefore God himself being the only object of sacrifices for the expiation of sin, what cannot be effected towards him and with him by one and at once, can never be done by repetition of the same.
Supposing, therefore, the end of sacrifices to be the making of atonement with God for sin, and the procurement of all the privileges wherewith it is accompanied, — which was the faith of the Jews concerning them, — and the repetition of them doth invincibly prove that they could not of themselves effect what they were applied unto or used for; especially considering that this repetition of them was enjoined to be perpetual, whilst the law continued in force. If they could at any time have perfected the worshippers, they would have ceased to be offered; for unto what end should that continuance serve? To abide in a show or pretense of doing that which is done already, doth no way answer the wisdom of divine institutions.
And we may see herein both the obstinacy and miserable state thereon of the present Jews. The law doth plainly declare, that without atonement by blood there is no remission of sins to be obtained. This they expect by the sacrifices of the law, and their frequent repetition; not by any thing which was more perfect, and which they did represent. But all these they have been utterly deprived of for many generations; and therefore must all of them, on their own principles, die in their sins and under the curse. The woful, superstitious follies whereby they endeavor to supply the want of those sacrifices, are nothing but so many evidences of their obstinate blindness.
And it is hence also evident, that the superstition of the church of Rome in their mass, wherein they pretend to offer, and every day to repeat, a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead, doth evidently demonstrate that they disbelieve the efficacy of the one sacrifice of Christ, as once offered, for the expiation of sin. For if it be so, neither can it be repeated, nor any other used for that end, if we believe the apostle.
The remaining words of this verse confirm the argument insisted on, namely, that those sacrifices would have ceased to be offered if they could have made the church perfect; for, saith he, “The worshippers being once purged, they should have had no more conscience of sins.” And we must inquire, 1. Who are intended by “the worshippers.” 2. What it is to be “purged.” 3. What is the effect of this purging, in “having no more conscience of sins.” 4. How the apostle proves his intention hereby. 1. The “worshippers,” oiJ latreu>ontev , are the same with oiJ proserco>menoi , the “comers,” in the verse foregoing: and in neither place the priests who offered the sacrifices, but the people for whom they were offered, are intended. They it was who made use of those sacrifices for the expiation of sin. 2. Concerning these persons it is supposed, that if the sacrifices of the law could make them “perfect” then would they have been” purged; wherefore kaqari>zesqai is the effect of teleiw~sai , — to be “purged,” of being “made perfect.” For the apostle supposeth the negation of the latter from the negation of the former: ‘If the law did not make them perfect, then were they not purged.’
This sacred kaqarismo>v respects either the guilt of sin or the filth of it.
The one is removed by justification, the other by sanctification. The one is the effect of the sacerdotal actings of Christ towards God in making atonement for sin; the other of the application of the virtue and efficacy of that sacrifice unto our souls and consciences, whereby they are purged, cleansed, renewed, and changed. It is the purging of the first sort that is here intended; such a purging of sin as takes away the condemning power of sin from the conscience on the account of the guilt of it. ‘If they had been purged, (as they would have been had the law made the comers unto its sacrifices perfect);’ that is, if there had been a complete expiation of sin made for them.
And the supposition denied hath its qualification and limitation in the word a[pax , “once.” By this word he expresseth the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, which being one, at once effected what it was designed unto. And it doth not design only the doing of a thing at one time, but the so doing of it as that it should never more be done. 3. That these worshippers were not thus purged by any of the sacrifices which were offered for them the apostle proves from hence, because they had not the necessary effect and consequence of such a purification. For if they had been so purged, “they would have had no more conscience of sins;” but that they had so he proves in the next verse, from the legal recognition that was made of them every year. And if they had had no more conscience of sins, there would have been no need of offering sacrifices for their expiation any more. (1.) The introduction of the assertion is by the particles “because that;” which direct unto the argument that is in the words,’“ they would have ceased to be offered,” because their end would have been accomplished, and so themselves taken away.’ (2.) On the supposition made, there would have been an alteration made in the state of the worshippers. When they came unto the sacrifices, they came with conscience of sin. This is unavoidable unto a sinner before expiation and atonement be made for it. Afterwards, if they were purged, it should be so no more with them; they should no more have conscience of sin. “They should no more have conscience of sins;” or rather, “they should not any more” (or “further”) “have any conscience of sins; or, “they should have no conscience of sins any more.” The meaning of the word is singularly well expressed in the Syriac translation: “They should have no conscience agitating, tossing, disquieting, perplexing for sins;” no conscience judging and condemning their persons for the guilt of sin, so depriving them of solid peace with God. It is conscience with respect unto the guilt of sin, as it binds over the sinner unto punishment in the judgment of God. Now this is not to be measured by the apprehension of the sinner, but by the true causes and grounds of it. Now these lie herein alone, that sin was not perfectly expiated; for where this is not, there must be a conscience of sin, that is, disquieting, judging, condemning for sin. 4. The apostle speaks on the one side and the other of them, who were really interested in the sacrifices whereunto they might trust for the expiation of sin. The way hereof, as unto them of old, and the legal sacrifices, was the due attendance unto them, and performance of them according unto God’s institution. Hence are the persons so interested called the “comers” to them, and the “worshippers.” The way and means of our interest in the sacrifice of Christ are by faith only. In this state it often falls out that true believers have a conscience judging and condemning them for sin, no less than they had under the law; but this trouble and power of conscience doth not arise from hence, that sin is not perfectly expiated by the sacrifice of Christ, but only from an apprehension that they have not a due interest in that sacrifice and the benefits of it. Under the old testament they questioned not their due interest in their sacrifices, which depended on the performance of the rites and ordinances of service belonging unto them; but their consciences charged them with the guilt of sin, through an apprehension that their sacrifices could not perfectly expiate it. And this they found themselves led unto by God’s institution of their repetition; which had not been done if they could ever make the worshippers perfect.
It is quite otherwise as unto conscience for sin remaining in believers under the new testament; for they have not the least sense of fear concerning any insufficiency or imperfection in the sacrifice whereby it is expiated. God hath ordered all things concerning it so as to satisfy the consciences of all men in the perfect expiation of sin by it; only they who are really purged by it may be in the dark sometimes as unto their personal interest in it.
But it may be objected, ‘That if the sacrifices neither by their native efficacy, nor by the frequency of repetition, could take away sin, so as that they who came unto God by them could have peace of conscience, or be freed from the trouble of a continual condemnatory sentence in themselves, then was there no true, real peace with God under the old testament, for other way of attaining it there was none. But this is contrary unto innumerable testimonies of Scripture, and the promises of God made then unto the church.’ In answer hereunto, I say, The apostle did not, nor doth in these words, declare what they did and could, or could not attain unto under the old testament; only what they could not attain by the means of their sacrifices (so he declares it in the next verse); for in them “remembrance is made of sins.” But in the use of them, and by their frequent repetition, they were taught to look continually unto the great expiatory sacrifice, whose virtue was laid up for them in the promise; whereby they had peace with God.
Obs. I. The discharge of conscience from its condemning right and power, by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, is the foundation of all other privileges we receive by the gospel. Where this is not, there is no real participation of any other of them.
Obs. II. All peace with God is resolved into a purging atonement made for sin: “Being once purged.”
Obs. III. It is by a principle of gospel light alone that conscience is directed to condemn all sin, and yet to acquit all sinners that are purged.
Its own natural light can give it no guidance herein.
Ver. 3. — But in those [sacrifices there is ] a remembrance again [made ] of sins every year.
It is the latter part of the foregoing assertion, namely, that the worshippers were not purged or perfected by them, in that they had still remaining a conscience for sins, which is proposed unto confirmation; for this being a matter of fact might be denied by the Hebrews. Wherefore the apostle proves the truth of his assertion from an inseparable adjunct, of the yearly repetition of these sacrifices, according unto divine institution.
There are four things to be opened in the words: 1. The introduction of the reason intended, by an adversative conjunction, ajlla> , “but.” 2. The subject spoken of; “those sacrifices.” 3. What belonged unto them by divine institution; which is, a renewed remembrance of sin. 4. The seasons of it; it was to be made every year. 1. The note of introduction gives us the nature of the argument insisted on: ‘Had the worshippers been perfect, they would have had no more conscience for sins. But,’ saith he, ‘it was not so with them; for God appoints nothing in vain, yet he had not only appointed the repetition of these sacrifices, but also that in every repetition of them there should be a remembrance made of sin, as of that which was yet to be expiated.’ 2. The subject spoken of is expressed in these words, ejn aujtai~v , “in them.” But this relative is remote from the antecedent, which is in the first verse, by the interposition of the second, wherein it is repeated. We transfer it hither from the first verse in our translation, “but in those sacrifices;” and we supply the defect of the verb substantive by “there is:” for there is no more in the original than “but in them a remembrance again of sins.” The sacrifices intended are principally those of the solemn day of expiation: for he speaks of them that were repeated yearly; that is, “once every year.” Others were repeated every day, or as often as occasion did require; these only were so yearly. And these are peculiarly fixed on, because of the peculiar solemnity of their offering, and the interest of the whole people at once in them. By these, therefore, they looked for the perfect expiation of sin. 3. That which is affirmed of these sacrifices is, their inseparable adjunct, that in them there was a “remembrance of sins again;” that is, there was so by virtue of divine institution, whereon the force of the argument doth depend. For this remembrance of sin by God’s own institution was such as sufficiently evidenced that the offerers had yet a conscience condemning them for sins. Respect is had unto the command of God unto this purpose, Leviticus 16:21,22. jAna See Numbers 5:15; 1 Kings 17:18. And hereby the apostle proves effectually that these sacrifices did not make the worshippers perfect; for notwithstanding their offering of them, a sense of sin still returned upon their consciences, and God himself had appointed that every year they should make such an acknowledgment and confession of sin as should manifest that they stood in need of a further expiation than could be attained by them.
But a difficulty doth here arise of no small importance. For what the apostle denies unto these offerings of the law, that he ascribes unto the one only sacrifice of Christ. ‘Yet notwithstanding this sacrifice and its efficacy, it is certain that believers ought not only once a-year, but every day, to call sins to remembrance, and to make confession thereof; yea, our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath taught us to pray every day for the pardon of our sins, wherein there is a calling of them unto remembrance. It doth not, therefore, appear wherein the difference lies between the efficacy of their sacrifices and that of Christ, seeing after both of them there is equally a remembrance of sin again to be made.’ Ans. The difference is evident between these things. Their confession of sin was in order unto, and preparatory for, a new atonement and expiation of it; — this sufficiently proves the insufficiency of those that were offered before; for they were to come unto the new offerings as if there had never been any before them: our remembrance of sin and confession of it respect only the application of the virtue and efficacy of the atonement once made, without the least desire or expectation of a new propitiation.
In their remembrance of sin respect was had unto the curse of the law which was to be answered, and the wrath of God which was to be appeased; it belonged unto the sacrifice itself, whose object was God: ours respects only the application of the benefits of the sacrifice of Christ unto our own consciences, whereby we may have assured peace with God. The sentence or curse of the law was on them, until a new atonement was made; for the soul that did not join in the sacrifice was to be cut off: but the sentence and curse of the law was at once taken away, Ephesians 2:15-16. And we may observe, — Obs. IV. An obligation unto such ordinances of worship as could not expiate sin, nor testify that it was perfectly expiated, was part of the bondage of the church under the old testament.
Obs. V. It belongs unto the light and wisdom of faith so to remember sin, and make confession of it, as not therein or thereby to seek after a new atonement for it, which is made “once for all.” Confession of sin is no less necessary under the new testament than it was under the old; but not for the same end. And it is an eminent difference between the spirit of bondage and that of liberty by Christ: the one so confesseth sin as to make that very confession a part of atonement for it; the other is encouraged unto confession because of the atonement already made, as a means of coming unto a participation of the benefits of it. Wherefore the causes and reasons of the confession of sin under the new testament are, 1. To affect our own minds and consciences with a sense of the guilt of sin in itself, so as to keep us humble and filled with self-abasement. He who hath no sense of sin but only what consists in dread of future judgment, knows little of the mystery of our walk before God, and obedience unto him, according unto the gospel. 2. To engage our souls unto watchfulness for the future against the sins we do confess; for in confession we make an abrenunciation of them. 3. To give unto God the glory of his righteousness, holiness, and aversation from sin. This is included in every confession we make of sin; for the reason why we acknowledge the evil of it, why we detest and abhor it, is its contrariety unto the nature, holy properties, and will of God. 4. To give unto him the glory of his infinite grace and mercy in the pardon of it. 5. We use it as an instituted means to let in a sense of the pardon of sin into our own souls and consciences, through a fresh application of the sacrifice of Christ and the benefits thereof, whereunto confession of sin is required. 6. To exalt Jesus Christ in our hearts, by the application of ourselves unto him, as the only procurer and purchaser of mercy and pardon; without which, confession of sin is neither acceptable unto God nor useful unto our own souls. But we do not make confession of sin as a part of a compensation for the guilt of it; nor as a means to give some present pacification unto conscience, that we may go on in sin, as the manner of some is.
VERSE 4. jAdu>naton ga There is no difficulty in the words, and very little difference in the translations of them. The Vulgar renders ajfairei~n by the passive: “Impossibile est enim sanguine taurorum et hircorum auferri peccata,” — “It is impossible that sins should be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats.” The Syriac renders ajfairei~n by Ëdem’ , which is to “purge” or “cleanse,” unto the same purpose.
Ver. 4. — For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
This is the last determinate resolution of the apostle concerning the insufficiency of the law and its sacrifices for the expiation of sin, and the perfecting of them who come unto God, as unto their consciences. And there is in the argument used unto this end an inference from what was spoken before, and a new enforcement from the nature or subject-matter of these sacrifices.
Something must be observed concerning this assertion in general, and an objection that it is liable unto. For by “the blood of bulls and goats,” he intends all the sacrifices of the law. Now if it be impossible that they should take away sin, for what end then were they appointed? especially considering that, in the institution of them, God told the church that he had given the blood to make atonement on the altar, Leviticus 17:11. It may therefore be said, — as the apostle doth in another place with respect unto the law itself, ‘If it could not by the works of it justify us before God, to what end then served the law?’ — To what end served these sacrifices, if they could not take away sin?
The answer which the apostle gives with respect unto the law in general may be applied unto the sacrifices of it, with a small addition from a respect unto their special nature. For as unto the law, he answers two things: 1. That it was “added because of transgressions,” Galatians 3:19. 2. That it was “a schoolmaster to guide and direct us unto Christ,” because of the severities wherewith it was accompanied, like those of a schoolmaster; not in the spirit of a tender father. And thus it was as unto the end of these sacrifices. 1. They were added unto the promise because of transgressions. For God in them and by them did continually represent unto sinners the curse and sentence of the law; namely, that the soul that sinneth must die, or that death was the wages of sin. For although there was allowed in them a commutation, that the sinner himself should not die, but the beast that was sacrificed in his stead, — which belonged unto their second end, of leading unto Christ, — yet they all testified unto that sacred truth, that it is “the judgement of God that they who commit sin are worthy of death.” And this was, as the whole law, an ordinance of God to deter men from sin, and so put bounds unto transgressions. For when God passed by sin with a kind of connivance, winking at the ignorance of men in their iniquities, not giving them continual warnings of their guilt and the consequent thereof in death, the world was filled and covered with a deluge of impieties. Men saw not judgment speedily executed, nor any tokens or indications that so it would be; therefore was their heart wholly set in them to do evil. But God dealt not thus with the church. He let no sin pass without a representation of his displeasure against it, though mixed with mercy, in a direction unto the relief against it in the blood of the sacrifice. And therefore, he did not only appoint these sacrifices on all the especial occasions of such sins and uncleannesses as the consciences of particular sinners were pressed with a sense of, but also once a-year there was gathered up a remembrance of all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions of the whole congregation, Leviticus 16. 2. They were added as the teaching of a schoolmaster to lead unto Christ.
By them was the church taught and directed to look continually unto and after that sacrifice which alone could really purge and take away all iniquity. For God appointed no sacrifices until after the promise of sending the Seed of the woman to break the head of the serpent. In his so doing was his own heel to be bruised, in the suffering of his human nature, which he offered in sacrifice unto God; which these sacrifices did represent.
Wherefore the church knowing that these sacrifices did call sin to remembrance, representing the displeasure of God against it, which was their first end; and that although there was an intimation of grace and mercy in them, by the commutation and substitution which they allowed, yet that they could not of themselves take away sin; it made them the more earnestly, and with longing desires, look after him and his sacrifice who should perfectly take away sin and make peace with God; wherein the principal exercise of grace under the old testament did consist. 3. As unto their especial nature, they were added as the great instruction in the way and manner whereby sin was to be taken away. For although this arose originally from God’s mere grace and mercy, yet was it not to be executed and accomplished by sovereign grace and power alone. Such a taking away of sin would have been inconsistent with his truth, holiness, and righteous government of mankind, as I have elsewhere at large demonstrated. It must be done by the interposition of a ransom and atonement; by the substitution of one who was no sinner in the room of sinners, to make satisfaction unto the law and justice of God for sin.
Hereby they became the principal direction of the faith of the saints under the old testament, and the means whereby they acted it on the original promise of their recovery from apostasy.
These things do evidently express the wisdom of God in their institution, although of themselves they could not take away sin. And those by whom these ends of them are denied, as they are by the Jews and Socinians, can give no account of any end of them which should answer the wisdom, grace, and holiness of God.
This objection being removed, I shall proceed unto the exposition of the words in particular. And there are four things in them as a negative proposition: 1. The illative conjunction, declaring its respect unto what went before. 2. The subject-matter spoken of; “the blood of bulls and goats.” 3. What is denied concerning it; “it could not take away sins.” 4. The modification of this negative proposition; “it was impossible they should do so.” 1. The illative cojunction, “for,” declares what is spoken to be introduced in the proof and confirmation of what was before affirmed. And it is the closing argument against the imperfection and impotency of the old covenant, the law, priesthood, and sacrifices of it, which the apostle maketh use of. And indeed it is comprehensive of all that he had before insisted on; yea, it is the foundation of all his other reasonings unto this purpose. For if in the nature of the thing itself it was impossible that the sacrifices consisting of the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin, then however, whensoever, and by whomsoever they were offered, this effect could not be produced by them. Wherefore in these words the apostle puts a close unto his argument, and resumes it no more in this epistle, but only once or twice makes mention of it in the way of an illustration to set forth the excellency of the sacrifice of Christ; as verses 11, 12, of this chapter, and Hebrews 13:10-12. 2. The subject spoken of is “the blood of bulls and goats.” The reason why the apostle expresseth them by “bulls and goats,” which were calves and kids of the goats, hath been declared on Hebrews 9:11,12. And some things must be observed concerning this description of the old sacrifices: — (1.) That he makes mention of the “blood” of the sacrifices only, whereas in many of them the whole bodies were offered, and the fat of them all was burned on the altar. And this he doth for the ensuing reasons: [1.] Because it was the blood alone whereby atonement was made for sin and sinners. The fat was burned with incense, only to show that it was accepted as a sweet savor with God. [2.] Because he had respect principally unto the anniversary sacrifice, unto the consummation whereof, and atonement thereby, the carrying the blood into the holy place did belong. [3.] Because life natural is in an especial manner in the blood, which signified that atonement was to be made by death, and that by the effusion of blood, as it was in the sacrifice of Christ. See Leviticus 17:11,12.
And in the shedding of it there was an indication of the desert of sin in the offerer. (2.) He recalls them, by this expression of their sacrifices, “the blood of bulls and goats,” unto a due consideration of what effect might be produced by them. They were accompanied with great solemnity and pomp of ceremony in their celebration. Hence arose a great esteem and veneration of them in the minds of the people. But when all was done, that which was offered was but “the blood of bulls and goats.” And there is a tacit opposition unto the matter of that sacrifice whereby sin was really to be expiated, which was “the precious blood of Christ,” as Hebrews 9:13,14. 3. That which is denied of these sacrifices, is ajfairei~n aJmarti>av , the “taking away of sins.” The thing intended is variously expressed by the apostle, as by iJla>skesqai ta The interpretation of these words by the Socinians is contrary unto the signification of the words themselves, and the whole design of the context: “‘Impossibile est,’ saith Schlichtingius, ‘ut sanguis taurorum et hircorum peccata tollat;’ hoc est, efficiat ut homines in posterum a peccatis abstinerent, et sic nullam amplius habeant peccatorum conscientiam, sive ullas eorum poenas metuant; quam enim quaeso vim ad haec praestandum sanguis animalium habere potest? Itaque hoc dicit, taurorum et hircorum sanguinem earn vim nequaquam habere, et ut habeat, impossibile esse, ut homines a peccatis avocet, et ne in posterum peccent efficiat.” And Grotius after him speaks to the same purpose: “‘ jAfairei~n aJmarti>av, quod supra ajqetei~n et ajnafe>rein , est extinguere peccata, sive facere ne ultra peccetur. Id sanguis Christi facit, tum quia fidem in nobis parit, tum quia Christo jus dat nobis auxilia necessaria impetrandi. Pecudum sanguis nihil efficit tale.” (1.) Nothing can be more alien from the design of the apostle and scope of the context. They are both of them to prove that the sacrifices of the law could not expiate sins, could not make atonement for them, could not make reconciliation with God, — could not produce the effect which the sacrifice of Christ alone was appointed and ordained unto. They were only signs and figures of it. They could not effect that which the Hebrews looked for from them and by them. And that which they expected by them was, that by them they should make atonement with God for their sins.
