Hebrews 7:27
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
Jump to: AlfordBarnesBengelBensonBICalvinCambridgeChrysostomClarkeDarbyEllicottExpositor'sExp DctExp GrkGaebeleinGSBGillGrayGuzikHaydockHastingsHomileticsICCJFBKellyKingLangeMacLarenMHCMHCWMeyerParkerPNTPoolePulpitSermonSCOTTBVWSWESTSK
(27) This verse carries on the description, presenting what follows from this purity and sinlessness.

As those high priests.—The high priest’s offering up sacrifices first for himself and then for the people constituted a chief part of his duty upon the Day of Atonement. (See Hebrews 5:3.) The annual recurrence of that day is distinctly referred to more than once in this Epistle (see Hebrews 9:25; Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:3): hence the words now before us, which seem to imply daily sacrifices thus offered by the high priests, have given rise to much discussion. Neither the morning and evening sacrifices nor the daily meat-offering of the high priest could have been spoken of in the terms here used, which in their natural meaning suit the ritual of the Day of Atonement, and that alone. It is true—and passages of Philo and the Talmud are appositely quoted to illustrate the fact—that, as the high priest was represented by all other priests, their actions were counted as his; but it seems impossible to think that the words have no more significance than this. Either we must take “daily” as equivalent to “day by day” (as the Jews were accustomed to speak of the Day of Atonement as “the day”),—which will give us the meaning, “on each recurrence of this sacred day;” or we must connect the word, not with the Jewish high priests, but with Jesus alone. The order of the Greek would of itself suggest this latter arrangement of the words. If it is correct, the choice of the word “daily” presents but little difficulty. There could be no question of years in regard to the ministration of the Lord Jesus in the heavenly sanctuary; and “daily” was perhaps the most natural word in such a case, when the frequently stated repetition of a sacrifice was the thought to be expressed.

For this he did once.—Rather, once for all. These words and those that follow, “when He offered up Himself,” are best understood as a parenthesis. The truth stated in the former part of the verse, that Jesus needeth not, like the high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then “for those of the people,” finds its explanation in Hebrews 7:28, “For the Law,” &c. But, having introduced the thought of a sacrifice for the sins of the people—a thought not yet expressly mentioned in any part of the Epistle in connection with Jesus, though virtually presented, as we have seen, in many earlier words—the writer will not pass on without the most emphatic statement that such a sacrifice was offered, once for all, in the sacrifice of Himself.

7:26-28 Observe the description of the personal holiness of Christ. He is free from all habits or principles of sin, not having the least disposition to it in his nature. No sin dwells in him, not the least sinful inclination, though such dwells in the best of Christians. He is harmless, free from all actual transgression; he did no violence, nor was there any deceit in his mouth. He is undefiled. It is hard to keep ourselves pure, so as not to partake the guilt of other men's sins. But none need be dismayed who come to God in the name of his beloved Son. Let them be assured that he will deliver them in the time of trial and suffering, in the time of prosperity, in the hour of death, and in the day of judgment.Who needeth not daily, as those high priests - As the Jewish priests. This is an additional circumstance introduced to show the superior excellency of the High Priest of the Christian profession, and to show also how he was suited to our wants. The Jewish high priest was a sinful man. He had the same fallen and corrupt nature as others. He needed an expiatory sacrifice for his own sins as really as they did for theirs. When he approached God to offer sacrifice, it was needful to make an atonement for himself, and when all was done it was still a sacrifice offered by a sinful man. But it was not so in the case of Jesus. He was so holy that he needed no sacrifice for himself, and all that he did was in behalf of others. Besides, it was necessary that the sacrifices in the Jewish service should be constantly repeated. They were imperfect. They were mere types and shadows. They who offered them were frail, sinful men. It became necessary, therefore, to repeat them every day to keep up the proper sense of their transgressions, and to furnish a suitable acknowledgment of the tendency to sin alike among the people and the priests. Neither in the nature of the offering, nor in the character of those who made it, was there any sufficient reason why it should cease to be offered, and it was therefore repeated day by day. But it was not so with the Lord Jesus. The offering which he made, though presented but once, was so ample and perfect that it had sufficient merit for all the sins of the world, and needed never to be repeated. It is not probable that the Jewish high priest himself personally officiated at the offering of sacrifice every day; but the meaning here is, that it was done daily, and that there was need of a daily sacrifice in his behalf. As one of the Jewish people, the sacrifice was offered on his account as well as on the account of others - for he partook of the common infirmities and sinfulness of the nation.

