A good point by bro. Stone. If this verse says anything, it says that he offered for his own sins. This is a true statement. I recommend any concerned with this should reference as many works on this verse as possible. You will see the trouble that the churches have with verse, which is the same problem bro. Stone is having. How can Christ be said to have sins. They have invented all sorts of ways around it. Some put parenthesis around certain portions, to try to isolate what the High Priest did from what Christ did, even though Paul's whole argument is a comparison of what the High Priest and Christ did. Others emphasize the words "needeth not" and say that the High Priest needed to, but Christ "needeth not" do this, which violates any reasonable attention to sentence structure. Still others take bro. Stone's usual approach (when he's being less candid than he was in this sentence where he admits the verse says Jesus offered for his own sins) and say that Paul was teaching that Jesus offered for the sins of the High Priests under the law, and for the sins of the people. Please refer to footnote 4. But my favorite is from 19th century Anglican churchman named Westcott. He dealt with all the different excuses and shot holes in them all. Then he simply observed that the verse says that Jesus offered for his own sins. Westcott reasons that he didn't have any sins. He suggests that the matter be left there, and go on. Westcott could do that, for he denied the complete inspiration of the Bible. Not troubled by the question of inspiration, he observed the truth of what the verse taught, and then ignored it. True Christadelphians do not have that liberty.