Wherefore the apostle denies that it was possible they should effect what they looked for from them, and nothing else. It was not that they should be arguments to turn them from sin unto newness of life, so as they should sin no more. By what way, and on what consideration they were means to deter men from sin, I have newly declared. But they can produce no one place in the whole law to give countenance unto such an apprehension that this was their end; so that the apostle had no need to declare their insufficiency with respect thereunto. Especially, the great anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation was appointed so expressly to make atonement for sin, to procure its pardon, to take away its guilt in the sight of God, and from the conscience of the sinner, that he should not be punished according unto the sentence of the law, as that it cannot be denied. This is that which the apostle declares that of themselves they could not effect or perform, but only typically and by way of representation. (2.) He declares directly and positively what he intends by this taking away of sin, and the ceasing of legal sacrifices thereon, verses 17, 18, “Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” The cessation of offerings for sin follows directly on the remission of sin, which is the effect of expiation and atonement; and not upon the turning away of men from sin for the future. It is therefore our justification, and not our sanctification, that the apostle discourseth of. (3.) The words themselves will not bear this sense. For the object of ajfairei~n, that which it is exercised about, is aJmarti>a . It is an act upon sin itself, and not immediately upon the sinner. Nor can it signify any thing but to take away the guilt of sin, that it should not bind over the sinner unto punishment; whereon conscience of sins is taken away. But to return. 4. The manner of the negation is, that “it was impossible’’ that it should be otherwise. And it was so, — (1.) From divine institution. Whatever the Jews apprehended, they were never designed of God unto that end; and therefore had no virtue or efficacy for it communicated unto them. And all the virtue of ordinances of worship depends on their designation unto their end. The blood of bulls and goats, as offered in sacrifice, and carried into the most holy place, was designed of God to represent the way of taking away sin, but not by itself to effect it; and it was therefore impossible that so it should do. (2.) It was impossible from the nature of the things themselves, inasmuch as there was not a condecency unto the holy perfections of the divine nature that sin should be expiated and the church perfected by the blood of bulls and goats. For, [1.] There would not have been so unto his infinite wisdom. For God having declared his severity against sin, with the necessity of its punishment unto the glory of his righteousness and sovereign rule over his creatures, what condecency could there have been herein unto infinite wisdom? what consistency between the severity of that declaration and the taking away of sin by such an inferior, beggarly means, as that of the blood of bulls and goats? A great appearance was made of infinite displeasure against sin, in the giving of the fiery law, in the curse of it, in the threatening of eternal death; but should all have ended in an outward show, there would have been no manner of proportion to be discerned between the demerit of sin and the means of its expiation. So that, [2.] It had no conde-cency unto divine justice. For, 1st. As I have elsewhere proved at large, sin could not be taken away without a price, a ransom, a compensation and satisfaction made unto justice for the injuries it received by sin. In satisfaction unto justice, by way of compensation for injuries or crimes, there must be a proportion between the injury and the reparation of it, that justice may be as much exalted and glorified in the one as it was depressed and debased in the ether. But there could be no such thing between the demerit of sin and the affront put on the righteousness of God on the one hand, and a reparation by the blood of bulls and goats on the other.
No man living can apprehend wherein any such proportion should lie or consist. Nor was it possible that the conscience of any man could be freed from a sense of the guilt of sin, who had nothing to trust unto but this blood to make compensation or atonement for it. 2dly. The apprehension of it (namely, a suitableness unto divine justice in the expiation of sins by the blood of bulls and goats) must needs be a great incentive unto profane persons unto the commission of sin. For if there be no more in sin and the guilt of it but what may be expiated and taken away at so low a price, but what may have atonement made for it by the blood of beasts, why should they not give satisfaction unto their lusts by living in sin? 3dly. It would have had no consistency with the sentence and sanction of the law of nature, “In the day thou eatest thou shalt die.” For although God reserved unto himself the liberty and right of substituting a surety in the room of a sinner, to die for him, — namely, such an one as should by his suffering and dying bring more glory unto the righteousness, holiness, and law of God, than either was derogated from them by the sin of man, or could be restored unto them by his eternal ruin, —yet was it not consistent with the veracity of God in that sanction of the law that this substitution should be of a nature no way cognate, but ineffably inferior unto the nature of him that was to be delivered. For these, and other reasons of the same kind, which I have handled at large elsewhere, “it was impossible,” as the apostle assures us, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” And we may observe, — Obs. I. It is possible that things may usefully represent what it is impossible that, in and by themselves, they should effect. — This is the fundamental rule of all institutions of the old testament. Wherefore, — Obs. II. There may be great and eminent uses of divine ordinances and institutions, although it be impossible that by themselves, in their most exact and diligent use, they should work out our acceptance with God. — And it belongs unto the wisdom of faith to use them unto their proper end, not to trust unto them as unto what they cannot of themselves effect.
Obs. III. It was utterly impossible that sin should be taken away before God, and from the conscience of the sinner, but by the blood of Christ. — Other ways men are apt to betake themselves unto for this end, but in vain. It is the blood of Jesus Christ alone that cleanseth us from all our sins; for he alone was the propitiation for them.
Obs. IV. The declaration of the insufficiency of all other ways for the expiation of sin is an evidence of the holiness, righteousness, and severity of God against sin, with the unavoidable ruin of all unbelievers.
Obs. V. Herein also consists the great demonstration of the love, grace, and mercy of God, with an encouragement unto faith, in that when the old sacrifices neither would nor could perfectly expiate sin, he would not suffer the work itself to fail, but provided a way that should be infallibly effective of it, as is declared in the following verses.
VERSES 5-10.
The provision that God made to supply the defect and insufficiency of legal sacrifices, as unto the expiation of sin, peace of conscience with himself, and the sanctification of the souls of the worshippers, is declared in this context; for the words contain the blessed undertaking of our Lord Jesus Christ to do, fulfill, perform, and suffer, all things required in the will, and by the wisdom, holiness, righteousness, and authority of God, unto the complete salvation of the church, with the reasons of the efficacy of what he so did and suffered unto that end. And we must consider both the words themselves, so far especially as they consist in a quotation out of the Old Testament, and the validity of his inferences from the testimony which he chooseth to insist on unto this purpose.
Ver. 5-10. — Dio< eijserco>menov eijv to Some few differences may be observed in the ancient and best translations.
Dio< . Vulg. Lat., “ideo quapropter.” Syr., an;h; lWfm, , “for this, for this cause.”
Qusi>an kai< prosfora>n , “hostiam et oblationem,” “sacrificium, victimam.” The Syriac renders the words in the plural number, “sacrifices and offerings.”
Sw~ma de< kathrti>sw moi, “aptasti,” “adaptasti mihi,” “praeparasti,” “perfecisti.” “A body hast thou prepared;” that is, ‘fitted for me, wherein I may do thy will.’ Syr., yniT;v]B,l]a’ ˆyDe ay;g]p’ , “but thou hast clothed me with a body;” very significantly, as unto the thing intended, which is the incarnation of the Son of God. The Ethiopic renders this verse somewhat strangely: “And when he entered into the world, he saith, Sacrifices and offerings! would not; thy body he hath purified unto me;” making them, as I suppose, the words of the Father.
Oujk eujdo>khsav . Vulg., “non tibi placuerant;” reading the preceding words in the nominative case, altering the person and number of the verb Syr., al; t]l]ave , “thou didst not require,” “non approbasti;” that is, “they were not well pleasing,” nor “accepted with God,” as unto the end of the expiation of sin. jIo To>te ei[rhken . Vulg., “tunc dixi,” “then I said;” that is, ei+pon , for “he said” for the apostle doth not speak these words, but repeats the words of the psalmist.
The reading of the words out of the Hebrew by the apostle shall be considered in our passage. f29 Ver. 5-10. — Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared [fitted for ] me: in burnt-offerings and [sacrifices ] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God; [that I should do thy will. ] Above when he said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and [offerings ] for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein, ] which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified,, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all. ] A blessed and divine context this is, summarily representing unto us the love, grace, and wisdom of the Father; the love, obedience, and suffering of the Son; the federal agreement between the Father and the Son as unto the work of the redemption and salvation of the church; with the blessed harmony between the Old and New Testament in the declaration of these things. The divine authority and wisdom that evidence themselves herein are ineffable, and do cast contempt on all those by whom this epistle hath been called in question; as sundry other passages in it do in a peculiar manner. And it is our duty to inquire with diligence into the mind of the Holy Spirit herein.
As unto the general nature of the arguing of the apostle, it consists in two parts: First, The introduction of a pregnant testimony out of the Old Testament unto his purpose, verses 5-8, and part of the 9th. Secondly, Inferences from that testimony, asserting and confirming all that he had pleaded for.
In the testimony he produceth we may consider, 1. The manner of its introduction, respecting the reason of what is asserted; “Wherefore.” 2.
Who it was by whom the words insisted on were spoken; “He saith.” 3.
When he spake them; “When he came into the world.” 4. The things spoken by him in general; which consist in a double antithesis: (1.) Between the legal sacrifices and the obedience of Christ in his body, verse 5; (2.) Between God’s acceptance of the one and the other, with their efficacy unto the end treated of, which must be particularly spoken unto. FIRST, The introduction of this testimony is by the word “wherefore,” — “for which cause,” “for which end.” It doth not give an account why the words following were spoken, but why the things themselves were so ordered and disposed. And we are directed in this word unto the due consideration of what is designed to be proved: and this is, that there was such an insufficiency in all legal sacrifices, as unto the expiation of sin, that God would remove them and take them out of the way, to introduce that which was better, to do that which the law could not do. ‘Wherefore,’ saith the apostle, ‘because it was so with the law, things are thus disposed of in the wisdom and counsel of God as is declared in this testimony.’\parSECONDLY, Who spake the words contained in the testimony: “He saith.”
The words may have a three-fold respect: — 1. As they were given out by inspiration, and are recorded in the Scripture.
So they were the words of the Holy Ghost, as the apostle expressly affirms of the like words, verses 15, 16, of this chapter. 2. As they were used by the penman of the psalm, who speaks by inspiration. So they were the words of David, by whom the psalm was composed. But although David spoke or wrote these words, yet is not he himself the person spoken of, nor can any passage in the whole context be applied unto him, as we shall see in particular afterwards. Or if they may be said to be spoken of him, it was only as he bare the person of another, or was a type of Christ. For although God himself doth frequently prefer moral obedience before the sacrifices of the law, when they were hypocritically performed, and trusted unto as a righteousness, unto the neglect of diligence in moral duties; yet David did not, would not, ought not, in his own name and person, to reiect the worship of God, and present himself with his obedience in the room thereof, especially as unto the end of sacrifices in the expiation of sin. Wherefore, — 3. The words are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “When he cometh into the world, he saith.” And it is a vain inquiry, when in particular he spake these words; unto whom or where any mention is made of them in the stoW of him. It is no way needful that they should be literally or verbally pronounced by him. But the Holy Ghost useth these words in his name, as his, because they declare, express, and represent his mind, design, and resolution, in His coming into the world; which is the sole end and use of words. On the consideration of the insufficiency of legal sacrifices (the only appearing means unto that purpose) for the expiation of sin and the making of reconciliation with God, that all mankind might not eternally perish under the guilt of sin, the Lord Christ represents his readiness and willingness to undertake that work, with the frame of his heart and mind therein.
The ascription of these words unto the Lord Christ on the reason mentioned, gives us a prospect into, 1. The love of his undertaking for us, when all other ways of our recovery failed, and were disallowed as insufficient; 2. Into the foundation of his undertaking for us, which was the declaration of the will of God concerning the insufficiency of these sacrifices; 3. Into his readiness to undertake the work of redemption, notwithstanding the difficulties that lay in the way of it, and what he was to undergo in the stead of the legal sacrifices.
Obs. I. We have the solemn word of Christ, in the declaration he made of his readiness and willingness to undertake the work of the expiation of sin, proposed unto our faith, and engaged as a sure anchor of our souls.
THIRDLY, The season of his speaking these words in the manner declared, was on his coming into the world: “Wherefore, coming (or “when he cometh”) “into the world, he saith.” EiJserco>menov , “veniens,” or “venturus;” when he was to enter into the world, when the design of his future coming into the world was declared. So oJ ejrco>menov is, “he that is to come,” Matthew 11:3; and e]rcetai , John 4:25. That, therefore, may be the sense of the words: — upon the first prediction of the future coming of the Son of God into the world, the design, mind, and will wherewith he came, was declared.
Refer the words unto some actual coming of the person spoken of into the world, and various interpretations are given of them. “When he came in sacrifices, typically,” say some. But this seems not to be a word accompanying the first institution of sacrifices; namely, “Sacrifices thou wouldest not have.” “His coming into the world, was his appearance and public showing of himself unto the world, in the beginning of his ministry, as David came out of the wilderness and caves to show himself unto the people as king of Israel,” saith Grotius. But the respect unto David herein is frivolous; nor are those words used with respect unto the kingly office of Christ, but merely as unto the offering himself in sacrifice to God.
The Socinians contend earnestly, that this his coming into the world is his entrance into heaven after his resurrection. And they embrace this uncouth interpretation of the words to give countenance unto their pernicious error, that Christ offered not himself in sacrifice to God in his death, or whilst he was in this world. For his sacrifice they suppose to be metaphorically only so called, consisting in the representation of himself unto God in heaven, after his obedience and suffering. Wherefore they say, that by “the world” which he came into, “the world to come,” mentioned Hebrews 2:5, is intended. But there is nothing sound, nothing probable or specious in this wresting of the words and sense of the Scripture. For, 1. The words in the places compared are not the same. This is ko>smov only; those are oijkoume>nh , and are not absolutely to be taken in the same sense, though the same things may be intended in various respects. 2. Oijkoume>nh is the habitable part of the earth, and can on no pretense be applied unto heaven. 3. I have fully proved on that place, that the apostle in that expression intendeth only the days and times of the Messiah, or of the gospel, commonly called ,among the Jews, dyt[h µlw[ , “the world to come;” that new heaven and earth wherein righteousness should dwell But they add, that ko>smov itself is used for heaven, Romans 4:13, To< klhrono>mon , — that “he should be the heir of the world;” ‘that is, of heaven, the world above.’ But this imagination is vain also. For Abraham’s being “heir of the world” is no more but his being the “father of many nations;” nor was there ever any other promise which the apostle should refer unto of his being heir of the world, but only that of his being the father of many nations, not of the Jews on]y, but of the Gentiles also; as the apostle explains it, Romans 4:8-12. Respect also may be had unto the promised Seed proceeding from him, who was to be the “heir of all things.”
That which they intend by his coming into the world, is what himself constantly calleth his leaving of the world, and going out of it. See John 13:1, 16:28, 17:11, 13: “I leave the world; I am no more in the world, but these are in the world.” This, therefore, cannot be his coming into the world. And this imagination is contrary, as unto the express words, so to the open design of the apostle; for as he declares his coming into the world to be the season wherein a body was fitted for him, so that which he had to do herein was what he had to do in this world, before his departure out of it, verse 12. Wherefore this figment is contrary unto common sense, the meaning of the words, the design of the place, and other express testimonies of Scripture; and is of no use, but to be an instance how men of corrupt minds can wrest the Scripture for their ends, unto their own destruction.
The general sense of the best expositors, ancient and modern, is, that by the coming of Christ into the world his incarnation is intended. See John 1:11, 3:16, 17, 19, 6:14, 9:4, 39, 11:27, 12:46, 16:28. The same with his “coming in the flesh,” his being “made flesh,” his being “manifest in the flesh;” for therein and thereby he came into the world.
Neither is there any weight in the objection of the Socinians unto this exposition of the words; namely, that the Lord Christ at his first coming in the flesh, and in his infancy, could not do the will of God, nor could these words be used of him. For, 1. His coming into the world, in the act of the assumption of our nature, was in obedience unto, and for the fulfilling of the word of God. For God sent him into the world, John 3:16. And “he came not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him,” John 6:38. 2. His doing the will of God is not confined unto any one single act or duty, but extends itself unto all the degrees and whole progress of what he did and suffered in compliance with the will of God, the foundation of the whole being laid in his incarnation.
But as these words were not verbally and literally spoken by him, being only a real declaration of his design and intention; so this expression of his coming into the world is not to be confined unto any one single act or duty, so as to exclude all others from being concerned therein. It hath respect unto all the solemn acts of the susception and discharge of his mediatory office for the salvation of the church. But if any shall rather judge that in this expression some single season and act of Christ is intended, it can be no other but his incarnation, and his coming into the world thereby; for this was the foundation of all that he did afterwards, and that whereby he was fitted for his whole work of mediation, as is immediately declared. And we may observe, — Obs. II. The Lord Christ had an infinite prospect of all that he yeas to do and suffer in the world, in the discharge of his office and undertaking. — He declared from the beginning his willingness unto the whole of it. And an eternal evidence it is of his love, as also of the justice of God in laying all our sins on him, seeing it was done by his own will and consent. FOURTHLY, The fourth thing in the words is, what he said. The substance of it is laid down, verse 5. Unto which the further explication is added, verses 6, 7; and the application of it unto the intention of the apostle in those that follow. The words are recorded, Psalm 40:6-8, being indited by the Holy Ghost in the name of Christ, as declarative of his will.
Of the first thing proposed there are two parts: First, What concerneth the sacrifices of the law. Secondly, What concerneth himself.
First, As unto what concerneth the sacrifices, there is, — 1. The expression of the subject spoken of, that is, hj;n]miW jb’z, ; which the apostle renders by zusi>a , “sacrifice and offering.” In the next verse, the one of them, namely zusi>a, is distributed into ha;m;j\w’ hl;wO[ ; which the apostle renders by oJlokautw>mata kai< peri< aJmarti>av, “burntofferings,” or “whole burnt-offerings” and “sacrifices for sin.” It is evident that the Holy Ghost in this variety of expressions compriseth all the sacrifices of the law that had respect unto the expiation of sin. And as unto all of them, their order, especial nature, and use, I have treated at large in my exercitations before the first volume of this Exposition (Exerc.24), whither the reader is referred. 2. Of these sacrifices it is affirmed, that “God would them not,” verse 5; and that “he had no pleasure in them,” verse 6. The first in the original is T;x]p’j; alo which the apostle renders by oujk ejqe>lhsav , “thou wouldest not.” We render it in the psalm, “thou didst not desire.” Åp’j; is “to will,” but always with desire, complacency, and delight. Psalm 51:8, “Behold, T;x]p’j; ,” “thou desirest, thou wilt,” or “art delighted with truth in the hidden part.” Verse 18, Åpoj]t’Aalo , “thou wouldest not,” “thou desirest not sacrifice.” Genesis 34:19, “He had delight in Jacob’s daughter.” <19E710> Psalm 147:10. So Åp,je , the noun, is “delight,” Psalm 1:2. The LXX. render it generally by ejqe>lw , and ze>lw , “to will;” as also the noun by ze>lhma . And they are of the same signification, “to will freely, voluntarily, and with delight.” But this sense the apostle doth transfer unto the other word, which he renders by eujdo>khsav , verse 6. In the psalm it is T;l]a;v; , “thou hast not required.’’ Eujdoke>w is “to rest in,” “to approve, “to delight in,” “to be pleased with.” So is it always used in the New Testament, whether spoken of God or men. See Matthew 3:17,12: 18, 17:5; Luke 3:22, 12:32; Romans 15:26,27; 1 Corinthians 1:21, 10:5; 2 Corinthians 5:8; Colossians 1:19, etc. Wherefore if we shall grant that the words used by the apostle be not exact versions of those used in the psalmist, as they are applied the one unto the other, yet it is evident that in both of them the full and exact meaning of both those used by the psalmist is declared; which is sufficient unto his purpose.