For this he did once - That is, once for all - ἐφάπαξ ephapax. He made such an atonement that it was not needful that it should be repeated. Thus, he put an end to sacrifice, for when he made the great atonement it was complete, and there was no need that any more blood should be shed for human guilt.

27. daily—"day by day." The priests daily offered sacrifices (Heb 9:6; 10:11; Ex 29:38-42). The high priests took part in these daily-offered sacrifices only on festival days; but as they represented the whole priesthood, the daily offerings are here attributed to them; their exclusive function was to offer the atonement "once every year" (Heb 9:7), and "year by year continually" (Heb 10:1). The "daily" strictly belongs to Christ, not to the high priests, "who needeth not daily, as those high priests (year by year, and their subordinate priests daily), to offer," &c.

offer up—The Greek term is peculiarly used of sacrifices for sin. The high priest's double offering on the day of atonement, the bullock for himself, and the goat for the people's sins, had its counterpart in the TWO lambs offered daily by the ordinary priests.

this he did—not "died first for His own sins and then the people's," but for the people's only. The negation is twofold: He needeth not to offer (1) daily; nor (2) to offer for His own sins also; for He offered Himself a spotless sacrifice (Heb 7:26; Heb 4:15). The sinless alone could offer for the sinful.

once—rather as Greek, "once for all." The sufficiency of the one sacrifice to atone for all sins for ever, resulted from its absolute spotlessness.

In this verse the Spirit shows the ground of his intercession work in heaven, and why he doth not sacrifice as a High Priest there; therein setting his far above the Aaronical priesthood.

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice; he had no necessity, being so holy as he was, to multiply sacrifices.

First for his own sins, and then for the people’s; for himself, being sinless, and having no infirmity to atone for, as the Aaronical priesthood had, who annually on the day of atonement did offer sacrifice for themselves, being sinners, and needing pardon as well as the people, Leviticus 9:7. And he had no need anually on a day to offer for the people’s sins, as Aaron and his successors had, and did continue to do, till his sacrifice took place and abolished them; he having once offered a sacrifice for the sins of the people, which outweighed all their multiplied sacrifices.

For this he did once, when he offered up himself; and this he did once when he himself died a sacrifice for sins, when he offered up the human nature by the eternal Spirit without spot, a propitiatory sacrifice to God, when his body hung on the cross, and his soul ascended and entered into the throne of God in the holy of holiest in heaven, with the blood of the testament, and atoned him for all his people. How transcendent was this sacrifice to all the Aaronical ones, whereby sinners were reconciled unto God for ever! Hebrews 9:11,12,14,24-26. On this offering was he exalted by God fitr above all heavens, confirmed by oath in his office, and his intercession became so powerful and effectual to save all his people from their sins, and the consequents of them.

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests,.... They being sinners, and he not:

to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the people's; as they did on the day of atonement; see Leviticus 16:6 upon which place the Jews (c) make the same remark the apostle does here;

"he (the high priest, they say) offers sacrifices for the sins of the people, for his own "first", "and afterwards for the sins of the people":''

which was one reason of the imperfection and insufficiency of their sacrifices; but Christ needed not to offer for his own, nor could he, for he had none of his own; what he had was by imputation; wherefore he only needed to offer, and he only did offer, for the sins of the people; not of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles also, even of all God's covenant people; nor did he need to do this daily, as they did; they offered sacrifice daily, the common priests every day, morning and evening, and the high priest on a stated day once a year, on the day of atonement:

for this he did once, when he offered up himself; and in this also he differed from them; they offered not themselves, but what was inferior to themselves, and what could not take away sin, and, therefore, was repeated; but Christ offered himself, his whole human nature, soul and body, and both as in union with his divine nature; and this being offered to God freely and voluntarily, in the room and stead of his people, was acceptable to God: hereby justice was satisfied; the law fulfilled; sin taken away, and complete salvation obtained; so that there never was since any need of his offering again, nor never will be; which shows the perfection and fulness of his priesthood, and the preference of it to the Levitical one.

(c) Zohar in Lev. fol. 26. 4.

Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: {13} for {l} this he did {m} once, when he offered up himself.

