Now where remission of these is - Remission or forgiveness of sins; that is, of the sins mentioned in the previous verse.
There is no more offering for sin - If those sins are wholly blotted out, there is no more need of sacrifice to atone for them, any more than there is need to pay a debt again which has been once paid. The idea of Paul is, that in the Jewish dispensation there was a constant repeating of the remembrance of sins by the sacrifices which were offered, but that in reference to the dispensation under the Messiah, sin would be entirely cancelled. There would be one great and all-sufficient sacrifice, and when there was faith in that offering, sin would be absolutely forgiven. If that was the case, there would be no occasion for any further sacrifice for it, and the offering need not be repeated. This circumstance, on which the apostle insists so much, made a very important difference between the new covenant and the old. In the one, sacrifices were offered every day; in the other, the sacrifice once made was final and complete; in the one case, there was no such forgiveness but that the offender was constantly reminded of his sins by the necessity of the repetition of sacrifice; in the other, the pardon was so complete that all dread of wrath was taken away, and the sinner might look up to God as calmly and joyfully as if he had never been guilty of transgression.

Now where remission of these is - In any case, where sin is once pardoned, there is no farther need of a sin-offering; but every believer on Christ has his sin blotted out, and therefore needs no other offering for that sin.
"If," says Dr. Macknight, "after remission is granted to the sinner, there is no need of any more sacrifice for sin; and if Christ, by offering himself once, has perfected for ever the sanctified, Hebrews 10:14, the sacrifice of the mass, as it is called, about which the Romish clergy employ themselves so incessantly, and to which the papists trust for the pardon of their sins, has no foundation in Scripture. Nay, it is an evident impiety, as it proceeds upon the supposition that the offering of the body of Christ once is not sufficient to procure the pardon of sin, but must be frequently repeated. If they reply that their mass is only the representation and commemoration of the sacrifice of Christ, they give up the cause, and renounce an article of their faith, established by the council of Trent, which, in session xxii. can. 1, 3, declared the sacrifice of the mass to be a true and propitiatory sacrifice for sin. I say, give up the cause; for the representation and commemoration of a sacrifice is not a sacrifice. Farther, it cannot be affirmed that the body of Christ is offered in the mass, unless it can be said that, as often as it is offered, Christ has suffered death; for the apostle says expressly, Hebrews 9:25, Hebrews 9:26, that if Christ offered himself often, he must often have suffered since the foundation of the world." Let him disprove this who can.

Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering for (g) sin.
(g) He said well, for sin: for there remains another offering, that is, of thanksgiving.

Now where remission of these is,.... That is, of these sins; and that there is remission of them, is evident from this promise of the covenant, just now produced; from God's gracious proclamation of it; from the shedding of Christ's blood for it; from his exaltation at the Father's right hand to give it; from the Gospel declaration of it; and from the several instances of persons favoured with it:
there is no more offering for sin; there may be other offerings, as of praise and thanksgiving, but none for sin; "there is no need", as the Syriac version; or there is not required, as the Arabic version; there is no need of the reiteration of Christ's sacrifice, nor will he be offered up any more, nor of the repetition of legal sacrifices, nor ought they to continue any longer. The Jews themselves say (w), that
"in the time to come (i.e. in the times of the Messiah) all offerings shall cease, but the sacrifice of praise.''
And one of their writers says (x), when
"the King Messiah, the son of David, shall reign, there will be no need of "an atonement", nor of deliverance, or prosperity, for all these things will be had;''
(w) Vajikra Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 153. 1. (x) R. Abendana Not. in Miclol Yophi in Psal. lxxii. 20.

where remission of these is--as there is under the Gospel covenant (Hebrews 10:17). "Here ends the finale (Hebrews. 10:1-18) of the great tripartite arrangement (Hebrews. 7:1-25; 7:26-9:12; 9:13-10:18) of the middle portion of the Epistle. Its great theme was Christ a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. What it is to be a high priest after the order of Melchisedec is set forth, Hebrews. 7:1-25, as contrasted with the Aaronic order. That Christ, however, as High Priest, is Aaron's antitype in the true holy place, by virtue of His self-sacrifice here on earth, and Mediator of a better covenant, whose essential character the old only typified, we learn, Hebrews. 7:26-9:12. And that Christ's self-sacrifice, offered through the Eternal Spirit, is of everlasting power, as contrasted with the unavailing cycle of legal offerings, is established in the third part, Hebrews. 9:13-10:18; the first half of this last portion [Hebrews. 9:13-28], showing that both our present possession of salvation, and our future completion of it, are as certain to us as that He is with God, ruling as a Priest and reigning as a King, once more to appear, no more as a bearer of our sins, but in glory as a Judge. The second half, Hebrews. 10:1-18, reiterating the main position of the whole, the High Priesthood of Christ, grounded on His offering of Himself--its kingly character its eternal accomplishment of its end, confirmed by Psalm 40 and 110 and Jeremiah 31" [DELITZSCH in ALFORD].