All the difficulty in the words may be reduced unto these two inquiries: (1.) In what sense it is affirmed that “God would not have those sacrifices,” that he “had no pleasure in them,” that “he rested not in them.” (2.) How was this made known, so as that it might be declared, as it is in this place. (1.) As unto the first of these we may observe, — [1.] That this is not spoken of the will of God as unto the institution and appointment of these sacrifices; for the apostle affirms that they were “offered according unto the law,” verse 8; namely, which God gave unto the people. God says, indeed, by the prophet unto the people, that “he spake not unto their fathers, nor commanded them in the day that he brought them out. of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices,” Jeremiah 7:22. But he speaks not absolutely as unto the things themselves, but unto their manner of the observance of them. [2.] It is not with respect unto the obedience of the people in their attendance unto them during the economy of the law; for God both required it strictly of them and approved of it in them, when duly performed. The whole law and prophets bear testimony hereunto. And it was the great injunction which he left with the people, when he ceased to grant any more immediate revelations of his will unto the church, Malachi 4:4. And the Lord Christ himself under the Judaical church did observe them. [3.] God doth frequently reject or disallow them in the people, as they were attended unto and performed by them. But this he did only in the case of their gross hypocrisy, and the two great evils wherewith it was accompanied. The first was, that they did not only prefer the outward observation of them before internal moral obedience, but trusted unto them unto the total neglect of that obedience. See Isaiah 1:12-17. And the other was, that they put their trust in them for righteousness and acceptance with God; about which he deals, Jeremiah 7. Yet neither was this the case under consideration in the psalm; for there is no respect had unto any miscarriages of the people about these sacrifices, but unto the sacrifices themselves.
Wherefore some say that the words are prophetical, and declare what the will of God would be after the coming of Christ in the flesh, and the offering of his sacrifice once for all. Then God would no more require them nor accept them. But yet neither is this suited unto the mind of the Holy Ghost. For, [1.] The apostle doth not prove by this testimony that they were to cease, but that they could not take away sin whilst they were in force. [2.] The reason given by the Lord Christ of his undertaking, is their insufficiency during their continuance according to the law. [3.] This revelation of the will of God made unto the church was actually true when it was made and given, or it was suited to lead them into a great mistake.
The mind of the Holy Ghost is plain enough, both in the testimony itself and in the improvement of it by the apostle. For the legal sacrifices are spoken of only with respect unto that end which the Lord Christ undertook to accomplish by his mediation. And this was the perfect, real expiation of sin, and the justification, sanctification, and eternal salvation of the church, with that perfect state of spiritual worship which wasordained for it in this world. All these things these sacrifices were appointed to prefigure and represent. But the nature and design of this prefiguration being dark and obscure, and the things signified being utterly hid from them, as unto their especial nature and the manner of their efficacy, many in all ages of the church expected them from these sacrifices; and they had a great appearance of being divinely ordained unto that end and purpose. Wherefore this is that, and that alone, with respect whereunto they are here rejected. God never appointed them unto this end, he never took pleasure in them with reference hereunto; they were insufficient, in the wisdom, holiness, and righteousness of God, unto any such purpose. Wherefore the sense of God concerning them as unto this end, is, that they were not appointed, not approved, not accepted for it. (2.) It may be inquired, how this mind and will of God concerning the refusal of these sacrifices unto this end might be known, so as that it should be here spoken of, as of a truth unquestionable in the church. For the words, “Thou wouldest not,” “Thou tookest no pleasure,’“ do not express a mere internal act of the divine will, but a declaration also of what is not well-pleasing unto God. How then was this declaration made? how came it to be known? I answer, — [1.] The words are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, considered as to be incarnate for the redemption of the church. As such, he was always in the bosom of the Father, participant of his counsels, especially of those which concerned the church, the children of men, Proverbs 8:22-24, etc. He was therefore always acquainted with all the thoughts and counsels of God concerning the ways and means of the expiation of sin, and so declared what he knew. [2.] As unto the penman of the psalm, the words were dictated unto him by immediate revelation: which if nothing had been spoken of it or intimated before, had been sufficient for the declaration of the will of God therein; for all revelations of that nature have a beginning when they were first made. But, — [3.] In, by, and together with the institution of all these legal sacrifices, God had from the beginning intimated unto the church that they were not the absolute, ultimate way for the expiation of sin, that he designed or would approve of. And this he did partly in the nature of the sacrifices themselves, which were no way competent or suited in themselves unto this end, it being “impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sin;” partly in giving various intimations first, and then express declaration of his will, that they were only prescribed for a season, and that a time would come when their observance should utterly cease, which the apostle proves, chapters 7 and 8; and partly by evidencing that they were all but types and figures of good things to come, as we have at large declared. By these, and sundry other ways of the like kind, God had, in the institution and command of these sacrifices themselves, sufficiently manifested that he did neither design them, nor require them, nor approve of them, as unto this end of the expiation of sin. Wherefore there is in the words no new revelation absolutely, but only a more express declaration of that will and counsel of God which he had by various ways given intimation of before. And we may observe, — Obs. III. No sacrifices of the law, not all of them together, were a means for the expiation of sin, suited unto the glory of God or necessities of the souls of men. — From the first appointment of sacrifices, immediately after the entrance of sin and the giving of the promise, the observation of them in one kind or another spread itself over the whole earth. The Gentiles retained them by tradition, helped on by some conviction on a guilty conscience that by some way or other atonement must be made for sin. On the Jews they were imposed by law. There are no footsteps of light or testimony that those of the former sort, namely, the Gentiles, did ever retain any sense of the true reason and end of their original institution, and the practice of mankind thereon; which was only the confirmation of the first promise by a prefiguration of the means and way of its accomplishment. The church of Israel being carnal also, had very much lost the understanding and knowledge hereof. Hence both sorts looked for the real expiation of sin, the pardon of it, and the taking away of its punishment, by the offering of those sacrifices. As for the Gentiles, “God suffered them to walk in their own ways, and winked at the time of their ignorance.” But as unto the Jews, he had before variously intimated his mind concerning them, and at length by the mouth of David, in the person of Christ, absolutely declared their insufficiency, with his disapprobation of them, as unto the end which they in their minds applied them unto.
Obs. IV. Our utmost diligence, with the most sedulous improvement of the light and wisdom of faith, is necessary in our search into and inquiry after the mind and will of God, in the revelation he makes of them. — The apostle in this epistle proves by all sorts of arguments, taken from the scriptures of the Old Testament, from many other things that God had done and spoken, and from the nature of these institutions themselves, as here also by the express words of the Holy Ghost, that these sacrifices of the law, which were of God’s own appointment, were never designed nor approved by him as the way and means of the eternal expiation of sin.
And he doth not deal herein with these Hebrews on his apostolical authority, and by new evangelical revelation, as he did with the church of the Gentiles; but pleads the undeniable truth of what he asserts from those direct records and testimonies which themselves owned and embraced.
Howbeit, although the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Prophets, were read unto them and among them continually, as they are unto this day, they neither understood nor do yet understand the things that are so plainly revealed in them. And as the great reason hereof is the veil of blindness and darkness that is on their minds, 2 Corinthians 3:13,14; so in all their search into the Scripture they are indeed supinely slothful and negligent. For they cleave alone unto the outward husk or shell of the letter, utterly despising the mysteries of truth contained therein. And so it is at present with the most of men, whose search into the mind of God, especially as unto what concerns his worship, keeps them in ignorance and contempt of it all their days.
Obs. V. The constant use of sacrifices to signify those things which they could not effect or really exhibit unto the worshippers, was a great part of the bondage that the church was kept in under the old testament. — And hereon, as those who were carnal bowed down their backs unto the burden, and their necks unto the yoke, so those who had received the Spirit of adoption, did continually pant and groan after the coming of him in and by whom all was to be fulfilled. So was the law their schoolmaster unto Christ.
Obs. VI. God may in his wisdom appoint and accept of ordinances and duties unto one end, which he will refuse and reject when they are applied unto another. — So he doth plainly in these words those sacrifices which in other places he most strictly enjoins. How express, how multiplied are his commands for good works, and our abounding in them! yet when they are made the matter of our righteousness before him, they are as unto that end, namely, of our justification, rejected and disapproved.
Secondly, The first part of verse 5 declares the will of God concerning the sacrifices of the law. The latter contains the supply that God in his wisdom and grace made of the defect and insufficiency of these sacrifices.
And this is not any thing that should help, assist, or make them effectual, but somewhat brought in, in opposition unto them, and for their removal.
This he expresseth in the last clause of this verse: “But a body hast thou prepared me.” The adversative de> , “but,” declares that the way designed of God for this end was of another nature than those sacrifices were. But yet this way must be such as should not render those sacrifices utterly useless from their first institution; which would reflect on the wisdom of God by whom they were appointed. For if God did never approve of them, never delight in them, unto what end were they ordained?
Wherefore, although the real way of the expiation of sin be in itself of another nature than those sacrifices were, yet was it such as those sacrifices were meet to prefigure and represent unto the faith of the church. The church was taught by them that without a sacrifice there could be no atonement made for sin; wherefore the way of our deliverance must be by a sacrifice. ‘It is so,’ saith the Lord Christ; ‘and therefore the first thing God did in the preparation of this new way, was the preparation of a body for me, which was to be offered in sacrifice.’ And in the antithesis, intimated in this adversative conjunction, respect is had unto the will of God. As sacrifices were that which he would not unto this end, so this preparation of the body of Christ was that which he would, which he delighted in and was well pleased withal. So the whole of the work of Christ and the effects of it are expressly referred unto this will of God, verses 9, 10.
And we must first speak unto the apostle’s rendering of these words out of the psalmist. They are in the original, yLi t;yriK; µyin’z]a’ , “mine ears hast thou digged,” “bored,” “prepared.” All sorts of critical writers and expositors have so labored in the resolution of this difficulty, that there is little to be added unto the industry of some, and it were endless to confute the mistakes of others. I shall therefore only speak briefly unto it, so as to manifest the oneness of the sense in both places. And some things must be premised thereunto: — 1. That the reading of the words in the psalm is incorrupt, and they are the precise words of the Holy Ghost. Though of late years sundry persons have used an unwarrantable boldness in feigning various lections in the Hebrew text, yet none of any judgment has attempted to conjecture at any word that might be thought to be used in the room of any one of them.
And as for those which some have thought the LXX. might possibly mistake, that signify “a body,” as h,nd]ni , — which sometimes signifies “a body” in the Chaldee dialect, — or hY;wiG] , there is in neither of them any the least analogy unto µyin’z]a’ , so that they are ridiculously suggested. 2. It doth not seem probable unto me that the LXX. did ever translate these words as they are now extant in all the copies of that translation, Sw~ma de< kathrti>sw moi . For, (1.) It is not a translation of the original words, but an interpretation and exposition of the sense and meaning of them; which was no part of their design. (2.) If they made this exposition, they did so either by chance, as it were, or from a right understanding of the mystery contained in them. That they should be cast upon it by a mere conjecture, is altogether improbable; and that they understood the mystery couched in that metaphorical expression (without which no account can be given of the version of the words) will not be granted by them who know any thing of those translators or their translation. (3.) There was of old a different reading in that translation. For instead of sw~ma , “a body,” some copies have wjti>a , “the ears;” which the Vulgar Latin follows: an evidence that a change had been made in that translation, to comply with the words used by the apostle. 8. The words, therefore, in this place are the words whereby the apostle expressed the sense and meaning of the Holy Ghost in those used in the psalmist, or that which was intended in them. He did not take them from the translation of the LXX., but used them himself, to express the sense of the Hebrew text. For although we should not adhere precisely unto the opinion that all the quotations out of the Old Testament in the-New, which agree in words with the present translation of the LXX., were by the scribes of that translation transferred out of the New Testament into it, — which yet is far more probable than the contrary opinion, that the words of the translation are made use of in the New Testament, even when they differ from the original, — yet sundry things herein are certain and acknowledged; as, (1.) That the penmen of the New Testament do not oblige themselves unto that translation, but in many places do precisely render the words of the original text, where that translation differs from it. (2.) That they do oftentimes express the sense of the testimony which they quote in words of their own, neither agreeing with that translation nor exactly answering the original Hebrew. (3.) That sundry passages have been unquestionably taken out of the New Testament, and inserted into that translation; which I have elsewhere proved by undeniable instances. And I no way doubt but it hath so fallen out in this place, where no account can be given of the translation of the LXX. as the words now are in it. Wherefore, — 4. This is certain, that the sense intended by the psalmist and that expressed by the apostle are the same, or unto the same purpose. And their agreement is both plain and evident. That which is spoken of is an act of God the Father towards the Son. The end of it is, that the Son might be fit and meet to do the will of God in the way of obedience. So it is expressed in the text, “Mine ears hast thou bored,” or, “A body hast thou prepared me ...... Then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” This is the sole end why God so acted towards him. What this was, is so expressed in the psalmist, “Mine ears hast thou bored,” with a double figure: (1.) A metaphor from the ear, wherewith we hear the commands we are to obey. Obedience being our compliance with the outward commands of God, and the ear being the only means of our receiving those commands, there is nothing more frequent in the Scripture than to express obedience by “hearing” and “hearkening,” as is known. Wherefore the ascription of ears unto the Lord Christ by an act of God, is the preparation of such a state and nature for him as wherein he should be meet to yield obedience unto him. (2.) By a synecdoche, wherein the part is put for the whole. In his divine nature alone it was impossible that the Lord Christ should come to do the will of God in the way whereby he was to do it. Wherefore God prepared another nature for him, which is expressed synecdochically, by the ears for the whole body; and that significantly, because as it is impossible that any one should have ears of any use but by virtue of his having a body, so the ears are that part of the body by which alone instruction unto obedience, the thing aimed at, is received. This is that which is directly expressed of him, Isaiah 50:4,5, “He wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned. The Lord God hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious;” or, ‘I was obedient.’ And so it is all one in what sense you take the word hr;K; ; whether in the more common and usual, to “dig” or “bore, or in that whereunto it is sometimes applied, to “fit and perfect.”
For I do not judge there is any allusion in the expression unto the law of boring the ear of the servant that refused to make use of his liberty at the year of release. Nor is the word used in that case hr;K; , but [x’r; , Exodus 21:6. But it respects the framing of the organ of hearing, which is as it were bored; and the internal sense, in readiness unto obedience, is expressed by the framing of the outward instrument of hearing, that we may learn to obey thereby.
Wherefore this is, and no other can be, the sense of the words in the psalmist, namely, that God the Father did so order things towards Jesus Christ, that he should have a nature wherein he might be free and able to yield obedience unto the will of God; with an intimation of the quality of it, in having ears to hear, which belong only unto a body.
This sense the apostle expresseth in more plain terms now, after the accomplishment of what before was only declared in prophecy; and thereby the veil which was upon divine revelations under the old testament is taken away.
There is therefore nothing remaining but that we give an exposition of these words of the apostle, as they contain the sense of the Holy Ghost in the psalm. And two things we must inquire into: 1. What is meant by this “body.” 2. How God “prepared” it. 1. A “body” is here a synecdochical expression of the human nature of Christ. So is the “flesh” taken, where he is said to be “made flesh;” and the “flesh and blood” whereof he was partaker. For the general end of his having this body was, that he might therein and thereby yield obedience, or do the will of God; and the especial end of it was, that he might have somewhat to offer in sacrifice unto God. But neither of these can be confined unto his body alone. For it is the soul, the other essential part of human nature, that is the principle of obedience. Nor was the body of Christ alone offered in sacrifice unto God. He “made his soul an offering for sin,” Isaiah 53:10; which was typified by the life that was in the blood of the sacrifice. Wherefore it is said that “he offered himself unto God,” Hebrews 9:14, Ephesians 5:2; that is, his whole entire human nature, soul and body, in their substance, in all their faculties and powers.
But the apostle both here and verse 10 mentions only the body itself, for the reasons ensuing: (1.) To manifest that this offering of Christ was to be by death, as was that of the sacrifices of old; and this the body alone was subject unto. (2.) Because, as the covenant was to be confirmed by this offering, it was to be by blood, which is contained in the body alone, and the separation of it from the body carries the life along with it. (3.) To testify that his sacrifice was visible and substantial; not an outward appearance of things, as some have fancied, but such as truly answered the real bloody sacrifices of the law. (4.) To show the alliance and cognation between him that sanctifieth by his offering, and them that are sanctified thereby: or that because “the children are partakers of flesh and blood he also took part of the same,” that he might taste of death for them. For these and the like reasons doth the apostle mention the human nature of Christ under the name of a “body” only, as also to comply with the figurative expression of it in the psalm. And they do what lies in them to overthrow the principal foundation of the faith of the church, who would wrest these words unto a new ethereal body given him after his ascension, as do the Socinians. 2. Concerning this body, it is affirmed that God prepared it for him, “Thou hast prepared for me:” that is, God hath done it, even God the Father; for unto him are these words spoken, “I come to do thy will, O God; a body hast thou prepared me.” The coming of Christ, the Son of God, into the world, his coming in the flesh by the assuming of our nature, was the effect of the mutual counsel of the Father and the Son. The Father proposed to him what was his will, what was his design, what he would have done. This proposal is here repeated, as unto what was negative in it, which includes the opposite positive: “Sacrifices and burnt-offerings thou wouldest not have;” but that which he would, was the obedience of the Son unto his will. This proposal the Son closeth withal: “Lo,” saith he, “I come.” But all things being originally in the hand of the Father, the provision of things necessary unto the fulfilling of the will of God is left unto him. Among those the principal was, that the Son should have a body prepared for him, that so he might have somewhat of his own to offer.
Wherefore the preparation of it is in a peculiar manner assigned unto the Father: “A body hast thou prepared me.” And we may observe, that, — Obs. VII. The supreme contrivance of the salvation of the church is in a peculiar manner ascribed unto the person of the Father. — His will, his grace, his wisdom, his good pleasure, the purpose that he purposed in himself, his love, his sending of his Son, are everywhere proposed as the eternal springs of all acts of power, grace and goodness, tending unto the salvation of the church. And therefore doth the Lord Christ on all occasions declare that he came to do his will, to seek his glory, to make known his name, that the praise of his grace might be exalted. And we through Christ do believe in God, even the Father, when we assign unto him the glory of all the holy properties of his nature, as acting originally in the contrivance and for the effecting of our salvation.
Obs. VIII. The furniture of the Lord Christ (though he was the Son, and in his divine person the Lord of all) unto the discharge of his work of mediation was the peculiar act of the Father. — He prepared him a body; he anointed him with the Spirit; it pleased him that all fullness should dwell in him. From him he received all grace, power, consolation. Although the human nature was the nature of the Son of God, not of the Father, (a body prepared for him, not for the Father,) yet was it the Father who prepared that nature, who filled it with grace, who strengthened, acted, and supported it in its whole course of obedience.
Obs. IX. Whatever God designs, appoints, and calls any unto, he will provide for them all that is needful unto the duties of obedience whereunto they are so appointed and called. — As he prepared a body for Christ, so he will provide gifts, abilities, and faculties suitable unto their work, for those whom he calleth unto it. Others must provide as well as they can for themselves.
But we must yet inquire more particularly into the nature of this preparation of the body of Christ, here ascribed unto the Father. And it may he considered two ways: — (1.) In the designation and contrivance of it. So “preparation” is sometimes used for “predestination,” or the resolution for the effecting any thing that is future in its proper season, Isaiah 30:33; Matthew 20:23; Romans 9:23; 1 Corinthians 2:9. In this sense of the word God had prepared a body for Christ; he had in the eternal counsel of his will determined that he should have it in the appointed time. So he was “foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for us,” 1 Peter 1:20. (2.) In the actual effecting, ordering, and creating of it, that it might be fitted and suited unto the work that it was ordained unto.
In the former sense the body itself is alone the object of this preparation. “A body hast thou prepared me;” that is, ‘designed for me.’ The latter sense compriseth the use of the body also; it is fitted for its work. This latter sense it is that is proper unto this place; only it is spoken of by the psalmist in a prophetical style, wherein things certainly future are expressed as already, performed. For the word signifies such a preparation as whereby it is made actually fit and meet for the end it is designed unto.
And therefore it is variously rendered, “to fit, to adapt, to perfect, to adorn, to make meet,” with respect unto some especial end. ‘Thou hast adapted a body unto my work; fitted and suited a human nature unto that I have to perform in it and by it.’ A body it must be; yet not every body, nay, not any body brought forth by carnal generation, according to the course of nature, could effect or was fit for the work designed unto it. But God prepared, provided such a body for Christ, as was fitted and adapted ‘unto all that he had to do in it. And this especial manner of its preparation was an act of infinite wisdom and grace. Some instances thereof may be mentioned; as, — [1.] He prepared him such a body, such a human nature, as might be of the same nature with ours, for whom he was to accomplish his work therein.
For it was necessary that it should be cognate and allied unto ours, that he might be meet to act on our behalf, and to suffer in our stead. He did not form him a body out of the dust of the earth, as he did that of Adam, whereby he could not have been of the same race of mankind with us; nor merely out of nothing, as he created the angels, whom he was not to save.