(13) Another argument, which nonetheless he handles afterward: The Levitical priests offered sacrifice after sacrifice, first for themselves, and then for the people. Christ offered not for himself, but for others, not sacrifices, but himself, not repeatedly, but once. This should not seem strange, he says, for they are weak, but this man is consecrated as an everlasting Priest, and that by an oath.

(l) That sacrifice which he offered.

(m) It was done so that it need not be repeated or offered again any more.

Hebrews 7:27. In the πρότερον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν, ἔπειτα τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ there is an apparent allusion to the sacrifice of the high priest on the great day of atonement (Leviticus 16.), comp. Hebrews 9:7. We are prevented, however, from referring the words to this alone (perhaps to the including of the sin-offering prescribed, Leviticus 4:3 ff.) by καθʼ ἡμέραν, instead of which, as at Hebrews 9:25, Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:3, κατʼ ἐνιαυτόν must have been placed. For καθʼ ἡμέραν can signify nothing else than “daily” or “day by day.” To foist upon it the signification: “yearly on a definite day” (“καθʼ ἡμέραν ὡρισμένην or τεταγμένην”), with Schlichting (secundum diem, nempe statam ac definitam, in anniversario illo videlicet sacrificio), Piscator, Starck, Peirce, Chr. Fr. Schmid, M‘Lean, Storr, and others; or to take it in the attenuated sense, as equivalent to “saepissime, quoties res fert” (Grotius, Owen), or “πολλάκις” (Böhme, Stein), or “διὰ παντός” (de Wette), or in the sense of “one day after another” (Ebrard, who supposes the author is overlooking a succession of centuries, and so a succession of days present themselves to his eye, in which the high priest again and again offers a sacrifice!), is linguistically unwarranted. In like manner it is a mere subterfuge and arbitrary misinterpreting of the words, when Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 438), and Alford, concurring in the suggestion of Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 404 f., 2 Aufl.), seek to put into them the sense: that Christ needeth not to do daily that which the high priests do once every year, but which He—if He is to be a constant mediator of an all-embracing expiation of sin—must needs do day by day. For all that is expressed is the fact that Christ needs not to do daily that which the Levitical high priests need to do daily.[84] Nor does it avail anything that Kurtz will take καθʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ in conjunction only with ΟὐΚ ἜΧΕΙ ἈΝΆΓΚΗΝ, since these words do not occupy an independent position alone, and only acquire their more precise definition by that which follows. For that ΚΑΘʼ ἩΜΈΡΑΝ has “nothing whatever to do with the ΘΥΣΊΑς ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ,” is a mere assertion on the part of Kurtz; and his contention, that only the “daily renewal and daily pressing necessity,” of the O. T. high priest on account of his daily sinning, the necessity, “ere (on the great day of propitiation) he could offer for the sin of the whole people, of first presenting a sacrifice for his own sins,” was to be brought into relief, is a violent perversion of the words,—admitting as they do of no misapprehension,—from which even the ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝ, ἜΠΕΙΤΑ, expressive of a relation of parity, ought to have kept him; in place of which, in order to bring out the subsidiary character of the one half of the statement, πρὸ τοῦ with the infinitive, or ΠΡΊΝ (ΠΡῚΝ Ἤ), must have been written. We have therefore to conclude, with Gerhard, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Wolf, Carpzov, Bleek, and Tholuck, that the author had present to his mind, besides the principal sacrifice on the great day of atonement, at the same time the ordinary daily sacrifice of the Levitical priests (Exodus 29:38-42; Numbers 28:3-8), and by reason of an inexact mode of expression blended the two together; to which he might the more easily be led, in that, according to Josephus, the high priest—not indeed always, but yet on the Sabbaths, new moons, and other festivals (according to the Mishna tr. Tamith, vii. 3 : in general as often as he was so minded)—went up with the other priests into the temple, and took part in the sacrificial service. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Judaico, v. 5. 7 : Ὁ δὲ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀνῄει μὲν σὺν αὐτοῖς ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀεί, ταῖς δʼ ἑβδομάσι καὶ νουμηνίαις, καὶ εἴ τις ἑορτὴ πάτριος ἢ πανήγυρις πάνδημος ἀγομένη διʼ ἔτους. To be compared also are the words of Philo, who, Quis rer. divin. haer. p. 505 A (with Mangey, I. p. 497), remarks that in the daily sacrifice the priests offered the oblation for themselves, but the lambs for the people (Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς ἐνδελεχεῖς θυσίας ὁρᾷς εἰς ἴσα διῃρημένας, ἥν τε ὑπὲρ αὑτῶν ἀνάγουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς διὰ τῆς σεμιδάλεως καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν δυοῖν ἀμνῶν, οὓς ἀναφέρειν ΔΙΕΊΡΗΤΑΙ), and de Speciall. Legg. p. 797 E (with Mangey, II. p. 321), equally as our passage, ascribes to the high priest the offering of a daily sacrifice (οὕτω τοῦ σύμπαντος ἔθνους συγγενὴς καὶ ἀγχιστεὺς κοινὸς ὁ ἀρχιερεύς ἐστι, πρυτανεύων μὲν τὰ δίκαια τοῖς ἀμφισβητοῦσι κατὰ τοὺς νόμους, εὐχὰς δὲ καὶ θυσίας τελῶν καθʼ ἐκάστην ἡμέραν). Recently also Delitzsch (Talmudische Studien, XIII., in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. für die luther. Theol, u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 593 f.) has further drawn attention to the fact that likewise, Jer. Chagiga, ii. 4, and Bab. Pesachim, 57a, it is said of the high priest that he offers daily.

