Andrew,

I still don’t understand how you argue that the killing of the animal and the presenting of the blood in the temple are separate events (which is a point I’ve been trying to make repeatedly) and then fail to see how this applies to Jesus’ priestly ministry.  Obviously to be offered is not to offer.  I don’t know how to say it any other way.

Your argument is circular.  You assert that (in Hebrews, at least) to ‘offer’ does NOT involve the bloodshed of the victim but only the presenting of the blood of victim in the Most Holy Place - a presupposition that is unwarranted.  On this basis you so interpret 9:24ff., concluding that the events described (including the passive usage, inexplicably) refer not to the sacrifice of Christ but to the presentation of his blood before God.  Behind this constriction we see a rather wooden interpretation of the significance of Ps.110 in Hebrews and Christ’s appointment to His priesthood, which I will have to address in a later post.  Suffice it to say, by way of analogy, that Ps.2 does not mean that Jesus is not God’s Son prior to the resurrection.  It is a declaration, rather, of an (historically) accomplished redemption in the enthronement of the messianic king - the source of eternal redemption for all who obey him.  Yet the blood He shed in history was ‘foreordained’ before creation, was retroactive in history (how was the conscience of David cleansed? Not by the blood of bulls and goats) as the ‘eternal blood of the covenant" (He.13:20). 

Let me then more carefully challenge your unsubstantiated presupposition about the meaning of ‘offering’.  I of course agree that it does refer to the act of presenting the blood or burnt portions before the Lord in His tabernacle.  However, it seems clear from Lev.1:3ff.; 2:1ff.; 3:6ff.; etc., that the act of offering entails the entire sacrificial ritual, including the slaughter of the animal.  So whatever might be argued about its usage, lexically it certainly entails the sacrificial death of the victim(s) who/which are offered to the Lord (where such applies).  To be specific, let me state again that the slaughter of the animal is part and parcel of the offering ritual.  Such was not the exception, as you suggest, but the rule.

Leviticus 27:9, 11 and Ex.36:3 LXX contain this verb in the passive voice, where it refers either to the animals being offered in the ritual (participle) or the ‘experience’ of being offering.  Hence, when He.9:28 refers to Christ who "was offered" it speaks of His ‘role’ as victim, the animal offered, according to the analogy. 

This is clear not only from the lexical data, but also the context of Hebrews.  Thus 13:11-13 refers to the suffering of Christ outside the ‘gate’ (on the analogy that it was outside the camp where the bodies of the victims were burned after they had been ‘bled’), for the purpose of or result that we might be made holy ‘through his blood’.  And if you insist that blood be linked to the metaphorical cleansing of the heavenly temple rather than to his death, 10:10 says, "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."  When was his body offered ‘once and for all’?  Surely, then this speaks of his death.

So again, 9:28 is a distinct act (where he ‘suffers’ offering), according to the grammar and analogy, from 9:23-24 (where he ‘enacts’ offering).  BTW, I agree with your assessment of 9:25.  No argument there.  Yet 9:26 clearly connects that offering to his passion, whereas you are seeking to sever that connection.

That the author of Hebrews sees these two things (the bloodshed and the presentation of the blood in the Most Holy Place) as part and parcel of the single act of Christ’s ‘offering’ for purification from sins is clear from chapter 9, where ‘offering’ (prospherow) speaks of both aspects. 

V.12 "and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

How did He obtain eternal redemption?  Through His bloodshed on the cross, that is, His death.  If there is any question about this, one only has to read what the author says in v.15:

"And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance."

So, Christ’s death secured the redemption from sins ‘unto’ an eternal inheritance, and this, according to the grammar, before He entered the true tabernacle in heaven.  Interesting to note, btw, that Hebrews argues that the law was enacted on the basis of the Levitical priesthood, and yet it is also apparent that it is in the law of Moses that the Levitical priesthood is declared ‘set apart’ for their sacred ministry - i.e., appointed.

So, not missing the forest for the trees, we summarize that it is in Christ’s death that the redemption from sins committed under the old covenant, that the forgiveness of sins of the new, is secured.  To then suggest that it is only in his offering his blood in the Temple that we have ‘been perfected’ and ‘made holy’ according to his heavenly, priestly ministry is therefore completely out of sync with the whole book.  It is to ‘rent asunder’ what the author sees as an organic whole.          

Read further vv.13-14:

"For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"

So here we read that Christ, through the eternal Spirit offered himself (active voice with reflexive pronoun indicating both his role as victim ‘offered’ and priest ‘offering’) without blemish.  The important modifier ‘without blemish’ appears all over the place in the OT, refering of course to the state of the animal prior to being slaughtered, speaking to the quality and value of the offering being sacrificed (e.g., Ez.43:23-24 LXX; cf. Dt.17:1).  This concept of ‘without blemish" with reference to Christ reminds us again of 1Peter: "but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect" - the precious blood by which we have been redeemed. 

But that Christ’s offering of himself for sin speaks of his sacrificial death (ala Isa.53 LXX) together with His ascension and entrance into the celestial Temple with His own blood - which is seen as one act in Hebrews, compare such summaries as 1:3; 10:12; 12:2 - is also apparent in 7:27.  The first half of the verse tells us by way of contrast that the hight priest must offer sacrifices (thusias anapherein), where ‘sacrifices’ again entails the act of slaughter whenever a victim is involved (thuo, for instance, has the basic meaning of ‘slaughter’ or ‘to kill’).  The second half tells us that Christ did this (i.e., offered sacrifice for sin) once for all ‘when he offered himself’, which speaks of his exalted heavenly ministry (7:26) as well as his death.  For you would be hard pressed to argue against the lexical evidence that ‘offer a sacrifice’ did not involve the slaughter of the victim offered, whether in the context of Hebrews (where Jesus’ death looms large), or in the author’s canonical context of the entire Pentateuch. 

 The similar phrase of ‘having offered a sacrfice for sins’ (huper hamarteon, cf. Isa.53:10 LXX) appears in 10:12, where in v.14 it goes on to say that through "one sacrifice" (prosphorow) he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified — clearly referring to his bodily sacrifice by which we were made holy (10:10; cf. 13:12).   So again, the offering of himself entailed his death on earth.  

But returning now to 9:14, it would seem clear that the act of Christ offering himself "through the eternal Spirit" (which would be an odd way of speaking about Christ’s offering within the heavenly tabernacle, ‘in  the face of God’, 9:24) refers to his sacrifice on the cross, where he was led as a lamb without blemish, slaughtered, with his carcas put ‘outside the camp’ (to follow the analogy), and yet endured this shame for the joy set before him - to sit at the right hand of God as the royal high priest on his throne, having secured the forgiveness of sins, our redemption by His death, and having entered into God’s presence with his own blood (shed on earth) on our behalf.     

So the rendering of ‘offering’ as given above not only makes sense in the entire context and analogical basis of Hebrews, but also coheres better with the rest of our Old and New Testaments.  It is to be preferred, as nearly every commentator throughout church history has affirmed.