See Hebrews 2:14-16, and the exposition thereon. He took our flesh and blood, proceeding from the loins of Abraham. [2.] He so prepared it as that it should be no way subject unto that depravation and pollution that came on our whole nature by sin. This could not have been done had his body been prepared by carnal generation, the way and means of conveying the taint of original sin which befell our nature, unto all individual persons; for this would have rendered him every way unmeet for his whole work of mediation. See Luke 1:35; Hebrews 7:26. [3.] He prepared him a body consisting of flesh and blood, which might be offered as a real substantial sacrifice, and wherein he might suffer for sin, in his offering to make atonement for it.’ Nor could the sacrifices of old, which were real, bloody, and substantial, prefigure that which should be only metaphorical and in appearance. The whole evidence of the wisdom of God in the institution of the sacrifices of the law depends on this, that Christ was to have a body consisting of flesh and blood, wherein he might answer all that was prefigured by them. [4.] It was such a body as was animated with a living, rational soul. Had it been only a body, it might have suffered as did the beasts under the law, — from which no act of obedience was required, only they were to suffer what was done unto them. But in the sacrifice of the body of Christ, that which was principally respected, and whereon the whole efficacy of it did depend, was his obedience unto God. For he was not to be offered by others, but he was to offer himself, in obedience unto the will of God, Hebrews 9:14; Ephesians 5:2. And the principles of all obedience lie alone in the powers and faculties of the rational soul. [5.] This body and soul were obnoxious unto all the sorrows and sufferings which our nature is liable unto, and we had deserved, as they were penal, tending unto death. Hence was he meet to suffer in our stead the same things which we should have done. Had they been exempted by special privilege from what our nature is liable unto, the whole work of our redemption by his blood had been frustrated. [6.] This body or human nature, thus prepared for Christ, was exposed unto all sorts of temptations from outward causes. But yet it was so sanctified by the perfection of grace, and fortified by the fullness of the Spirit dwelling therein, as that it was not possible it should be touched with the least taint or guilt of sin. And this also was absolutely necessary unto the work whereunto it was designed, 1 Peter 2:22; Hebrews 7:26. [7.] This body was liable unto death; which being the sentence and sanction of the law with respect unto the first and all following sins, (all and every one of them,) was to be undergone actually by him who was to be our deliverer, Hebrews 2:14,15. Had it not died, death would have borne rule over all unto eternity; but in the death thereof it was swallowed up in victory, 1 Corinthians 15:55-57. [8.] As it was subject unto death, and died actually, so it was meet to be raised again from death. And herein consisted the great pledge and evidence that our dead bodies may be and shall be raised again unto a blessed immortality. So it became the foundation of all our faith, as unto things eternal, 1 Corinthians 15:17-23. [9.] This body and soul being capable of a real separation, and being actually separated by death, though not for any long continuance, yet no less truly and really than they who have been dead a thousand years, a demonstration was given therein of an active subsistence of the soul in a state of separation from the body. As it was with the soul of Christ when he was dead, so shall it be with our souls in the same state. He was alive with God and unto God when his body was in the grave; and so shall our souls be. [10.] This body was visibly taken up into heaven, and there resides; which, considering the ends thereof, is the great encouragement of faith, and the life of our hope.
These are but some of the many instances that may be given of the divine wisdom in so preparing a body for Christ as that it might be fitted and adapted unto the work which he had to do therein. And we may observe, that, — Obs. X. Not only the love and grace of God in sending his Son are continually to be admired and glorified, but the acting of this infinite wisdom in fitting and preparing his human nature so as to render it every way meet unto the work which it was designed for, ought to be the especial object of our holy contemplation. — But having treated hereof distinctly in a peculiar discourse unto that purpose, I shall not here again insist upon it.
The last thing observable in this verse is, that this preparation of the body of Christ is ascribed unto God, even the Father, unto whom he speaks these words, “A body hast thou prepared me.” As unto the operation in the production of the substance of it, and the forming its structure, it was the peculiar and immediate work of the Holy Ghost, Luke 1:35. This work I have at large elsewhere declared. Wherefore it is an article of faith, that the formation of the human nature of Christ in the womb of the Virgin was the peculiar act of the Holy Ghost. The holy taking of this nature unto himself, the assumption of it to be his own nature by a subsistence in his person, the divine nature assuming the human in the person of the Son, was his own act alone. Yet was the preparation of this body the work of the Father in a peculiar manner; it was so in the infinitely wise, authoritative contrivance and ordering of it, his counsel and will therein being acted by the immediate power of the Holy Ghost. The Father prepared it in the authoritative disposition of all things; the Holy Ghost actually wrought it; and he himself assumed it. There was no distinction of time in these distinct actings of the holy persons of the Trinity in this matter, but only a disposition of order in their operation.
For in the same instant of time, this body was prepared by the Father, wrought by the Holy Ghost, and assumed by himself to be his own. And the actings of the distinct persons being all the actings of the same divine nature, understanding, love, and power, they differ not fundamentally and radically, but only terminatively, with respect unto the work wrought and effected. And we may observe, that, — Obs. XI. The ineffable but yet distinct operations of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in, about, and towards the human nature assumed by the Son, are, as an uncontrollable evidence of their distinct subsistence in the same individual divine essence, so a guidance unto faith as unto all their distinct actings towards us in the application of the work of redemption unto our souls. — For their actings towards the members is in all things conform unto their actings towards the Head; and our faith is to be directed towards them according as they act their love and grace distinctly towards us.
Ver. 6, 7. — “In burnt-offerings and [sacrifices ] for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.”
Two things are asserted in the foregoing verse in general: 1. The rejection of sacrifices for the end of the complete expiation of sin; 2. The provision of a new way or means for the accomplishment of that end. Both these things are spoken unto apart and more distinctly in these two verses; the former, verse 6; the latter, verse 7: which we must also open, that they may not appear a needless repetition of what was before spoken.
Ver. 6. He resumes and further declares what was in general before affirmed, verse 5, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not.” Hereof we have yet a further confirmation and explication; which it stood in need of.
For notwithstanding that general assertion, two things may yet be inquired about: 1. What were those “sacrifices and offerings which God would not?” for they being of various sorts, some of them only may be intended, seeing they are only mentioned in general. 2. What is meant by that expression, that “God would them not,” seeing it is certain that they were appointed and commanded by him?
Wherefore our Lord Jesus Christ, whose words in the psalm these are, doth not only reassert what was spoken before in general, but also gives a more particular account of what sacrifices they were which he intended.
And two things he declares concerning them: — 1. That they were not such sacrifices as men had found out and appointed.
Such the world was filled withal; which were offered unto devils, and which the people of Israel themselves were addicted unto. Such were their sacrifices unto Baal and Moloch, which God so often complaineth against and detesteth. But they were such sacrifices as were appointed and commanded by the law. Hence he expresseth them by their legal names, as the apostle immediately takes notice, — they were “offered by the law,” verse 8. 2. He shows what were those sacrifices appointed by the law which in an especial manner he intended; and they were those which were appointed for the legal and typical expiation of sin. The general names of them in the original are hj;n]miW jb’z, . The first was the general name of all victims or sacrifices by blood; the other of all offerings of the fruits of the earth, as flour, oil, wine, and the like. For herein respect is had unto the general design of the context, which is the removal of all legal sacrifices and offerings, of what sort soever, by the coming and office of Christ. In compliance therewith they are expressed under these two general names, which comprehend them all. But as unto the especial argument in hand, it concerns only the bloody sacrifices offered for the atonement of sin, which were of the first sort only, or µyjib;z, . And this kind of sacrifices, whose incompetency to expiate sin he declares, is referred unto two heads: — (1.) “Burnt-offerings.” In the Hebrew it is hl;wO[ , in the singular number; which is usually rendered by oJlokautw>mata, in the plural. And sacrifices of this kind were called twOl[o , or “ascensions,” from their adjunct, the rising up or ascending of the smoke of the sacrifices in their burning on the altar; a pledge of that sweet savor which should arise unto God above from the sacrifice of Christ here below. And sometimes they are called µyViai , or “firings,” from the way and means of their consumption on the altar, which was by fire. And this respects both the dymiT’ , or the continual sacrifice, morning and evening, for the whole congregation, which was a burnt-offering, and all those which on especial occasions were offered with respect unto the expiation of sin. (2.) The other sort is expressed by taF;j’ ; which the Greek renders by peri< aJmarti>av , “for” or “concerning sin.” For af;j; the verb in Kal, signifieth “to sin;” and in Piel, “to expiate sin.” Hence the substantive, ha;f;j’ , is used in both these senses; and where it is to be taken in either of them, the circumstances of the text do openly declare. Where it is taken in the latter sense, the Greek renders it by peri< aJuarti>av , “a sacrifice for sin;” which expression is retained by the apostle, Romans 8:3, and in this place. And the sacrifices of this kind were of two sorts, or this kind of sacrifices had a double use. For, [1.] The great anniversary sacrifice of expiation for the sins of the whole congregation, Leviticus 16, was a ha;F;j’ , or peri< aJmarti>av, “a sin offering.” [2.] The same kind of offering was also appointed unto and for particular persons, who had contracted the guilt of particular sins, Leviticus 4. This sacrifice, therefore, was appointed both for the sins of the whole congregation, namely, all their sins, of what sort soever, Leviticus 16:21, and the especial sins of particular persons. The one offering of Christ was really to effect what by all of them was represented.
Concerning all these sacrifices it is added, Oujk eujdo>khsav , — “Thou hadst no pleasure.” In opposition hereunto, God gives testimony from heaven concerning the Lord Christ and his undertaking, “This is my beloved Son, ejn w=| eujdo>khsa ,” — “in whom I am well pleased,” Matthew 3:17, 17:5. See Isaiah 42:1; Ephesians 1:6. This is the great antithesis between the law and the gospel: “Sacrifices and offerings for sin oujk eujdo>khsav :” “This is my beloved Son, ejn w=| eujdo>khsa .”
The word signifies “to approve of with delight,” “to rest in with satisfaction;” the exercise of eujdoki>a, the divine good-will. The original word in the psalm is T;l]a;v; which signifies “to ask, to seek, to inquire, to require.” Wherefore, as we observed before, although the apostle doth directly express the mind and sense of the Holy Ghost in the whole testimony, yet he doth not exactly render the words in their precise signification, word for word. Thus he renders T;x]p’j; by hjqe>lhsav , and T;l]a;v; by eujdo>khsav , when an exact translation would have required the contrary application of the words But the meaning is the same, and the two words used by the psalmist are exactly represented in these used by the apostle.
There are two reasons of this seeming repetition, “Thou wouldest not,” “Thou hadst no pleasure:” 1. A repetition of the same words, or words almost of the same signification, about the same subject, signifies the determinate certainty of the removal of these sacrifices, with the disappointment and ruin of them who should continue to put their trust in them. 2. Whereas there were two things pretended unto in the behalf of these sacrifices and offerings; first, their institution by God himself; and, secondly, his acceptance of them, or being well pleased with them; one of these words is peculiarly applied unto the former, the other unto the latter. God did neither institute them, nor ever accepted of them, unto this end of the expiation of sin, and the salvation of the church thereby. And we may observe, — Obs. XII. It is the will of God that the church should take especial notice of this sacred truth, that nothing can expiate or take away sin but the blood of Christ alone. — Hence is the vehemency of the rejection of all other means in the repetition of these words. And it is necessary for us so to apprehend his mind, considering how prone we are to look after other ways of the expiation of sin and justification before God. See Romans 10:3,4.
Obs. XIII. Whatever may be the use or efficacy of any ordinances of worship, yet if they are employed or trusted unto for such ends as God hath not designed them unto, he accepts not of our persons in them, nor approves of the things themselves. — Thus he declares himself concerning the most solemn institutions of the old testament. And those under the new have been no less abused in this way than those of old.
Ver. 7. — “Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.”
This is the close of the testimony used by the apostle out of the psalmist, which in the next verses he interprets and makes application of unto his purpose. And it contains the second branch of the antithesis that he insists on. The Lord Christ having declared the will of God, and what God said unto him concerning legal sacrifices, and their insufficiency unto the expiation of sin and the salvation of the church, he expresseth his own mind, will, and design, unto God the Father thereon. For it was the will and grace of God that this great work should be wrought, however he disapproved of legal sacrifices as the means thereof. For there is herein represented unto us as it were a consultation between the Father and the Son with respect unto the way and means of the expiation of sin, and the salvation of the church.
In the words we may consider, 1. How the Son expressed his mind in this matter: “He saith,” “I said.” 2. When or on what consideration he so expressed himself; it was then: “Then I said.” 3. A remark put upon what he said, in the word “Behold.” 4. What he undertakes, or tenders himself to do in what he said; it was to do the will of God: “I come to do thy will,” as unto that work and end with respect whereunto sacrifices were rejected. 5. The warranty that he had for this undertaking; it was no more than what the Holy Ghost had before left on record in the Scripture: “In the volume of the book it is written of me;” for these words do represent the mind and will of Christ upon his actual undertaking of his work, or his coming into the world, when many prophecies and divine predictions had gone before concerning it. 1. The expression of his mind is in that word ei+pon , “I said.” There is no necessity, as was before observed, that these very words should at any one season have been spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ. The meaning is, ‘This is my resolution, this is the frame of my mind and will.’ The representation of our mind, will, and desires, unto God, is our speaking to him. He needs not our words unto that end; nor absolutely do we so ourselves, upon the account of his omniscience. However, this is the work that the Lord Christ engaged his truth and faithfulness to undertake. And in these words, “I said,” he engageth himself in the work now proposed unto him. Hereon, whatever difficulties afterwards arose, whatever he was to do or suffer, there was nothing in it but what he had before solemnly engaged unto God.
And we ought, in like manner, to be faithful in all the engagements that we make to him and for him. “Surely,” saith he, they are my people, children that will not lie.” 2. There is the season wherein he thus said: to>te , “then,” or “thereon.”
For it may respect either the order of the time, or the stating of the case in hand. First, it may respect an order of time. He said, “Sacrifices and burntofferings thou wouldest not have. Then said I.” But it is, as I judge, better extended unto the whole case in hand. When things were come to this pass; when all the church of God’s elect were under the guilt of sin, and the curse of the law thereon; when there was no hope for them in themselves, nor in or by any divine institution; when all things were at a loss, as unto our recovery and salvation; then did Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in infinite wisdom, love, and grace, interpose himself in our behalf, in our stead, to do, answer, and perform, all that God, in infinite wisdom, holiness, and righteousness, required unto that end. And we may observe, that — Obs. XIV. There is a signal glory put upon the undertaking of Christ to make reconciliation for the church by the sacrifice of himself. 3. This undertaking of Christ is signalized by the remark that is put on the declaration of it, jIdou> , “Behold.” A glorious spectacle it was, to God, to angels, and to men. To God, as it was filled with the highest effects of infinite goodness, wisdom, and grace; which all shone forth in their greatest elevation and were glorified therein. It was so unto angels, as that whereon their confirmation and establishment in glory did depend, Ephesians 1:10; which therefore they endeavored with fear and reverence to look into, 1 Peter 1:12. “And as unto men, that is, the church of the elect, nothing could be so glorious in their sight, nothing so desirable. By this call of Christ, “Behold, I come,” the eyes of all creatures in heaven and earth ought to be fixed on him, to behold the glorious work he had undertaken, and the accomplishment of it. 4. There is what he thus proposed himself for, saying, “Behold me.” (1.) This in general is expressed by himself, “I come.” This coming of Christ, what it was and wherein it did consist, was declared before. It was by assuming the body that was prepared for him. This was the foundation of the whole work he had to do, wherein he came forth like the rising sun, with light in his wings, or as a giant rejoicing to run a race.
The faith of the old testament was, that he was thus to come: and this is the life of the new, that he is come. They by whom this is denied do overthrow the faith of the gospel. This is the spirit of antichrist,1 John 4:1-3. And this may be done two ways: [1.] Directly and expressly; [2.] By just consequence. Directly it is done by them who deny the reality of his human nature, as many did of old, affirming that he had on!y an ethereal, aerial, or phantastical body; for if he came not in the flesh, he is not come at all. So also it is by them who deny the divine person of Christ, and his pre-existence therein, before the assumption of the human nature; for they deny that these are the words of him when resolved, and spoken before his coming. He that did not exist before in the divine nature, could not promise to come in the human. And indirectly it is denied by all those who, either in doctrines or practices, deny the ends of his coming; and they are many, — which I shall not now mention.
It may be objected against this fundamental truth, ‘That if the Son of God would undertake this work of reconciliation between God and man, why did he not do the will of God by his mighty power and grace, and not by this way of coming in the flesh, which was attended with all dishonor, reproaches, sufferings, and death itself.’ But besides what I have at large elsewhere discoursed concerning the necessity and suitableness of this way of his coming unto the manifestation of all the glorious properties of the nature of God, I shall only say, that God, and he alone, knew what was necessary unto the accomplishment of his will; and if it might have been otherwise effected, he would have spared his only Son, and not have given him up unto death. (2.) The end for which he thus promiseth to come, is to do the will of God: “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.”
The will of God is taken two ways: First, for his eternal purpose and design, called “the counsel of his will,” Ephesians 1:11; and most commonly his “will” itself, — the will of God as unto what he will do, or cause to be done. Secondly, for the declaration of his will and pleasure as unto what he will have us to do in a way of duty and obedience; that is, the rule of our obedience. It is the will of God in the former sense that is here intended; as is evident from the next verse, where it is said that “by this will of God we are sanctified;” that is, our sins were expiated according to the will of God. But neither is the other sense absolutely excluded; for the Lord Christ came so to fulfill the will of God’s purpose, as that we may be enabled to fulfill the will of his command. Yea, and he himself had a command from God to lay down his life for the accomplishment of this work.
Wherefore this will of God, which Christ came to fulfill, is that which elsewhere is expressed by eujdoki>a , pro>qesiv , boulh< tou~ zelh>matov , Ephesians 1:5,11 etc.; — his “good pleasure,” his” purpose, the “counsel of his will,” his “good pleasure which he purposed in himself;” that is, freely, without any cause or reason taken from us, to call, justify, sanctify, and save to the uttermost, or to bring them unto eternal glory.
This he had purposed from eternity, to the praise of the glory of his grace.
How this might be effected and accomplished, God had hid in his own bosom from the beginning of the world, Ephesians 3:8,9; so as that it was beyond the wisdom and indagation of all angels and men to make a discovery of. Howbeit, even from the beginning he declared that such a work he had graciously designed; and he gave in the first promise, and otherwise, some obscure intimations of the nature of it, for a foundation of the faith in them that were called. Afterwards God was pleased, in his sovereign authority over the church, for their good, and unto his own glory, to make a representation of this whole work in the institutions of the law, especially in the sacrifices thereof. But hereon the church began to think (at least many of them did so) that those sacrifices themselves were to be the only means of accomplishing this will of God, in the expiation of sin, with the salvation of the church. But God had now, by various ways and means, witnessed unto the church that indeed he never appointed them unto any such end, nor would rest in them; and the church itself found by experience that they would never pacify conscience, and that the strict performance of them was a yoke and burden. In this state of things, when the fullness of time was come, the glorious counsels of God, namely, of the Father, Son, and Spirit, brake forth with light, like the sun in its strength from under a cloud, in the tender made of himself by Jesus Christ unto the Father, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God.” This, this is the way, the only way, whereby the will of God might be accomplished. Herein were all the riches of divine wisdom displayed, all the treasures of grace laid open, all shadows and clouds dispelled, and the open door of salvation evidenced unto all. (3.) This will of God Christ came to do, tou~ poih~sai, to effect, “to establish and perfectly to fulfill it.” How he did so the apostle fully declareth in this epistle. He did it in the whole work of his mediation, from the susception of our nature in the womb, unto what he doth in his supreme agency in heaven at the right hand of God. He did all things to accomplish this eternal purpose of the will of God.
This seems to me the first sense of the place. Howbeit I would not, as I said before, exclude the former mentioned also; for our Lord in all that he did was the servant of the Father, and received especial command for all that he did. “This commandment,” saith he, “have I received of my ]Father.” Hence in this sense also he came to do the will of God. He fulfilled the will of his purpose, by obedience unto the will of his command. Hence it is added in the psalm, that he “delighted to do the will of God;” and that “his law was in the midst of his bowels.” His delight in the will of God, as unto the laying down of his life at the command of God, was necessary unto this doing of his will. And we may observe, — Obs. XV. The foundation of the whole glorious work of the salvation of the church was laid in the sovereign will, pleasure, and grace of God, even the Father. Christ came only to do his will.
Obs. XVI. The coming of Christ in the flesh was, in the wisdom, righteousness, and holiness of God, necessary to fulfill his will, that we might be saved unto his glory.