τοῦτο] namely, ΤῸ ὙΠῈΡ ΤῶΝ ΤΟῦ ΛΑΟῦ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ΘΥΣΊΑΝ ἈΝΑΦΈΡΕΙΝ. So rightly—as is even demanded by Hebrews 7:28 (comp. Hebrews 4:15)

Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Clarius, Estius, Piscator, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Peirce, Carpzov, Whitby, Storr, Heinrichs, Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 463), Alford, Kurtz, and others. Less suitably do Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Bengel, and Ebrard supplement τὸ θυσίας ἀναφέρειν; while, altogether wrongly, Schlichting, Grotius, Hammond, and Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. pp. 405, 401 f.) refer back τοῦτο to the whole proposition ΠΡΌΤΕΡΟΝΛΑΟῦ. For in the application to Christ, to explain the ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ as the “dolores, qui solent peccatorum poenae esse, et quas Christus occasione etiam peccatorum humani generis toleravit, et a quibus liberatus est per mortem” (Grotius), or as “Christi infirmitates et perpessiones” (Schlichting, Hofmann, according to which latter in connection with ἙΑΥΤῸΝ ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς, besides Christ’s suffering of death, His prayer in Gethsemane (!) is at the same time to be thought of), becomes possible only on the arbitrary supposition of a double sense to the preceding words, and is equally much opposed to the context (Hebrews 7:28) as to the linguistic use of ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ.

] once for all; comp. Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 10:10; Romans 6:10. Belongs to ἐποίησεν, not to ἈΝΕΝΈΓΚΑς.

] in that He offered Himself. Christ is thus not only the High Priest of the New Covenant, but also the victim offered. Comp. Hebrews 8:3, Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:25 f., Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:14; Ephesians 5:2.

[84] The unsatisfactory character of the above exposition was afterwards acknowledged by Delitzsch himself, and the explanation retracted by him (in Rudelbach and Guericke’s Zeitschr. f. diegesammte luther. Theol. u. Kirche, 1860, H. 4, p. 595).

27. daily] A difficulty is suggested by this word, because the High Priest did not offer sacrifices daily, but only once a year on the Day of Atonement. In any case the phrase would be a mere verbal inaccuracy, since the High Priest could be regarded as potentially ministering in the daily sacrifices which were offered by the inferior Priests; or the one yearly sacrifice may be regarded as summing up all the daily sacrifices needed to expiate the High Priest’s daily sins (so that “daily” would mean “continually”). It appears however that the High Priest might if he chose take actual part in the daily offerings (Exodus 29:38; Exodus 29:44; Leviticus 6:19-22; Jos. B. J. Hebrews 7:5-7). It is true that the daily sacrifices and Mincha or “meat offering” had no recorded connexion with any expiatory sacrifices; but an expiatory significance seems to have been attached to the daily offering of incense (Leviticus 16:12-13, LXX.; Yoma, f. 44. 1). The notion that there is any reference to the Jewish Temple built by Onias at Leontopolis is entirely baseless. Both Philo (De Spec. Legg. § 53) and the Talmud use the very same expression as the writer, who seems to have been perfectly well aware that, normally and strictly, the High Priest only offered sacrifices on one day in the year (Hebrews 9:25, Hebrews 10:1; Hebrews 10:3). The stress may be on the necessity. Those priests needed the expiation by sacrifice for daily sins; Christ did not.