Obs. XVII. The fundamental motive unto the Lord Christ, in his undertaking the work of mediation, was the will and glory of God: “Lo, I come to do thy will.” 5. The last thing in this context is the ground and rule of this undertaking of the Lord Christ and this is the glory of the truth of God in his promises recorded in the Word: “In the volume of the book it is written of me, that I should fulfill thy will, O God.” There is a difficulty in these words, both as to the translation of the original text and as unto the application of them. And therefore critical observations have been multiplied about them; which it is not my way or work to repeat. Those that are learned know where to find them, and those that are not so will not be edified by them.
What is the true meaning and intention of the Holy Spirit in them is what we are to inquire into.
The Socinian expositors have a peculiar conceit on this place. They suppose the apostle useth this expression, ejn kefali>di , to denote some especial chapter or place in the law. This they conjecture to be that of Deuteronomy 17:18,19: “And it shall be, when he” (the king to be chosen) “sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites: and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear theLORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them.” David, they say, spoke those words in the psalm; and it is nowhere said that he should come to do the will of God but in this place of Deuteronomy, as he was to be the king of that people. But there can be nothing more fond than this empty conjecture. For, — (1.) David is not at all intended in these words of the psalmist, any otherwise but as he was the penman of the Holy Ghost, and a type of Christ, on which account he speaks in his name. They are the words of Christ, which David was inspired by the Holy Ghost to declare and utter.
Neither would David speak these words concerning himself; because he that speaks doth absolutely prefer his own obedience, as unto worth and efficacy, before all God’s holy institutions: he presents it unto God, as that which is more useful unto the church than all the sacrifices which God had ordained. This David could not do justly. (2.) There is nothing spoken in this place of Deuteronomy concerning the sacerdotal office, but only of the regal. And in this place of the psalmist there is no respect unto the kingly office, but only unto the priesthood; for comparison is made with the sacrifices of the law. But the offering of these sacrifices was expressly forbidden unto the kings; as is manifest in the instance of king Uzziah, 2 Chronicles 26:18-20. Besides, there is in that place of Deuteronomy no more respect had unto David than unto Saul, or Jeroboam, or any other that was to be king of that people. There is nothing in it that belongs unto David in a peculiar manner. (3.) The words there recorded contain a mere prescription of duty, no prediction of the event; which for the most part was contrary unto what is required. But the words of the psalmist are a prophecy, a divine prediction and promise, which must be actually accomplished. Nor doth our Lord Christ in them declare what was prescribed unto him, but what he did undertake to do, and the record that was made of that undertaking of his. (4.) There is not one word in that place of Moses concerning the removal of sacrifices and burnt-offerings; which, as the apostle declares, is the principal thing intended in those of the psalmist. Yea, the contrary, as unto the season intended, is expressly asserted; for the king was to read in the book of the law continually, that he might observe and do all that is written therein, a great part whereof consists in the institution and observation of sacrifices. (5.) This interpretation of the words utterly overthrows what they dispute for immediately before; that is, that the entrance mentioned of Christ into the world, was not indeed his coming into this world, but his going out of it, and entering into heaven. For it cannot be denied but that the obedience of reading the law continually, and doing of it, is to be attended unto in this world, and not in heaven; and this they seem to acknowledge, so as to recall their own exposition. Other absurdities, which are very many in this place, I shall not insist upon. j jEn kefali>di , we with many others render, in answer unto the Hebrew, “in the volume” or “roll.” Ribera contends that this translation of the word, “the volume” or “roll of the book,” is absurd ‘“Because,” saith he, “the book itself was a volume or a roll; and so it is as if he had said, in the roll of the roll.” But rp,se , which we translate a “book,” doth not signify a book as written in a roll, but only an enunciation or declaration of any thing. We now call any book of greater quantity a volume. But hL;gim] is properly a “roll;” and the words used by the psalmist do signify that the declaration of the will of God made in this matter was written in a roll, the roll which contains all the revelations of his mind. And the word used by the apostle is not remote from this signification, as may be seen in sundry classic authors; — kefali>v , “volumen;” because a roll is made round, after the fashion of the head of a man.
As the book itself was one roll, so the head of it, the beginning of it, amongst the first things written in it, is this recorded concerning the coming of Christ to do the will of God. This includeth both senses of the word; in the head, in the beginning of the roll, namely, of that part of the Scripture which was written when David penned this psalm. Now this can be no other but the first promise, which is recorded, Genesis 3:15. Then it was first declared, then it was first written and enrolled, that the Lord Christ, the Son of God, should be made of the seed of the woman, and in our nature come to do the will of God, and to deliver the church from that woful estate whereinto it was brought by the craft of Satan. In this promise, and the writing of it in the head of the volume, lies the verification of the psalmist’s assertion, “In the volume of the book it is written.” Howbeit the following declarations of the will of God herein are not excluded, nor ought so to be. Hence are we herein directed unto the whole volume of the Law; for indeed it is nothing but a prediction of the coming, of Christ, and a presignification of what he had to do. ‘That book which God has given to the church as the only guide of its faith, — the Bible; (that is, the book, all other books being of no consideration in comparison of it;) that book wherein all divine precepts and promises are enrolled or recorded: in this book, in the volume of it, this is the principal subject, especially in the head of the roll, or the beginning of it, namely, in the first promise, it is so written of me.’ God commanded this great truth of the coming of Christ to be so enrolled, for the encouragement of the faith of them that should believe. And we may observe, that, — Obs. XVIII. God’s records in the roll of his book are the foundation and warranty of the faith of the church, in the Head and members.
Obs. XIX. The Lord Christ, in all that he did and suffered, had continual respect unto what was written of him. See Matthew 26:24.
Obs. XX. In the record of these words, (1.) God was glorified in his truth and faithfulness, (2.) Christ was secured in his work, and the undertaking of it. (3.) A testimony was given unto his person and office. (4.) Direction is given unto the church, in all wherein they have to do with God, what they should attend unto, — namely, what is written. (5.) The things which concern Christ, the mediator, are the head of what is contained in the same records.
Ver. 8-10. — “Above when he said, Sacrifice, and offering, and burntofferings, and [offerings ] for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein ]; (which are offered by the law;) then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all ].”
The use and signification of most of the words of these verses have already in our passage been spoken unto.
There are two things in these three verses: 1. The application of the testimony taken out of the psalmist unto the present argument of the apostle, verses 8, 9. 2. An inference from the whole, unto the proof of the only cause and means of the sanctification of the church, the argument he was now engaged in, verse 10.
As to the first of these, or the application of the testimony of the psalmist, and his resuming it, we may consider, — 1. What he designed to prove thereby: and this was, that by the introduction and establishment of the sacrifice of Christ in the church there was an end put to all legal sacrifices. And he adds thereunto, that the ground and reason of this great alteration of things in the church, by the will of God, was the utter insufficiency of those legal sacrifices in themselves for the expiation of sin and sanctification of the church. In verse 9 he gives us this sum of his design, “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” 2. The apostle cloth not here directly argue from the matter or substance of the testimony itself, but from the order of the words, and the regard they have in their order unto one another. For there is in them a twofold proposition; one concerning the rejection of legal sacrifices, and the other an introduction and tender of Christ and his mediation. And he declares, from the order of the words in the psalmist, that these things are inseparable; namely, the taking away of legal sacrifices, and the establishment of that of Christ. 3. This order in the words of the apostle is declared in that distribution of ajnw>teron and to>te, “above” and “then.” jAnw>teron , “above;” — that is, in the first place, — these his words or sayings, recorded in the first place. 4. There are in the words themselves these three things: — (1.) There is a distribution made of the legal sacrifices into their general heads, with respect unto the will of God concerning them all: “Sacrifices and offering, and whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifice for sin.” And in that distribution he adds another property of them, namely, they were required according to the law. [1.] He had respect not only unto the removal of the sacrifices, but also of the law itself, whereby they were retained; so he enters on his present disputation with the imperfection of the law itself, verse 1. [2.] Allowing these sacrifices and offerings all that they could pretend unto, namely, that they were established by the law, yet notwithstanding this, God rejects them as unto the expiation of sin and the salvation of the church. For he excludes the consideration of all other things which were not appointed by the law, as those which God abhorred in themselves, and so could have no place in this matter And we may observe, that, — Obs. XXI. Whereas the apostle doth plainly distinguish and distribute all sacrifices and offerings into those on the one side which were offered by the law, and that one offering of the body of Christ on the other side, the pretended sacrifice of the mass is utterly rejected from any place in the worship of God.
Obs. XXII. God, as the sovereign lawgiver, had always power and authority to make what alteration he pleased in the orders and institutions of his worship.
Obs. XXIII. That sovereign authority is that; alone which our faith and obedience respect in all ordinances of worship. (2.) After this was stated and delivered, when the mind of God was expressly declared as unto his rejection of legal sacrifices and offerings, to>te , “then he said;” — after that, in order thereon, upon the grounds before mentioned, “he said, Sacrifice,’’ etc. In the former words he declared the mind- of God, and in the latter his own intention and resolution to comply with his will, in order unto another way of atonement for sin: “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God;” — which words have been opened before. (3.) In the last place, he declares what was intimated and signified in this order, or in those things being thus spoken unto; sacrifices, on the one hand, which was the first; and the coming of Christ, which was the second, in this order and opposition. It is evident, — [1.] That these words, jAnairei~ to< prw~ton , “He taketh away the first,” do intend sacrifices and offerings. But he did not so do it immediately at the speaking of these words, for they continued for the space of some hundreds of years afterwards; but he did so declaratively, as unto the indication of the time, namely, when the “second” should be introduced. [2.] The end of this removal of the “first,” was “the establishment of the second.” This “second,” say some, is the will of God; but the opposition made before is not between the will of God and the legal sacrifices, but between those sacrifices and the coming of Christ to do the will of God.
Wherefore it is the way of the expiation of sin, and of the complete sanctification of the church by the coming, and mediation, and sacrifice of Christ., that is this “second,” the thing spoken of in the second place; this God would “establish,” approve, confirm, and render unchangeable.
Obs. XXIV. As all things from the beginning made way for the coming of Christ in the minds of them that did believe, so every thing was to be removed out of the way that would hinder his coming, and the discharge of the work he had undertaken law, temple, sacrifices, must all be removed to give way unto his coming. So is it testified by his forerunner, Luke 3:4-6, “As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” So it must be in our own hearts; all things must give way unto him, or he will not come and make his habitation in them.
Ver. 10. — “By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all. ]” From the whole context the apostle makes an inference, which is comprehensive of the substance of the gospel, and the description of the grace of God which is established thereby.
Having affirmed, in Christ’s own words, that he came to do the will of God, he shows what was that will of God which he came to do, what was the design of God in it and the effect of it, and by what means it was accomplished; which things are to be inquired into: as, 1. What is the will of God which he intends; “By the which will.” 2. What was the design of it, what God aimed at in this act of his will, and what is accomplished thereby; “We are sanctified.” 3. The way and means whereby this effect proceedeth from the will of God; namely, “Through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ,” in opposition to legal sacrifices. 4. The manner of it, in opposition unto their repetition; it was “once for all.” But the sense of the whole will be more clear, if we consider, — 1. The end aimed at in the first place, namely, the sanctification of the church. And sundry things must be observed concerning it: — (1.) That the apostle changeth his phrase of speech into the first person, “We are sanctified;” that is, all those believers whereof the gospel churchstate was constituted, in opposition unto the church-state of the Hebrews and those that did adhere unto it: so he speaks before, as also Hebrews 4:3, “We who have believed do enter into rest.” For it might be asked of him, ‘You who thus overthrow the efficacy of legal sacrifices, what have you yourselves attained in your relinquishment of them?’ ‘We have,’ saith he, ‘that sanctification, that dedication unto God, that peace with him, and that expiation of sin, that all those sacrifices could not effect.’ And observe, — Obs. XXV. Truth is never so effectually declared, as when it is confirmed by the experience of its power in them that believe it and make profession of it. This was that which gave them the confidence which the apostle exhorts them to hold fast and firm unto the end.
Obs. XXVI. It is a holy glorying in God, and no unlawful boasting, for men openly to profess what they are made partakers of by the grace of God and blood of Christ. Yea, it is a necessary duty for men so to do, when any thing is set up in competition with them or opposition unto them.
Obs. XXVII. It is the best security in differences in and about religion, (such as these wherein the apostle is engaged, the greatest and highest that ever were,) when men have an internal experience of the truth which they do profess. (2.) The words he useth are in the preterperfect tense, hJgiasme>noi ejsme>n , and relate not only unto the things, but the time of the offering of the body of Christ. For although all that is intended herein did not immediately follow on the death of Christ, yet were they all in it, as the effects in their proper cause, to be produced by virtue of it in their times and seasons; and the principal effect intended was the immediate consequent thereof. (3.) This end of God, through the offering of the body of Christ, was the sanctification of the church: “We are sanctified.” The principal notion of sanctification in the New Testament, is the effecting of real, internal holiness in the persons of them that do believe, by the change of their hearts and lives. But the word is not here so to be restrained, nor is it used in that sense by our apostle in this epistle, or very rarely. It is here plainly comprehensive of all that he hath denied unto the law, priesthood, and sacrifices of the old testament, with the whole church-state of the Hebrews under it, and the effects of their ordinances and services; as, [1.] A complete dedication unto God, in opposition unto the typical one which the people were partakers of by the sprinkling of the blood of calves and goats upon them, Exodus 24. [2.] A complete church-state for the celebration of the spiritual worship of God, by the administration of the Spirit, wherein the law could make nothing perfect. [3.] Peace with God upon a full and perfect expiation of sin; which he denies unto the sacrifices of the law, verses [4.] Real, internal purification or sanctification of our natures and persons from all inward filth and defilement of them; which he proves at large that the carnal ordinances of the law could not effect of themselves, reaching no farther than the purification of the flesh. [5.] Hereunto also belong the privileges of the gospel, in liberty, boldness, immediate access unto God, the means of that access, by Christ our high priest, and confidence therein; in opposition unto that fear, bondage, distance, and exclusion from the holy place of the presence of God, which they of old were kept under. All these things are comprised in this expression of the apostle, “We are sanctified.”
The designation of such a state for the church, and the present introduction of it by the preaching of the gospel, is that whose confirmation the apostle principally designs in this whole discourse; the sum whereof he gives us, Hebrews 11:40, “God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” 2. The whole fountain and principal cause of this state, this grace, is the will of God, even that will which our Savior tendered to accomplish, “By the which will we are sanctified.” In the original it is, “In which will;” “in” for “by,” which is usual. Wherefore we say properly, “by which will;” for it is the supreme efficient cause of our sanctification that is intended. And in that expression of our Savior, “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God,” it is evident, (1.) That it was the will, that is, the counsel, the purpose, the decree of God, that the church should be sanctified. (2.) That our Lord Christ knew that this was the will of God, the will of the Father, in whose bosom he was. And, (3.) That God had determined (which he also knew and declared) that legal sacrifices could not accomplish and make effectual this his will, so as the church might be sanctified thereon. Wherefore the will of God here intended (as was intimated before) is nothing but the eternal, gracious, free act or purpose of his will, whereby he determined or purposed in himself to recover a church out of lost mankind, to sanctify them unto himself’, and to bring them unto the enjoyment of himself hereafter, See Ephesians 1:4-9.
And this act of the will of God was, (1.) Free and sovereign, without any meritorious cause, or any thing that should dispose him thereunto without himself: “He purposed in himself.”
There are everywhere blessed effects ascribed to it, but no cause anywhere. All that is designed unto us in it, as unto the communication of it in its effects, were its effects, not its cause. See Ephesians 1:4, and this place. The whole mediation of Christ, especially his death and suffering, was the means of its accomplishment, and not the procuring cause of it. (2.) It was accompanied with infinite wisdom, whereby provision was made for his own glory, and the means and way of the accomplishment of his will. He would not admit the legal sacrifices as the means and way of its accomplishment, because they could not provide for those ends; for “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” (3.) It was immutable and irrevocable, it depended not upon any condition in any thing or person without himself: “He purposed in himself.” Nor was it capable of any change or alteration from oppositions or interveniencies. (4.) It follows hereon that it must be infallibly effectual, in the actual accomplishment of what was designed in it, — every thing in its order and season; it cannot in any thing be frustrated or disappointed. The whole church in every age shall be sanctified by it. This will of God some would have not to be any internal act of his will, but only the thing willed by him, name]y, the sacrifice of Christ; and that for this reason, because it is opposed to legal sacrifices, which the act of God’s will cannot be. But the mistake is evident; for the will of God here intended is not at all opposed unto the legal sacrifices, but only as to the means of the accomplishment of it, which they were not, nor could be.
Obs. XXVIII. The sovereign will and pleasure of God, acting itself in infinite wisdom and grace, is the sole, supreme, original cause of the salvation of the church, Romans 9:10,11. 3. The means of accomplishment and making effectual of this will of God, is the “offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” Some copies after hJgiasme>noi ejsme>n read oiJ, and then the sense must be supplied by the repetition of hJgiasme>noi in the close of that verse, “who by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ were once sanctified.” But there is no color for this supply, for the word “once” doth directly respect the offering of Christ, as the following verses, wherein it is explained, and the dignity of this sacrifice thence demonstrated, do prove. Wherefore this article belongs not unto the text, for it is not in the best copies, nor is taken notice of in our translation. Why and in what sense the sacrifice of Christ is called the “offering of his body,” was before declared. And “by which,” dia< th~v , refers not to the cause of our sanctification, which is the will of God, but unto the effect itself. Our sanctification is wrought, effected, accomplished by the offering of the body of Christ, (1.) In that the expiation of our sin and reconciliation with God were perfectly wrought thereby: (2.) In that the whole church of the elect was thereby dedicated unto God; which privilege they are called into the actual participation of through faith in the blood of Christ: (3.) In that thereby all the old legal sacrifices, and all that yoke, and burden, and bondage wherewith they were accompanied, are taken out of the way, Ephesians 2:15,16: (4.) In that he redeemed us thereby from the whole curse of the law, as given originally in the law of nature, and also renewed in the covenant of Sinai: (5.) In that thereby he ratified and confirmed the new covenant, and all the promises of it, and all the grace contained in them, to be effectually communicated unto us: (6.) In that he thereby procured for us, and received into his own disposition, in the behalf of the church, effectually to communicate all grace and mercy unto our souls and consciences. In brief, whatever was prepared in the will of God for the good of the church, it is all communicated unto us through the offering of the body of Christ, in such a way as tendeth unto the glory of God and the assured salvation of the church.
This “offering of the body of Jesus Christ” is the glorious center of all the counsels of the wisdom of God, of all the purposes of his will for the sanctification of the church. For, (1.) No other way or means could effect it: (2.) This will do it infallibly; for Christ crucified is the wisdom of God and the power of God unto this end. This is the anchor of our faith, whereon alone it rests. 4. The last thing in the words gives us the manner of the offer ing of the body of Christ. It was done ejfa>pax : “once for all,” say we, — once only; it was never before that one time, nor shall ever be afterwards, — “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” And this demonstrates both the dignity and efficacy of his sacrifice. Of such worth and dignity it was, that God absolutely acquiesced therein, and smelled a savor of eternal rest in it: and of such efficacy, that the sanctification of the church was perfected by it, so that it needed no repetition. It also made way for the following state of Christ himself, which was to be a state of glory, absolute and perfect, inconsistent with the repetition of the same sacrifice of himself. For, as the apostle shows, verses 12, 13, after this sacrifice offered, he had no more to do but to enter into glory. So absurd is that imagination of the Socinians, that he offered his expiatory sacrifice in heaven, that he did not, he could not enter into glory, until he had completely offered his sacrifice, the memorial whereof he carried into the holy place. And the apostle lays great weight on this consideration, as that which is the foundation of the faith of the church. He mentions it often, and argues from it as the principal argument to prove its excellency above the sacrifices of the law.
And this very foundation is destroyed by those who fancy unto themselves a renewed offering of the body of Christ every day in the mass. Nothing can be more directly contrary unto this assertion of the apostle, whatever color they may put upon their practice, or whatever pretense they may give unto it.
Wherefore the apostle in the next verses argues from the dignity and efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, by its difference from and opposition unto the legal sacrifices, which were often repeated.
VERSES 11-14.
Kai< pa~v me These words are an entrance into the close of that long blessed discourse of the apostle concerning the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, their dignity and efficacy, which he shuts up and finisheth in the following verses, confirming the whole with the testimony of the Holy Ghost before produced by him.