he did once] Rather, “once for all” (Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 9:28, Hebrews 10:10; Romans 6:10). Christ offered one sacrifice, once offered, but eternally sufficient.

when he offered up himself] The High Priest was also the Victim, Hebrews 8:3, Hebrews 9:12; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 9:25, Hebrews 10:10; Hebrews 10:12; Hebrews 10:14; Ephesians 5:2 (Lünemann).

Hebrews 7:27. Οὐ, not) The Negation has a double force, and is thus to be explained: He has no necessity to offer, 1. daily: 2. for His own sins also. Not daily, for He has done that once for all. Not for His own sins, for He offered Himself, a holy sacrifice. There is besides in it an inverted Chiasmus. The first follows from the second, the second is confirmed by the 28th verse. Often in Scripture two positions (theses) are laid down, and are proved by the γὰρ, for, twice following them.—καθʼ ἡμέραν, daily) κατʼ ἐνιαυτὸν, year by year, properly, ch. Hebrews 10:3. The Hebrews speak of the day, instead of the day of expiation; whence some translate καθʼ ἡμέραν, on every day of expiation: but it retains here its usual meaning, so that there is as it were a kind of indignant hyperbole (such as at ch. Hebrews 10:1, εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς, for ever), intimating that the high priest was of no more avail by offering yearly on a stated day, than if he had offered daily with the common priests, ch. Hebrews 9:6-7.—τοῦτο) this is simply to be referred to His offering, not to His offering also for Himself.—ἐφάπαξ, once) Romans 6:10, note; so below ch. Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 10:10.

Verse 27. - Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. The expression "daily" (καθ ἡμέραν) is not in strictness applicable to the high priest, who did not offer the daily sacrifice. The reference throughout what follows being to the high priest's peculiar functions on the Day of Atonement, κατ ἐνιαυτόν might have been expected. There are two tenable solutions:

(1) that the daily offerings of the priests are regarded as made by the high priest, who represented the whole priesthood, on the principle, qui facit per altos tacit per se;

(2) that καθ ἡμέραν (as is suggested by its position in the sentence) belongs not to οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, but only to Christ: "who has no need daily, as the high priests have yearly:" for his intercession being perpetual, an offering on his part would be needed daily, if needed at all. This view is supported by the fact that the daily sacrifices are not spoken of in the Law as including a special one in the first place for the priest's own sin. "This he did." Did what? Offer for his own sins as well as for the people's? No; for, though it has been seen above (Hebrews 5:7) how the high priest's offering for himself might have its counterpart in the agony, the Sinless One cannot be said to have offered for sins of his own. And, besides, he having offered himself (ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας), the offering could not be for himself. We must, therefore, take "this he did" as referring only to the latter part of the preceding clause, while ἐαυτὸν, προσενέγκας answers to the former part; or as implying generally, "did all that was needed for atonement." Hebrews 7:27Who needeth not daily (καθ' ἡμέραν)

Apparently inconsistent with Hebrews 9:7 : but the sense is, "who hath no need day by day as the high priest had (year by year) to offer sacrifices," etc. The great point is repetition, whether daily or yearly.

Once (ἐφάπαξ)

Rend. once for all. Contrasted with daily.

When he offered up himself (ἑαυτὸν ανενέγκας)

A new thought. For the first time Christ appears as victim. Comp. Hebrews 9:12, Hebrews 9:14; Ephesians 5:2.

Hebrews 7:27 Interlinear
Hebrews 7:27 Parallel Texts

Hebrews 7:27 NIV
Hebrews 7:27 NLT
Hebrews 7:27 ESV
Hebrews 7:27 NASB
Hebrews 7:27 KJV

Hebrews 7:27 Bible Apps
Hebrews 7:27 Parallel
Hebrews 7:27 Biblia Paralela
Hebrews 7:27 Chinese Bible
Hebrews 7:27 French Bible
Hebrews 7:27 German Bible

Bible Hub

Hebrews 7:26
Top of Page
Top of Page