Four things doth he here instruct us in, by way of recapitulation of what he had declared and proved before: 1. The state of the legal priests and sacrifices, as unto the repetition of them; by which he had proved before their utter insufficiency to take away sin, verse 11. 2. In that one offering of Christ, and that once offered, in opposition thereunto, verse 12. 3. The consequence thereof on the part of Christ; whereof there are two parts: (1.) His state and condition immediately ensuing thereon, verse 12, manifesting the dignity, efficacy, and absolute perfection of his offering; (2.) As unto the continuance of his state and condition afterwards, verse 13. 4. The absolute effect of his sacrifice, which was the sanctification of the church, verse 14.
In the first of these we have, 1. The note of its introduction, kai> , “and.” 2. The subject of the proposition in it, “every priest.” 3. What is ascribed unto them in the discharge of their office; which is expressed, (1.) Generally, they “stood ministering day by day;” (2.) Particularly , as unto that part of their office which is now under consideration; “they often” (that is, every day) “offered the same sacrifices.” 4. The inefficacy of those sacrifices, though often offered; “they could not take away sin.” Besides this work of daily offering the same sacrifices, winch could not take away sin, there was nothing ensued on them of glory and dignity unto themselves, or benefit unto the church. This the apostle insinuates, although it be left out in the comparison, insisting especially on the contrary in the opposite sacrifice of Christ, both as unto his own glory and the eternal salvation of the church.
First, The introduction is by kai> , mostly a copulative, sometimes redditive, as it is here taken by us and rendered. In this latter way it gives a further reason of what was before declared of the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ, by a comparison of it with those of the priests, which were often repeated. In the other sense it denotes a progress in the same argument, by a repetition of the consideration of the old sacrifices, and a new comparison of them with that of Christ. Both come to the same, and either may be allowed.
Secondly, The subject spoken of, that is pa~v iJereu>v , “every priest.” ‘That is,’ say some, ‘every high priest;’ and so they interpret the words, “standeth daily,” by ‘a certain day once a-year,’ referring the whole unto the anniversary sacrifice on the day of expiation. And it is not denied but that the apostle hath a special regard thereunto, and mentioneth it expressly, as we have showed on Hebrews 9:7,25. But it cannot be here so restrained: for he makes application herein of what he had spoken before of all the sacrifices of the law; and therein he reckons up all sorts of them, as we have seen, some of which, as the whole burnt-offerings, and all offerings in distinction from bloody sacrifices, were not offered by the high priest on that day, but by other priests on all occasions.
And the following expression, e[sthke kaq j hJme>ran leitourgw~n, “standeth ministering every day,” declares the constant discharge of the priestly office in every daily ministration. This was the work that all the priests were designed unto in their courses. Wherefore the words, as they do not exclude the annual sacrifice of the high priest, so they include the daily and occasional sacrifices of all the other priests; for these offerings of blood were also types of the sacrifice and offering of Christ. For all sacrifices by blood were to make atonement for sin, Leviticus 17:11; and they were of no use but by virtue of their typical representation of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore all the priests, and their whole office, as unto all that belonged unto the offering of sacrifices, are comprised in this assertion. And it was necessary to extend the comparison unto them all, that there might be no exception unto the argument from it. And the following words, which give a description of the general way of their ministration, do enforce this interpretation, which is the third thing in them.
Thirdly, “Standeth daily ministering,” — e[sthke , “standeth,” or rather “stood.” They did so while their office was in force; it was their duty by the law so to do. For the apostle respecteth not what was their present acting as to matter of fact, but speaks of the whole service of the priests indistinctly, as past or present, with regard unto what was to be done by virtue of the first institution of them and the service which the tabernacle was erected for. 1. “Stood,” or “standeth,” ready for and employed in the work of their office, — leitourgw~n , “ministering;” a general name of employment about all sacred duties, services, and offices whatever, and therefore it compriseth all the service of the priests about the tabernacle and altar, wherein they ministered unto God according to his appointment. And this extends unto all that were partakers of the priesthood, and was not confined unto the high priest. See Hebrews 9:1. This they did kaq j hJme>ran , — that is, “day by day,” as occasion did require, according to the appointment of the law. Not only the daily sacrifice morning and evening is intended, nor yet the doubling of them on the Sabbath and other festivals, but all the occasional offerings for the people, as their necessities did require. For any man might bring his sin-offering, and trespassoffering, his peace-offering, his vow, or free-will-offering, unto the priest at any time, to be offered on the altar. For this cause they came to be always in a readiness to stand ministering daily, and hereunto was their office confined. There was no end of their work, after which they should enter into another and better state, as the apostle shows it of theLORD Christ in the next verse. And this is a high argument for the imperfection of their sacrifices, they were never brought unto that state by them as that the high priest might cease from ministering, and enter into a condition of rest. 2. Their general ministry is described by the especial duty which is under present consideration, — they “offered oftentimes the same sacrifices.”
They were the same sacrifices that were offered, of the same general nature and kind. They were, indeed, distributed into several sorts, according unto their occasions and institutions, as, whole burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, and the like; but their general nature was one and the same, falling all under the same censure, that they could not take away sin.
They had not any one peculiar service that could effect this end. And they offered them often, daily, monthly, occasionally, annually, according unto divine institution. In this defect as unto the efficacy and frequency in the repetition, is the sacrifice of Christ directly opposed unto them. Hence, — Fourthly, In the last place, the apostle passeth that sentence concerning them all, whose truth he had before sufficiently confirmed, “They cannot,”they never could, “take away sins.” They could not perielei~n, “take them out of the way;” that is, absolutely, perfectly, as the word denotes. They could not do it before God, the judge, by making a sufficient atonement for them, verse 4; they could not do it as unto the conscience of the sinner, giving him assured peace with God thereon. ‘It may be they could not do it at any one time, but in the constant continuance in the use and observation of them they might do it; if they were multiplied, if they were costly, if they were observed in an extraordinary manner, they might effect this end?’ No, saith the apostle, “they could not do it,” — oujde>pote du>nantai. The defect was in their own nature and lower, — ‘‘ they cannot do it.” They could not do it by any means, nor at any time. The word is a vehement negation, respecting all the powers of those sacrifices, and all the times wherein they were used. And therefore, as unto those things which might seem to give them their efficacy, as their multiplication, their constancy, their cost, extraordinary care about them, God doth reject them in a peculiar manner, when trusted unto for the taking away of sin, Isaiah 1:11; Micah 6:6,7.
Obs. I. If all those divine institutions, in the diligent observation of them, could not take away sin, how much less can any thing do so that we can betake ourselves unto for that end! — There are innumerable things invented in the Papacy to take away sin and its guilt, especially of those sins which they are pleased to call venial. And all men, on the conviction of sin, are apt to entertain thoughts that by some endeavors of their own they may so take them away. To comply with this presumption are all the papal inventions of confession, absolution, indulgences, masses, penances, purgatory, and the like, accommodated. Others trust solely unto their own repentance and following duties, as do the Socinians, and all men in their unrenewed estate. But certainly if the apostle proveth this assertion beyond contradiction, that none of them could ever take away any sin, that their legal institutions of divine worship and their observations could not do it; how much less can the inventions of men effect that great end!
This account he gives us of the inefficacy of the sacrifices of the priests, notwithstanding their diligent attendance on their offerings, verse 11.
Ver. 12-14. — In these verses the apostle opposeth that one sacrifice of Christ unto the legal offerings that the priests attended unto; and that in three things: 1. In the nature of it, and its perfection, ver. 12. 2. The consequence on the part of Christ, by whom it was offered, ver. 12, 13. 3. In the effect of it towards the church, ver. 14.
Ver. 12 . — “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, for ever sat down on the right hand of God.”
First, There is a note of opposition, answering the kai>, “and,” in the verse foregoing; de> , “but.” It is not exceptive, but alternative.
Secondly, The person spoken of, aujto>v , “he;” that is, ‘he of whom we speak,’ he whose body was offered once for all, Jesus Christ, the high priest of the new testament. “But this man,” say we.
Thirdly, What is ascribed unto him in these words, ajmartiw~n prosene>gkav zusi>an , — “After he had offered one sacrifice for sins.” lie offered as the priests did; he offered for sin as they did also: so far there was an agreement. But, 1. He offered only one sacrifice, not many. And what is included therein? — that this sacrifice was of himself, and not the blood of bulls and goats. 2. It was but once offered; and it is principally called:’ one sacrifice” because it was but once offered. And the time when he offered this sacrifice is also proposed, not absolutely, but with respect unto what ensued: it was before he “sat down on the right hand of God;” that is, before his entrance into glory, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin.
And the way of mentioning these things doth manifest that the principal intention of the apostle is to speak unto the different consequences of this offering of the priests of old and of Christ. And this observation, of his offering “one sacrifice” only for sin, is mentioned in opposition unto the frequent repetition of their sacrifices; but he mentioneth it only transiently, to make a way for the great ensuing differences in the consequents of them. Howbeit in these words, thus transiently mentioned, he judgeth and condemneth the two grand oppositions that at this day are made against that one sacrifice of Christ, and efficacy of it. The first is that of the Papists, who in the mass pretend to multiply the sacrifices of him every day, whereas he offered but “once;” so as that the repetition of it is destructive unto it. The other is that of the Socinians, who would have the offering and sacrifice of Christ to be only his appearance before God to receive power to keep us from the punishment of sin, upon his doing of the will of God in the world. But the words are express as unto the order of these things; namely, that he offered his sacrifice for sins before his exaltation in glory, or his sitting down on the right hand of God. And herein doth the apostle give glory unto that offering of Christ for sins, in that it perfectly accomplished what all legal sacrifices could not effect.
This, therefore, is the only repose of troubled souls.
Fourthly, The consequent hereof on the part of Christ is twofold: 1. What immediately ensued on this offering of his body, verse 12; 2. What continueth to be his state with respect thereunto, verse 13: both of them evidencing God’s high approbation and acceptance of his person, and what he had done; as also the glory and efficacy of his office and sacrifice above those of the law, wherein no such privilege nor testimony was given unto them upon the discharge of their office. 1. The immediate consequent of his offering was, ejka>qisen ejn dexia~| tou~ Qeou~ , — that “he sat down on the right hand of God.” This glorious exaltation of Christ hath been spoken unto and opened before, on Hebrews 1:3, 8:1. Here it includes a double opposition unto and preference above the state of the legal priests upon their oblations. For although the high priest, in his anniversary sacrifice for the expiation of sin, did enter into the most holy place, where were the visible pledges of the presence of God, yet he stood in a posture of humble ministration; he sat not down with any appearance of dignity or honor. Again, his abode in the typical holy place was for a short season only; but Christ sat down at the right hand of God “for ever,” — eijv to< dihneke>v , “in perpetuum;” in an unalterable state and condition. Hw sat down, never to offer sacrifice any more. And this is the highest pledge, the highest assurance of these two things, which are the pillars and principal foundations of the faith of the church: (1.) That God was absolutely pleased, satisfied, and highly glorified, in and by the offering of Christ; for had it not been so, the human nature of Christ had not been immediately exalted into the highest glory that it was capable of. See Ephesians 5:1,2; Philippians 2:7-9. (2.) That he had by his offering perfectly expiated the sin of the world, so as that there is no need for ever of any other offering or sacrifice unto this end.
Obs. II. Faith in Christ doth jointly respect both his oblation of himself by death and the glorious exaltation that ensued thereon. — He so offered one sacrifice for sin, as that thereon he sat down on the right hand of God for ever. Neither of these separately is a full object for faith to find rest in; both in conjunction are a rock to fix it on. And, — Obs. III. Christ in this order of things is the great exemplar of the church.
He suffered, and then entered into glory. “If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him.”
Ver. 13. — “From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” 2. The state and condition of Christ after his sitting down at the right hand of God, not absolutely, but with respect unto his enemies, is declared in these words. The whole testimony is taken from <19B001> Psalm 110:1, and here explained in these verses. It is produced in the confirmation of what the apostle asserts concerning the impossibility as well as the needlessness of the repetition of his sacrifice. For as it is no way necessary, as in the verses following he declares, so it is impossible in his present state and condition, which was ordained for him from the beginning: this was, that he should sit at the right hand of God, expecting his enemies to be made his footstool; that is, in a state of majesty and glory. But offer himself he could not, without suffering and dying, whereof in this state he is no way capable. And besides, as was before observed, it is an evidence both of the dignity and eternal efficacy of his one sacrifice, whereon at once his exaltation did ensue.
I acknowledge my thoughts are inclined unto a peculiar interpretation of this place, though I will not oppose absolutely that which is commonly received; though in my judgment I prefer this other before it. The assertion is introduced by to< loipo>n : “henceforth,” say we: “as unto what remains;” that is, of the dispensation of the personal ministry of Christ.
He was here below, he came unto his own, he dwelt amongst them; that is, in the church of the Hebrews. Some very few believed on him, but the generality of the people, the rulers, priests, guides of the church, engaged against him, persecuted him, falsely accused him, killed him, hanged him on a tree. Under the veil of their rage and cruelty he carried on his work of “making his soul an offering for sin,” or “taking away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” having fulfilled this work, and thereby wrought out the eternal salvation of the church, he sits down on the right hand of God. In the meantime those stubborn enemies of his, who hated, rejected, and slew him, continued raging in the fierceness of their implacable tumults against him and them that believed in him. They hated his person, his office, his work, his gospel; many of them expressly sinning against the Holy Ghost.
Yet did they triumph that they had prevailed against him, and destroyed him; as some of their accursed posterity do to this day. It was the judgment of God, that those his obstinate enemies should by his power be utterly destroyed in this world, as a pledge of the eternal destruction of those who will not believe the gospel. That this was the end whereunto they were designed himself declares, Matthew 22:7; Luke 19:27, “Those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
After our Lord Christ left this world, there was a mighty contest between the dying apostate church of the Jews and the rising gospel church of believers. The Jews boasted of their success, in that by fraud and cruelty they had destroyed him as a malefactor; the apostles and the church with them gave testimony unto his resurrection and glory in heaven. Great expectation there was what would be the end of these things, which way the scale would turn. After a while, a visible and glorious determination was made of this controversy; God sent forth his armies and destroyed those murderers, burning up their city. Those enemies of the King, which would not have him to reign over them, were brought forth and slain before his face. So were all his enemies made his footstool. I do judge that these are the enemies of Christ, and the making of them his footstool, which are peculiarly here intended, namely, the destruction of the hardened, unbelieving Jews, who had obstinately rejected his ministry, and opposed it unto the end. Then were those his enemies who so refused him slain and destroyed thereon. For, — (1.) This description of his enemies, as his enemies peculiarly, directs us unto this sense, the enemies of his person, doctrine, and glory, with whom he had so many contests, whose blasphemies and contradictions he underwent. They were his enemies in a peculiar manner. (2.) This the word ejkdeco>menov , “expecting,” better answers unto than unto the other sense. For the glorious visible propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ thereon, began and was carried on gloriously upon and after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the church of the Jews, his enemies.
With reference hereunto, expectation may be no less distinctly ascribed unto him than if we extend the word unto the whole time unto the end of the world. (3.) The act of vengeance on these his enemies is not said to be his own, but is peculiarly assigned unto God the Father, and those employed by him. In the original promise, the words of God the Father to him are, “I will make thine enemies thy footstool;” — ‘I take it upon me (vengeance is mine) to revenge the injuries done unto thee, and the obstinacy of those unbelievers.’ Here in this place respect is had unto the means that God used in the work of their destruction, which was the Roman army, by whom they were, as the footstool of Christ, absolutely trodden under his feet, with respect unto this special act of God the Father; who in the execution of it proclaims that “vengeance is his.” For in the following words the Lord Christ is said only to “expect” it, as that wherein his own cause was vindicated, and revenged, as it were, by another hand, while he pleaded it himself in the world by that mild and gentle means of sending his Spirit to convince them of sin, righteousness, and judgment. (4.) This is that which the apostle constantly threatens the obstinate Hebrews and apostate professors of the gospel withal, throughout this epistle, the time of their destruction being now at hand. So he doth, Hebrews 6:5-8; and in this chapter, verses 26-31, where it must be spoken to. (5.) This was that to< loipo>n , or “what remained,” as unto the personal ministry of Christ in this world.
Obs. IV. The horrible destruction of the stubborn, obstinate enemies of the person and office of Christ, which befell the nation of the Jews, is a standing security of the endless destruction of all who remain his obstinate adversaries.
I leave this interpretation of the words unto the thoughts of them that are judicious, and shall open the mind of the Holy Ghost in them according unto the generally received opinion of their sense. And to this end, — (1.) The subject spoken of is the enemies of Christ, — oiJ ejcqroi> , “his enemies.” He hath had many enemies ever since his exaltation; and so shall have unto the consummation of all things, when they shall all of them be triumphed over.
For his enemies are of two sorts: first, Such as are so immediately and directly unto his person; secondly, Such as are so to his office and work, with the benefits of the salvation of the church. Those of the first sort are either devils or men. All the devils are in a combination, as sworn enemies unto the person of Christ and his kingdom. And for men, the whole world of unbelieving Jews, Mohammedans, and Pagans, are all his enemies, and do put forth all their power in opposition unto him. The enemies unto his office, grace, and work, and the benefits of it, are either persons or things. [1.] The head of this opposition and enmity unto his office is Antichrist, with all his adherents; and in a special manner, all worldly power, authority, and rule, acting themselves in subserviency unto the antichristian interest. [2.] All pernicious heresies against his person and grace; [3.] All others which make profession of the gospel, and live not as becomes the gospel, they are all enemies of Christ and his office.
The things which rise up in enmity and opposition to him and the work of his grace, are, sin, death, the grave, and hell. All these endeavor to obstruct and frustrate all the ends of Christ’s mediation, and are therein his enemies. (2.) There is the disposal of this subject, of these enemies of Christ. They shall be made his footstool. [Ewv teqw~sin — “until they be put” and “placed” in this condition. It is a state which they would not be in; but they shall be made, put, and placed in it, whether they will or no, as the word signifies. J Jypopo>dion tw~n podw~n aujtou~. A footstool is used in a threefold sense in the Scripture: — [1.] For the visible pledge of God’s presence and his worship. God’s throne, as we have showed, was represented by the ark, mercy-seat, and cherubim, in the most holy place; wherein the sanctuary itself was his footstool, 1 Chronicles 28:2; Psalm 99:5, 132:7. So it is applied unto God, and his presence in the church; as the ark was his throne, so the sanctuary was his footstool. [2.] It is applied unto God and his presence in the world. So heaven above is called his throne, and this lower part of the creation is his footstool, Isaiah 66:1.
In neither of these senses are the enemies of Christ to be his footstool; therefore it is taken, — [3.] For a despised, conquered condition; a state of a mean, subjected people, deprived of all power and benefit, and brought into absolute subjection. In no other sense can it be applied unto the enemies of Christ, as here it is. Yet doth it not signify the same condition absolutely as unto all persons and things that are his enemies; for they are not of one nature, and their subjection to him is such as their natures are capable of. But these things are intended in it: 1st. The deprivation of all power, authority, and glory. They sat on thrones, but now are under the seat of him who is the only potentate. 2dly. An utter defeat of their design, in opposing either his person or the work of his grace in the eternal salvation of his church. They shall not hurt nor destroy any more in the mountain of the Lord. 3dly. Their eternal disposal by the will of Christ, according as his glory shall be manifested therein. Sin, death, the grave, and hell, as unto their opposition to the church, shall be utterly destroyed, Corinthians15:55-57; and “there shall be no more death.” Satan and Antichrist shall be destroyed two ways: (1st.) Initially and gradually. (2dly.) Absolutely and completely.
The first they are in all ages of the church, from the time of Christ’s glorious ascension into heaven. They were then immediately put in subjection to him, all of them, because that they should not defeat any one end of his mediation. And he maketh continual instances, as he pleases, of his power over them, in the visible destruction of some of his principal and most implacable enemies. And secondly, it will be complete at the last day, when all these enemies shall be utterly destroyed. (3.) The word e[wv , “until,” here hath respect unto both these, the gradual and final destruction of all the enemies of Christ. (4.) This Christ is said to expect; “henceforth expecting.” Expectation and waiting are improperly ascribed to Christ, as they are in the Scripture unto God himself, so far as they include hope or uncertainty of the event, or a desire of any thing, either as to matter, manner, or time, otherwise than as they are foreknown and determined. But it is the rest and complacency of Christ in the faithfulness of God’s promises, and his infinite wisdom as unto the season of their accomplishment, that is intended. He doth not so expect these things, as though there were any thing wanting to his own blessedness, glory, power, or authority, until it be actually and completely finished; but saith the apostle, ‘As to what remains to the Lord Christ in the discharge of his office, he henceforth is no more to offer, to suffer, no more to die, no more to do any thing for the expiation of sin or by way of sacrifice; all this being absolutely and completely perfected, he is for ever in the enjoyment of the glory that was set before him; satisfied in the promises, the power, and wisdom of God, for the complete effecting of his mediatory office, in the eternal salvation of the church, and by the conquest and destruction of all his and their enemies in the proper times and seasons for it.’ And from this interpretation of the words we may take these observations: — Obs. V. It was the entrance of sin which raised up all our enemies against us. From thence took they their rise and beginning; as death, the grave, and hell. Some that were friendly before became our enemies thereon; as the law: and some that had a radical enmity, got power thereby to execute it; as the devil. The state in which we were created was a state of universal peace; all the strife and contention rose from sin.
Obs. VI. The Lord Christ, in his ineffable love and grace, put himself between us and all our enemies; and took into his breast all their swords, wherewith they were armed against us: so they are his enemies.
Obs. VII. The Lord Christ, by the offering of himself, making peace with God, ruined all the enmity against the church, and all the enemies of it. For all their power arose from the just displeasure of God, and the curse of his law.
Obs. VIII. It is the foundation of all consolation to the church, that the Lord Christ, even now in heaven, takes all our enemies to be his; in whose destruction he is infinitely more concerned than we are.
Obs. IX. Let us never esteem any thing, or any person, to be our enemy, but only so far and in what they are the enemies of Christ.
Obs. X. It is our duty to conform ourselves to the Lord Christ, in a quiet expectancy of the ruin of all our spiritual adversaries.
Obs. XI. Envy not the condition of the most proud and cruel adversaries of the church; for they are absolutely in his power, and shall be cast under his footstool at the appointed season.
Ver. 14 . — “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”
The apostle,1. Gives the great reason of this state of things with reference unto the Lord Christ in the discharge of his office, namely, that he did not repeat his offering, as the priests under the law did theirs, every year, and every day; and that he is set down at the right hand of God, expecting his enemies to be made his footstool, — wherein they had no share after their oblations: and this is, because “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” This being done, there is no need of any daily sacrifice, nothing that should detain the Lord Jesus out of the possession of his glory. So the particle ga>r “for,” infers a reason in these words of all that was assigned before unto him, in opposition unto what was done by the priests of the law: it was “by one offering.” 2. What he did so effect, which rendered all future offerings and sacrifices impossible: “lie hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” 1. for the first, what he did of the nature of the thing spoken of, was mia~| prosfora~| , “by one offering;” as what the priests of old did was also by offerings and sacrifices. The eminency of this offering the apostle had before declared, which here he refers unto. It was not of bulls or goats, but of himself, — he “offered himself to God;” of his body, — that is, his whole human nature. And this offering, as he had observed before, was only “once offered;” in the mention whereof the apostle includes all the opposition he had made before between the offering of Christ and those of the priests, as to its worth and dignity. 2. That which is effected hereby is, that “he perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Those on whom his work is effected are thereby “sanctified.” They that are dedicated unto God, those who are sanctified or purged by virtue of this sacrifice, unto them all the other effects are confined. First to sanctify them, then to perfect them, was the design of Christ in offering of himself; which he purposed not for all men universally. So in the foundation of the church of Israel, they were first sanctified and dedicated unto God in and by the sacrifices wherewith the covenant was confirmed, Exodus 24; and afterwards were perfected, so far as their condition was capable thereof, in the prescription of laws and ordinances for their church-state and worship. The word here, tetelei>wken, was used before.
He hath brought them into the most perfect and consummate church-state and relation unto God, as unto all his worship, that the church is capable of in this world. It is not an absolute, subjective, virtual, internal perfection of grace, that is intended; the word signifies not such a perfection, “made perfect,” nor is ever used to that purpose; nor is it the perfection of glory, for he treats of the present church-state of the gospel in this world: but it is a state and condition of that grace and those privileges which the law, priests, and sacrifices, could never bring them unto. He hath by his “one offering” wrought and procured for them the complete pardon of sin, and peace before God thereon, that they should have no more need of the repetition of sacrifices; he hath freed them from the yoke of carnal ordinances, and the bondage which they were kept in by them, prescribing unto them a holy worship, to be performed with boldness in the presence of God, by an entrance into the holy place; he hath brought them into the last and best church-state, the highest and nearest relation unto God that the church is capable of in this world, or the glory of his wisdom and grace hath assigned unto it. And this he hath done eijv to< dihneke>v , “for ever,” so as that there shall never be any alteration in that estate whereunto he hath brought them, nor any addition of privilege or advantage be ever made unto it.
Obs. XII. There was a glorious efficacy in the one offering of Christ.
Obs. XIII. The end of it must be effectually accomplished towards all for whom it was offered; or else it is inferior unto the legal sacrifices, for they attained their proper end.
Obs. XIV. The sanctification and perfection of the church being the end designed in the death and sacrifice of Christ, all things necessary unto that end must be included therein, that it be not frustrated.
VERSES 15-18.
Marturei~ de< hJmi~n kai< to< Pneu~ma to< a[gion? meta< ga The foundation of the whole preceding discourse of the apostle, concerning the glory of the priesthood of Christ, and the efficacy of his sacrifice, was laid in the description of the new covenant, whereof he was the mediator; which was confirmed and ratified by his sacrifice, as the old covenant was by the blood of bulls and goats, Hebrews 8:10-13. Having now abundantly proved and demonstrated what he designed concerning them both, his priesthood and his sacrifice, he gives us a confirmation of the whole from the testimony of the Holy Ghost, in the description of that covenant which he had given before. And because the crisis which he had brought his argument and disputation unto was, that the Lord Christ, by reason of the dignity of his person and office, with the everlasting efficacy of his sacrifice, was to offer himself but “once,” — which virtually includes all that he had before taught and declared, including in it an immediate demonstration of the insufficiency of all those sacrifices which were often repeated, and consequently their removal out of the church, — he returns unto those words of the Holy Ghost, for the proof of this particular also. And he doth it from the order of the words used by the Holy Ghost, as he had argued before from the order of the words in the psalmist, verses 8, 9.
Wherefore there is an ellipsis in the words, which must have a supplement, to render the sense perfect. For unto that proposition, “After he had said before,” verse 15, with what follows, verse 16, there must be added in the beginning of the 17th verse, “he said;” after he had said or spoken of the internal grace of the covenant, he said this also, that “their sins and iniquities he would remember no more.” For from these words doth he make his conclusive inference, verse 18, which is the sum of all that he designed to prove.
There is in the words, first, the introduction of the testimony insisted on, “The Holy Ghost also is a witness to us.” The Hebrews might object unto him, as they were ready enough to do it, that all those things were but his own conclusions and arguings; which they would not acquiesce in, unless they were confirmed by testimonies of the Scripture. And therefore I did observe, in my first discourses on this epistle, that the apostle dealt not with these Hebrews as with the churches of the Gentiles, namely, by his apostolical authority (for which cause he prefixed not his name and title unto it); but upon their own acknowledged principles and testimonies of the Old Testament; so manifesting that there was nothing now proposed unto them in the gospel but that which was foretold, promised, and represented in the Old Testament, and was therefore the object of the faith of their forefathers. The same way doth he here proceed in, and calls in the testimony of the Holy Ghost, bearing witness unto the things that he had taught and delivered. And there is in the words, — 1. The author of this testimony; that is, “the Holy Ghost.” And it is ascribed unto him, as all that is written in the Scripture is so, not only because holy men of old wrote as they were acted by him, and so he was the author of the whole Scripture; but because also of his presence and authority in it and with it continually. Hence whatever is spoken in the Scripture is, and ought to be unto us, as the immediate word of the Holy Ghost. He continues therein to speak unto us; and this gives the reason of- 2. The manner of his speaking in this testimony; marturei~ , “he beareth witness to us.” He doth it actually and constantly in the Scriptures, by his authority therein. And he doth so unto us; that is, not unto us only who preach and teach those things, not unto the apostles and other Christian teachers of the gospel, but unto all of us of the church of Israel, who acknowledge the truth of the Scriptures, and own them as the rule of our faith and obedience. So doth he often join himself unto them to whom he wrote and spake of, by reason of the common alliance between them as Hebrews. See Hebrews 2:3, and the exposition of that place: ‘This is that which the Holy Ghost in the Scripture testifies unto us all; which should put an end unto all controversies about these things. Nothing else is taught you but what is testified beforehand by God himself.’
Obs. I. It is the authority of the Holy Ghost alone, speaking unto us in the Scripture, whereinto all our faith is to be resolved.
Obs. II. We are to propose nothing in the preaching and worship of the gospel but what is testified unto by the Holy Ghost: not traditions, not our own reasons and inventions.
Obs. III. When an important truth consonant unto the Scripture is declared, it is useful and expedient to confirm it with some express testimony of Scripture. 3. Lastly, the manner of the expression is emphatical: Kai< to< Pneu~ma to< a]gion , — “Even also the Holy Spirit himself.” For herein we are directed unto his holy divine person, and not to an external operation of divine power, as the Socinians dream. It is that Holy Spirit himself that continueth to speak to us in the Scripture.
This is the first thing, or the introduction of the testimony. Secondly, There are two things in this testimony of the Holy Ghost; the first is the matter or substance of it; the second, the order of the things contained in it, or spoken by him. The introduction of the former is in the words we have spoken unto; that of the latter, in the close of the verse, in these words, “For after he had spoken before.”
Of the testimony itself, which is declarative of the nature of the new covenant made with Christ and confirmed in him, there are two general parts: First, that which concerns the sanctification of the elect, by the communication of effectual grace unto them for their conversion and obedience. The second is concerning the complete pardon of their sins, and the casting them into everlasting oblivion.
The first of these the Holy Ghost witnesseth in the first place. But he stays not there; afterwards he adds the latter, concerning the pardon of sins and iniquities. This being that alone wherein at present the apostle is concerned, and from whence he confirms his present argument, he distinguisheth it from the other, as that which was of particular use in itself. And therefore verse 17 is to be supplied by, “he said,” or “thereon also, Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”
The words themselves have, in both parts of them, been explained at large on Hebrews 8, where they are first produced as the great foundation of the ensuing discourses of the apostle, so that they are not here again to be opened. We are only to consider the argument of the apostle from the latter part of them; and this is, that the covenant being confirmed and established, that is, in the blood and by the one sacrifice of Christ, there can be no more offering for sin. For God will never appoint nor accept of any thing that is needless and useless in his service, least of all in things of so great importance as is the offering for sin. Yea, the continuation of such sacrifices would overthrow the faith of the church, and all the grace of the new covenant. For, saith the apostle, in the new covenant, and by it, the Holy Ghost testifieth, that, as it was confirmed by the one sacrifice of Christ, perfect pardon and forgiveness of sin is prepared for and tendered unto the whole church, and every one that believes. To what purpose, then, should there be any more offerings for sin? Yea, they who look for and trust unto any other, they fall into that sin for which there is no remission provided in this covenant, nor shall any other offering be accepted for them for ever; for they despise both the wisdom and grace of God, the blood of Christ, and the witness of the Holy Ghost; whereof there is no remission: so he disputes, verses 28, 29, of this chapter.
And here we are come unto a full end of the dogmatical part of this epistle, a portion of Scripture filled with heavenly and glorious mysteries, — the light of the church of the Gentiles, the glory of the people Israel, the foundation and bulwark of faith evangelical.
I do therefore here, with all humility, and sense of my own weakness and utter disability for so great a work, thankfully own the guidance and assistance which have been given me in the interpretation of it, so far as it is or may be of use unto the church, as a mere effect of sovereign and undeserved grace. From that alone it is, that, having many and many a time been at an utter loss as to the mind of the Holy Ghost, and finding no relief in the worthy labors of others, he hath graciously answered my poor weak supplications, in supplies of the light and evidence of truth.
VERSES 19-23. ]Econtev ou+n , ajdelfoi> , parjrJhsi>an eijv th Ver. 19-23. — Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and [having ] an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of [our ] faith without wavering: (for he [is ] faithful that promised.)
In these words the apostle enters on the last part of the epistle, which is wholly parenetical, or hortatory. For though there be some occasional intermixtures of doctrines consonant unto them before insisted on, yet the professed design of the whole remainder of the epistle is to propose unto and press on the Hebrews such duties, of various sorts, as the truths he had insisted upon do direct unto and make necessary unto all that believe.
And in all his exhortations there is a mixture of the ground of the duties exhorted unto, of their necessity, and of the privilege which we have in being admitted unto them and accepted with them; all taken from the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, with the effects of them, and the benefits which we receive thereby.
In these words there are three things: — 1. The ground and reason of the duty exhorted unto, with the foundation of it, as the special privilege of the gospel, verses 19-21. 2. The way and manner of our using this privilege unto that end, verse 22. 3. The special duty exhorted unto, which is, perseverance and constancy in believing, verse 23.
In the first we have, 1. A note of inference, or deduction of the following exhortation from what was before discoursed; ou+n, “therefore.” 2. A friendly compellation of them to whom he spake, used formerly, but now repeated after a long interruption; ajdelfoi> , “brethren.” 3. The privilege itself, which is the foundation of the exhortation; e]contev parjrJhsi>an eijv th Obs. I. It is not every mistake, every error, though it be in things of great importance, while it overthrows not the foundation, that can divest men of a fraternal interest with others in the heavenly calling. 2. There is a note of inference from the preceding discourse, declaring it the ground of the present exhortation; ou+n , “therefore:” ‘Seeing that these things are now made manifest unto you, — seeing it is so evidently testified unto that the old covenant, sacrifices, and worship, could not make us perfect, nor give us an access unto God, whereon they are removed and taken away, which the Scripture fully testifies unto; and seeing all this is effected or accomplished in the office and by the sacrifice of Christ, which they could not effect, and privileges are thereon granted unto believers which they were not before made partakers of; let us make use of them unto the glory of God and our own salvation, in the duties which they necessarily require.’ And we may observe, that the apostle applies this inference from his discourse unto the use and improvement of the liberty and privileges granted unto us in Christ, with the holy worship belonging thereunto, as we shall see in opening of the words, Howbeit there is another conclusion implied in the words, though not expressed by him; and this is, that they should cease and give over their attendance unto the legal worship and sacrifices, as those which now were altogether useless, being indeed abolished. This is the principal design of the apostle in the whole epistle, namely, to call off the believing Hebrews from all adherence unto and conjunction in Mosaical institutions; for he knew the danger, both spiritual and temporal, which would accompany and arise from such an adherence. For, — (1.) It would insensibly weaken their faith in Christ, and give them a disregard of evangelical worship; which did indeed prove unto many of them a cause of that apostasy and final destruction which he so frequently warns them against. (2.) Whereas God had determined now speedily to put an utter end unto the city, temple, and all its worship, by a universal desolation, for the sins of the people, if they did obstinately adhere unto the observance of that worship, it was justly to be feared that they would perish in that destruction that was approaching; which probably many of them did. To instruct-them in that light and knowledge of the truth that might deliver them from these evils, was the first design of the apostle in the doctrinal part of this epistle: yet doth he not plainly and in terms express it anywhere in this epistle, not even in this place, where it was most properly and naturally to be introduced; yet he doth that which evidently includes it, namely, exhort them unto those duties which, on the principles he hath declared, are utterly inconsistent with Mosaical worship, — and this is, our free entrance into the holiest by the blood of Jesus. For an entrance, in any sense, with our worship into the most holy place, is inconsistent with, and destructive of all Mosaical institutions. And this was an effect of the singular wisdom wherewith the apostle was furnished to write this epistle. For had he directly and in terms opposed their observation, no small tumult and outcry would have been made against it, and great provocation had been given unto the unbelieving Jews. But, notwithstanding, he doth the same thing no less effectually in these words, wherein there is scarce a word which that application of his discourse doth not follow upon. And his wisdom herein ought to be an instructive example unto all those that are called unto the instruction of others in the dispensation of the gospel, especially such as through any mistakes do oppose themselves unto the truth. Such things as will give exasperation unto the spirits, or advantage unto the temptations of men, ought to be avoided, or treated on with that wisdom, gentleness, and meekness, as may be no prejudice unto them. This way of procedure doth the same apostle expressly prescribe unto all ministers of the gospel, 2 Timothy 2:23-26. 3. There is in the words the privilege which is the foundation of the duty exhorted unto: “Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest,” — for a regular entrance into or of the most holy. The privilege intended is directly opposed unto the state of things under the law; and from the consideration of it is the nature of it to be learned. For the entrance into the holiest, in the tabernacle, belonged unto the worship of the church, it was the principal part thereof; but it had many imperfections attending it: (1.) It was not into the special presence of God, but only into a place made with hands, filled with some representations of things that could not be seen. (2.) None might ever enter into it but the high priest alone, and that only once a-year. (3.) The body of the people, the whole congregation, were therefore jointly and severally utterly excluded from any entrance into it. (4.) The prohibition of entrance into this holy place belonged unto that bondage wherein they were kept under the law, which hath been before declared. The privilege here mentioned being opposed to this state of things among them, which respected their present worship, it is certain that it doth concern the present worship of God by Christ under the gospel. And they are therefore utterly mistaken who suppose the entrance into the most holy to be an entrance into heaven after this life for all believers; for the apostle doth not here oppose the glorious state of heaven unto the church of the Hebrews and their legal services, but the privileges of the gospel-state and worship only. Nor would it have been to his purpose so to have done; for the Hebrews might have said, that although the glory of heaven after this life doth exceed the glories of the services of the tabernacle, which none ever questioned, yet the benefit, use, and efficacy of their present ordinances and worship might be more excellent than any thing that they could obtain by the gospel. Neither were believers then also excluded from heaven after death, any more than now. Therefore the privilege mentioned is that which belongs unto the gospel church in its perfect state in this world. And the exercise and use of it doth consist in our drawing nigh unto God in holy services and worship through Christ, as the apostle declares, verse 22.
There is, then, a twofold opposition in these words unto the state of the people under the law: (1.) As unto the spirit and frame of mind in the worshippers; and, (2.) As unto the place of the worship, from whence they were excluded, and whereunto we are admitted. (1.) The first is in the word parjrJhsi>an , “boldness.” There were two things with respect unto those worshippers in this matter: [1.] A legal prohibition from entering into the holy place; whereon they had no liberty or freedom so to do, because they were forbidden on several penalties; [2.] Dread and fear, which deprived them of all boldness or holy confidence in their approaches unto God: therefore the apostle expresseth the contrary frame of believers under the new testament by a word that signifieth both liberty, or freedom from any prohibition, and boldness with confidence in the exercise of that liberty. I have spoken before of the various use and signification of this word parjrJhsi>a , which the apostle both in this and other epistles useth frequently to express both the right, and liberty, and confidence, unto and in their access unto God, of believers under the new testament, in opposition to the state of them under the old.
We have a right unto it, we have liberty without restraint by any prohibition, we have confidence and assurance without dread or fear. (2.) This liberty we have eijv th There is no such order now, that he who draws nigh shall be cut off; but on the contrary, that he that doth not so do shall be destroyed. (2.) Hence there is no dread, fear, or terror in their minds, hearts, or consciences, when they make their approaches unto God. This was a consequent of the same interdict of the law, which is now taken away.
They have not received the spirit of bondage unto fear, but the Spirit of the Son, whereby with holy boldness they cry, “Abba, Father;” for “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,” — they have freedom unto, and confidence in their duties: and therein consists the greatest evidence of our interest in the gospel and privileges thereof. (3.) The nature of gospel worship consists in this, that it is an entrance with boldness into the presence of God. However men may multiply duties, of what sort or nature soever they be, if they design not in and by them to enter into the presence of God, if they have not some experience that so they do, if they are taken up with other thoughts, and rest in the outward performance of them, they belong not unto evangelical worship.
The only exercise of faith in them is in an entrance into the presence of God. (4.) Our approach unto God in gospel worship, is unto him as evidencing himself in a way of grace and mercy. Hence it is said to be an “entrance into the holiest;” for in the holy place were all the pledges and tokens of God’s grace and favor, as we have manifested upon the foregoing chapter.
And as the taking off of the old prohibition gives us liberty, and the institution of the worship of the gospel gives us title unto this privilege, so the consideration of the nature of that presence of God whereunto we approach gives us boldness thereunto. 4. The procuring cause of this privilege is in the next place expressed; we have it ejn tw~| ai[mati jIhsou~ : “by the blood of Jesus,” say we. It is the procuring cause of this privilege that is intended, which is often so proposed. “The blood of Jesus Christ” is the same with his “sacrifice,” the “offering of himself,” or “the offering of his body once for all.” For he offered himself in and by the effusion of his blood, whereby he made atonement for sin; which could not be otherwise effected. And it is here opposed, as also in the whole preceding discourse, unto the blood of the legal sacrifices. They could not procure, they did not effect any such liberty of access unto God in the holy place. This was done by the blood of Jesus only; whereby he accomplished what the sacrifices of the law could not do. And it is a cause of this privilege on a twofold account: (1.) In its respect unto God, in its oblation. (2.) In respect unto the consciences of believers, in its application. (1.) By its oblation it removed and took away all causes of distance between God and believers. It made atonement for them, answered the law, removed the curse, broke down the partition wall, or “the law of commandments contained in ordinances,” wherein were all the prohibitions of approaching unto God with boldness. Hereby also he rent the veil which interposed and hid the gracious presence of God from us. And these things being removed out of the way by the blood of the oblation or offering of Christ, peace being thereby made with God, he procured him to be reconciled unto us, inviting us to accept and make use of that reconciliation by receiving the atonement. Hence believers have boldness to appear before him, and approach unto his presence. See Romans 5:11; 2 Corinthians 5:18-21; Ephesians 2:13-18. Hereon was it the procuring, the purchasing cause of this privilege. (2.) It is the cause of it with respect unto the consciences of believers, in the application of it unto their souls. There are not only all the hinderances mentioned, on the part of God, lying in the way of our access unto him, but also the consciences of men, from a sense of the guilt of sin, were filled with fear and dread of God, and durst not so much as desire an immediate access unto him. The efficacy of the blood of Christ being through believing communicated unto them, takes away all this dread and fear. And this is done principally by his bestowing on them the Holy Spirit, which is a Spirit of liberty, as our apostle shows at large, 2 Corinthians 3.
Wherefore “we have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,” on these three accounts: — [1.] In that atonement is made thereby for sin, and peace made with God, so as that he is reconciled unto us; all that anger being turned away that did deter us from any such approach. [2.] Fear, dread, and bondage, are taken away, so that the acting of faith on God through the blood of Jesus doth expel them, and remove them out of our mind. [3.] We receive the Holy Spirit therewithal; who is a Spirit of liberty, power, holy boldness, enabling us to cry, “Abba, Father.”
Obs. III. Nothing but the blood of Jesus could have given this boldness; nothing that stood in the way of it could otherwise have been removed; nothing else could have set our souls at liberty from that bondage that was come upon them by sin.
Obs. IV. Rightly esteem and duly improve the blessed privilege which was purchased for us at so dear a rate. What shall we render unto him? How unspeakable are our obligations unto faith and love!
Obs. V. Confidence in an access unto God not built on, not resolved into the blood of Christ, is but a daring presumption, which God abhors.
Ver. 20 . — Having told us that we have th For it is spoken in opposition unto the dedication of the tabernacle, and way into the most holy place, by the blood of sacrifices, whereof we have treated in the ninth chapter. So was this way into the holy place consecrated, dedicated, and set apart sacredly for the use of believers, so as that there neither is, nor ever can be, any other way but by the blood of Jesus. Or there is this also in it, that the way itself was new prepared and made, not being extant before.
Obs. VI. The way of our entrance into the holiest is solemnly dedicated and consecrated for us, so as that with boldness we may make use of it.
He hath done it “for us,” for our use, our benefit, and advantage. 2. The properties of this way are two: — (1.) That it is pro>sfatov , “new:” [1.] Because it was but newly made and prepared; [2.] Because it belongs unto the new covenant; [3.] Because it admits of no decays, but is always new, as unto its efficacy and use, as in the day of its first preparation. Whereas that of the tabernacle waxed old, and so was prepared for a removal, this way shall never be altered nor changed, never decay, — it is always new. (2.) Zw~san , it is “living.” This epithet is placed by apposition, without any note of distinction or conjunction. And it is said to be living, [1.] In opposition unto the way into the holiest under the tabernacle, which was, 1st . By death. Nothing could be done in it without the blood of the sacrifices. 2dly. It was the cause of death unto any one that should make use of it, the high priest only excepted, and he but once a-year. [2.] It is living as unto its efficacy; it is not a dead thing, it is that which hath a spiritual, vital efficacy in our access unto God. [3.] It is living from its effects; it leads to life, and effectually brings us thereunto, and is the only way of entering into everlasting life.
Obs. VII. All the privileges we have by Christ are great, glorious, and efficacious; all tending and leading unto life. This new and living way of our approach unto God, is nothing but the exercise of faith for acceptance with God by the sacrifice of Christ, according unto the revelation made in the gospel 3. He shows which way it thus leads to the holiest, or what is the tendency of it: it is “through the veil.” The apostle shows here expressly what he alludeth unto in the declaration he makes of our entrance into the holiest.
The veil here intended by him was that between the sanctuary and the most holy place, whose description we have given on Hebrews 9; for there was no possible entrance thereinto but through that veil, which was turned aside when the high priest entered. What this veil was unto the high priest in his entrance into that holy place, that is the flesh of Christ unto us in ours; as in the last place is described in exposition of this type, “that is, his flesh.”
For the opening of these words, and the vindication of the apostle’s application of this type, we may observe, — (1.) The flesh of Christ, the body of Christ, the blood of Christ, Christ himself, are all mentioned distinctly, as the matter of his sacrifice. See Hebrews 9:14,25,28, 10:10. (2.) This is done on various respects, to express either the dignity or the efficacy of the nature and manner of his offering. (3.) In the sacrifice of Christ, the flesh was that which suffered peculiarly, as the great token and evidence of his real sufferings. (4.) The whole efficacy of his sacrifice is ascribed unto every essential part of the human nature of Christ, in that which either acted or suffered therein; — to his soul, Isaiah 53:10; his blood, Hebrews 9:14; his body, verse 10; his flesh, as in this place. For these things were not distinctly operative, one in one effect, another in another, but all of them concurred in his nature and person, which he offered once wholly to God.
So that where any of them is mentioned, the whole human nature of Christ, as unto the efficacy of it in his sacrifice, is intended. (5.) Yet were these things distinctly typified and foresignified in the sacrifices and service of old. So was the flesh of Christ by the veil, as his whole nature by the tabernacle, his soul by the scapegoat, his body and blood by the sin-offering on the day of expiation, when the sacrifice was burnt without the camp. (6.) Herein in an especial manner was the whole a type of the flesh of Christ, in that there was no entrance to be laid open into the holy place but by the rending of the veil. The time when the high priest entered into it, it was indeed turned aside; whereon it immediately closed again, and forbade an entrance and a prospect unto others. Wherefore there could be no entrance into that holy place abiding, unless the veil was rent and torn in pieces, so that it could close no more. For it came to pans on the death of the Lord Jesus, that “the veil of the temple was rent from the top to the bottom.” And that which is signified hereby is only this, that by virtue of the sacrifice of Christ, wherein his flesh was torn and rent, we have a full entrance into the holy place, such as would have been of old upon the rending of the veil. This, therefore, is the genuine interpretation of this place, ‘We enter with boldness into the most holy place through the veil; that is to say, his flesh:’ we do so by virtue of the sacrifice of himself, wherein his flesh was rent, and all hinderances thereby taken away from us; of all which hinderances the veil was an emblem, and principal instance, until it was rent and removed.
The sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ unto all the ends of the perfection of the church, in all duties and privileges, is that which the apostle instructs us unto herein. And there is great instruction given us, in this comparison of the type and antitype, into the way and nature of our access unto God in all our solemn worship. It is God as he was represented in the holy place to whom we address ourselves peculiarly; that is, God the Father as on a throne of grace: the manner of our access is with holy confidence, grounded solely on the efficacy of the blood or sacrifice of Christ. The way is by faith, as to the removal of the obstacles, and the view of God as reconciled. This is given us by the suffering of Christ in the flesh, which laid open the entrance into the holy place.
Wherefore the apostle says not, that the veil was the flesh of Christ, as some pretend who have hence cavilled at the authority of this epistle on no other ground but because they could not apprehend the spiritual light and wisdom that is therein; only he says, we have our entrance into the holy place by virtue of the flesh of Christ, which was rent in his sacrifice, as through the rending of the veil a way was laid open into the holiest.
This is the first encouragement unto the duty exhorted unto, from the benefit and privilege we have by the blood of Christ. Another to the same purpose follows.
Ver. 21. — “And [having ] a great high priest over the house of God.” “Having,” is understood from verse 19; — the word whereby the apostle expresseth our relation unto Christ, Hebrews 4:15. He is our priest, he exerciseth that office on our behalf; and our duty it is in all things to be such as becometh this great high priest to own in the discharge of his office. What became him that he might be our high priest, as it is expressed, Hebrews 7:26, shows what we ought to be in our measure that belong unto his care, and that we may say with boldness, “We have an high priest;” which is another encouragement unto the diligent attendance to the duties we are here exhorted unto. For it may be said, ‘That notwithstanding the provision of a new way into the holiest, and boldness given us to enter thereinto, yet in ourselves we know not how to do it, unless we are under the conduct of a priest, as the church of old was in their worship. All those priests being removed, how shall we do now to draw nigh unto God, without such a conduct, such a countenance?’ The apostle removes this from them, and gives encouragement for what he had proved to be a duty before, namely, that “we have a great high priest.”
Three things are in the words: 1. That we have a priest; 2. That he is a great priest; 3. That part of his office wherein in this duty we are concerned, which is, that he is over the house of God.
The first hath been spoken unto on many occasions: only the apostle calls him not here, “our high priest,” which he doth most frequently; but “a priest,” with the addition of great, “a great priest,” which answers directly to the Hebrew expression, lwOdG;h’ ˆheKo , as the high priest was called: yet the apostle hath a respect unto his eminency above all other priests whatsoever. He is great in his person, God and man, as he had described him, Hebrews 1:2,3; great in his glorious exaltation, Hebrews 8:1,2; great in his power and the efficacy of his office, Hebrews 7:25; great in honor, dignity, and authority ; — the consideration whereof leads both unto the confirmation of our faith and the ingenerating of a due reverence in our hearts towards him. For as he is so great as that he can save us unto the uttermost, or give us acceptance before God as unto our persons and our duties; so he is so glorious that we ought to apply ourselves to him with reverence and godly fear.
That which, unto the particular end designed in this place, we ought to consider in his office, is, that he is “over the house of God.” The apostle doth not herein consider the sacrifice of himself, which he proposed as the foundation of the privilege whence the ensuing duty is inferred, but what he is and doth after his sacrifice, now he is exalted in heaven; for this was the second part of the office of the high priest. The first was, to offer sacrifice for the people; the other was, to take the oversight of the house of God: for so it is particularly expressed with respect unto Joshua, who was an eminent type of Christ, Zechariah 3:6,7. The whole care of ordering all things in the house of God was committed to the high priest: so is it now in the hand of Christ; he is over the house of God, to order all things unto the glory of God and the salvation of the church. “The house of God;” that is, the whole house of God, the family of heaven and earth, — that part of the church above and that here below, which make up ,but one house of God. The church here below is comprised in the first place; for unto them it is that this encouragement is given, unto whom this motive of drawing nigh is proposed, namely, as they have a high priest.
And it is in the heavenly sanctuary wherein he administereth, or in the house of God above; into which also we do enter by our prayers and sacred worship; so is he for ever over his own house.
Obs. VIII. The Lord Christ doth peculiarly preside over all the persons, duties, and worship of believers in the church of God: 1. In that all their worship is of his appointment, and what is not so belongs not to the house of God; 2. In that he assists the worshippers by his Spirit or the performance of this duty; 3. That he makes their services accepted with God; 4. In rendering their worship glorious by the administration of his Spirit, and effectual through the addition of the incense of his intercession. For other things that may be hence educed, see our exposition of Hebrews 4:14.-16.
Ver. 22 — “Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.”
The duty is here expressed whereunto these encouragements and privileges do direct and lead. And this duty is described, 1. By the nature of it; “Let us draw near.” 2 . The qualification of the persons by whom it is to be performed; “With a true heart.” 3. The manner of its performance; “In full assurance of faith.” 4. The preparation for it: which is twofold; (1.) That “our hearts be sprinkled from an evil conscience;” (2.) That “our bodies be washed with pure water.” 1. The duty itself is expressed by prosercw>meqa , the word whereby the whole performance of all divine, solemn worship was constantly expressed.
For God having fixed the residence of the signs of his presence unto a certain place, namely, that of the tabernacle and altar, none could worship him but it was by an approach, an access, a drawing nigh unto that place, the means of their worship, and the pledges of God’s presence therein. So were they to bring their gifts, their offerings, their sacrifices; every thing wherewith they worshipped in it was an approximation unto God. Now all these things, tabernacle, temple, altar, as we have showed, were types of Christ and the gracious presence of God in him; and they were appointed only unto this end, to teach the church to look for an access to God in and by him alone. Wherefore the apostle tells the Hebrews, that as they had under the old testament an approach unto God, and were then oiJ proserco>menoi , “those that came and drew nigh unto him,” yet it was defective in three things: (1.) That it was by carnal means, “the blood of bulls and goats” (2.) That it was not unto God himself, but only some outward pledges of his presence. (3.) That in this access they were always excluded from an entrance into the holiest. This way being now removed, there is that appointed in the room thereof which is liable to none of these defects For, (1.) It is not by things carnal, but in a holy, spiritual way and manner, as the ensuing description of it doth manifest. (2.) It is not unto any outward pledges of the divine presence, but immediately unto God himself, even the Father. (3.) It is into the most holy place itself, the special residence of God, and of our high priest, Christ Jesus. Wherefore this drawing near containeth all the holy worship of the church, both public and private, all the ways of our access unto God by Christ. And the charge given for this duty is the first inference the apostle maketh from the consideration of the benefits we receive by the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ. 2. The principal qualification of the persons exhorted unto this duty, is “a true heart.” God in an especial manner requireth “truth in the inward parts” in all that come unto him, Psalm 51:6. Especially he doth so in his worship, John 4:24. Now truth respects either the mind, and is opposed unto falsehood; or respects the heart and affections, and is opposed to hypocrisy. In the first way all false worship is rejected, all means of the worship of God not of his own institution. But the truth of the heart here intended, is the sincerity of heart which is opposed unto all hypocrisy. Two things are therefore comprised in this qualification: — Obs. IX. That the heart is that which God principally respects in our access unto him. — The Hebrews, in their degenerate condition, rested in the outward performance of duties: so as they made their access outwardly according to the institutions and directions of the law, they were regardless of themselves and of the inner man, and of the frame thereof. But it is the heart that God requires; and accordingly, that it be under the conduct of doctrinal truth in the light of the mind, and not only that it be true and free from hypocrisy in the acts of worship that it goes about, but also that in its habitual frame it be holy, and throughout leavened with sincerity. Thence it is denominated “a true heart.” If men be sincere in the acts of worship, but fail of it in point of walking and conversation, they will not be accepted in it.
Obs. X. Universal, internal sincerity of heart is required of all those that draw nigh unto God in his holy worship. — It is so, (1.) From the nature of God; (2.) From the nature of the worship itself; (3.) From the conscience of the worshippers, which can have neither boldness nor confidence without it. What is required unto that sincerity, or “true heart,” without which we cannot freely draw nigh unto God in any duty of his worship, I cannot now declare. 3. There is the way and manner, together with the principle to be acted in all our accesses unto God: jEn plhrofori>a th~v pi>stewv , — “In the full assurance of faith.” (1.) “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” Wherefore faith is required in this access on a twofold account: [1.] Of the qualification of the person. He must be a true believer who hath this access, all others are utterly excluded from it: [2.] Of its actual exercise in every particular duty of access. Abel by faith offered his sacrifice; and there is no duty acceptable unto God which is not quickened and enlivened by faith. (2.) As unto this access unto God by Christ, the apostle requires that there be “a full assurance of faith.” Many have disputed wherein this assurance of faith doth consist, what it is that belongs thereunto. We must consider the design of the apostle and scope of the place, and what they do require. The word is used only in this place, though the verb, plhrofore>w , be used elsewhere, Romans 4:21, 14:5, to signify a full satisfaction of mind in what we are persuaded of. Here two things seem to be included in it. [1.] That which in other places the apostle expresseth by parjrJhsi>a which is the word constantly used to declare the frame of mind which is or ought to be in gospel worshippers, in opposition unto that of the law.
And it hath two things in it: 1st. An open view of the spiritual glories, of the way and end of our approach unto God; which they had not. 2dly. Liberty and confidence, — liberty of speech, and confidence of being accepted; which in their bondage condition they had not.
Therefore the apostle thus expresseth the way and manner of our approaching to God by Christ, in opposition unto that under the law, and affirms it to be in the full assurance and spiritual boldness of faith. This is the “plerophory” of it; which frame of mind is plainly directed unto. [2.] A firm and unmovable persuasion concerning the priesthood of Christ, whereby we have this access unto God, with the glory and efficacy of it; faith without wavering. For many of the Hebrews who had received in general the faith of the gospel, yet wavered up and down in their minds about this office of Christ, and the glorious things related of it by the apostle; supposing that there might some place be yet left for the administration of the legal high priest. This frame the apostle confutes; and shows that under it men could have no access to God, nor acceptance with him.
Wherefore the “full assurance of faith” here, respects not the assurance that any have of their own salvation, nor any degree of such an assurance; it is only the full satisfaction of our souls and consciences in the reality and efficacy of the priesthood of Christ to give us acceptance with God, in opposition unto all other ways and means thereof, that is intended. But withal this persuasion is accompanied with an assured trust of our own acceptance with God in and by him, with an acquiescence of our souls therein.
Obs. XI. The actual exercise of faith is required in all our approaches unto God, in every particular duty of his worship. Without this no outward solemnity of worship, no exercise of it will avail us.
Obs. XII. It is faith in Christ alone that gives us boldness of access unto God.
Obs. XIII. The person and office of Christ are to be rested in with full assurance in all our accesses to the throne of grace. 4. There is a twofold preparation prescribed unto us for the right discharge of this duty: (1.) That “our hearts be sprinkled from an evil conscience.” (2.) That “our bodies be washed with pure water.” It is plain that the apostle in these expressions alludeth unto the necessary preparations for divine service under the law. For whereas there were various ways whereby men were legally defiled, so there were means appointed for their legal purification, which we have declared on Hebrews 9. Without the use and application of those purifications, if any of them that were so defiled did draw nigh unto the worship of God, he was to die, or be “cut off.” These institutions the apostle doth not only allude unto, and make application of things outward and carnal unto things inward and spiritual, but withal declares what was their nature and typical administration. They were not appointed for their own sakes, but to typify and represent the spiritual grace, and its efficacy, which we receive by the sacrifice of Christ.
The subject spoken of is twofold: (1.) The heart; (2.) The body; — that is, the inward and outward man. (1.) As unto the first, it is required that, with respect unto it, it be separated from an evil conscience. There is no doubt but in this place, as in many others, the “heart” is taken for all the faculties of our souls, with our affections; for it is that wherein conscience is seated, wherein it acts its power, which it doth especially in the practical understanding, as the affections are ruled and guided thereby.
This conscience is affirmed to be “evil,” antecedently unto the means proposed for the taking it away. Conscience, as conscience, is not to be separated from the heart; but as it is evil, it must be so.
Conscience may be said to be evil on two accounts: [1.] As it disquieteth, perplexeth, judgeth, and condemneth for sin. In this sense the apostle speaks of conscience, verse 2, a conscience condemning us for sin, which the sacrifices of the law could not take away. So a heart with an evil conscience, is a heart terrified and condemning for sin. [2.] On account of a vitiated principle in the conscience, — not performing its duty, but secure when it is filled with all unclean, vicious habits. And hereon it signifies also all those secret, latent sins in the heart, which are known only to a man’s own conscience; opposed unto the “body,” or external, known sins, which he speaks of afterwards. I take it here in the latter sense: 1st. Because it is said to be “evil,” which it cannot be with respect unto its former acts and power, for it doth therein but perform its duty, and is evil not in itself, but unto them in whom it is. And, 2dly. The way of its removal is by, “sprinkling,” and not by an oblation or offering; now sprinkling is the efficacious application of the blood of atonement unto sanctification, or internal purification.
And this is the first thing in particular, namely, the way or means of the removal of this evil conscience; which is by sprinkling of our hearts. The expression is taken from the sprinkling of blood upon the offering of the sacrifices, Exodus 29:16,21; Leviticus 4:17, 14:7: the spiritual interpretation and application whereof is given us, Ezekiel 36:25. And whereas this sprinkling from sin, and cleansing thereby, is in Ezekiel ascribed unto pure water, and whereas it was in the type the blood of the sacrifice that was sprinkled, it gives us the sense of the whole. For as the blood of the sacrifice was a type of the blood and sacrifice of Christ as offered unto God, so it is the Holy Spirit and his efficacious work that are denoted by “pure water,” as is frequently promised. Wherefore, this sprinkling of our hearts is an act of the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost, by virtue of the blood and sacrifice of Christ, in making of that application of them unto our souls wherein the blood of Christ, the Son of God, cleanseth us from all our sins. Hereby are “our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience;” [1.] Originally, in the communication of regenerating, sanctifying grace; [2.] Continually, in fresh applications of the virtue of the |
