If we are sinning willfully after we receive, there remains no more sacrifice for sins

[Clare73]

It helps to consider who the book is written to. This book is written to Hebrews who are Jews.

Jews would sacrifice eg a lamb as a temporary atonement of sin, but what this was was a representation of our Lord's sacrifice, the lamb of God.

So when Paul says in Hebrews 10:26, there is no more sacrifice, he is meaning that the Jews cannot hope to sacrifice an animal as a temporary atonement, because the sacrifice is finished in our Lord Jesus Christ.

And apart from him there is no sacrifice for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice--"not guilty"--for their sin, leaving them under God's condemnation (John 3:18, John 3:36).

 

[St_Worm2]

Hey Brian (@MMXX), I hope that you and @HIM don't mind me jumping in here, but it seems to me that "sinning willfully" involves knowing that what you are about to do is sinful, but choosing to commit the sin anyway. This type of sin also involves someone, "thumbing their nose at God", to one degree or another anyway. Perhaps it could be referred to as a "premeditated" sin?

--David

 

[public hermit]

Ok I will try once more. "There is no more Jewish sacrifices for sin". The writer of Hebrews is speaking to Jews who think they can sin and then go to the Temple for the forgiveness of that sin. The writer is warning that there is no forgiveness there anymore.
This is a frightening passage for many people because they lack the understanding of biblical hermeneutics. It only takes a bit of study to understand these passages. For instance, it makes no sense that on one hand Christ atones for my sins but on the other hand that atonement will no longer be effective if I sin willfully after I after I've known the truth. We all sin willfully! This is not how it should be understood. Jews were willfully going to the temple for their atonement thus making Jesus Christ of Nazareth of no effect.

I think this post nails the point, more or less. Do you think this passage is aimed at Jews or Jewish Christians?

 

[Clare73]

Ok I will try once more. "There is no more Jewish sacrifices for sin". The writer of Hebrews is speaking to Jews who think they can sin and then go to the Temple for the forgiveness of that sin. The writer is warning that there is no forgiveness there anymore.
This is a frightening passage for many people because they lack the understanding of biblical hermeneutics. It only takes a bit of study to understand these passages. For instance,

it makes no sense that on one hand Christ atones for my sins but on the other hand that atonement will no longer be effective if I sin willfully after I after I've known the truth. We all sin willfully! This is not how it should be understood. Jews were willfully going to the temple for their atonement thus making Jesus Christ of Nazareth of no effect.

First, it is the cross that is "made of no effect" by preaching with words of human wisdom
(1 Corinthians 1:17).

Secondly, the above is a Jewish gloss and does not work for many reasons, among them being:

1) that Hebrew Christian holy brothers (3:1, 12) would be so uninformed of the essential message of the gospel is just not plausible, in fact, it's preposterous.

2) The warning in 3:7-4:13 about failing to enter in, as Israel failed to enter Canaan.

3) The warning in 4:1-3 about failing to enter into God's own full-time (4:3, 11) Sabbath rest.

4) The exhortation regarding unbelief (3:12, 19, 4:3).

5) The exhortation not to turn away from God (3:12), to hold firmly to the end (3:14), not to fall short (4:1), not to fall (4:11); i.e., apostasy.

The issue is apostasy--falling away.
I think the text supports one foot in the gospel, and the other foot in Judaism, failing to fully commit to salvation in Jesus Christ and, therefore, at risk of apostasizing.

 

[St_Worm2]

I think this post nails the point, more or less. Do you think this passage is aimed at Jews or Jewish Christians?

Hello Public Hermit, since the sin that these particular folks were guilty of committing was the willful/continual rejection of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior .. e.g. Hebrews 10:29, it seems to me that they were non-believing Jews (who, for a time, had become part of the 1st Century church), not Jewish "Christians".

For more details, please take a quick look at my first post, Post #39, in this thread.

--David

 

[public hermit]

Hello Public Hermit, since the sin that these particular folks were guilty of committing was the willful/continual rejection of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior .. e.g. Hebrews 10:29, it seems to me that they were non-believing Jews (who, for a time, had become part of the 1st Century church), not Jewish "Christians".

--David

I think I get what you're saying. Here is the way I have thought about it, rightly or wrongly. I'm definitely thinking it was aimed at Jewish Christians, but I hold the right to be wrong on that.

What if they truly believed, but out of habit (and perhaps fear of change) they had continued to attend to the temple sacrifice. I take the passage more as moment of pedagogy than strictly condemnatory. True, the rhetoric employed is harsh and absolute. But I can see that as a nice rabbinical teaching moment meant to wake them from their lethargy and see the truth.

All that being said, you could be right I really don't know. What pointers do we find in the book of Hebrews to determine the intended audience?

 

[Clare73]

I think I get what you're saying. Here is the way I have thought about it, rightly or wrongly. I'm definitely thinking it was aimed at Jewish Christians, but I hold the right to be wrong on that.

What if they truly believed, but out of habit (and perhaps fear of change) they had continued to attend to the temple sacrifice. I take the passage more as moment of pedagogy than strictly condemnatory. True, the rhetoric employed is harsh and absolute. But I can see that as a nice rabbinical teaching moment meant to wake them from their lethargy and see the truth.

All that being said, you could be right I really don't know. What pointers do we find in the book of Hebrews to determine the intended audience?

"Holy brothers," "brothers" (3:1, 12).

 

[ViaCrucis]

St. John says there is sin that leads unto death, and sin that does not.

The Author of Hebrews speaks of mortal sin--sin unto death.

It's not unlike what C.S. Lewis describes when he speaks of a grumbling within us that can be criticized, and nipped in the bud; but if left to go on endlessly like a machine, there may reach a time when there is no "us" left to even criticize the grumbling.

As Christians, in our struggle against the old man, we will fail to live up to God's high calling--we will sin, we will fall short. And for this reason we must confess our sins one to another, faithfully believing that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

But if we indulge ourselves, if we give up the struggle, allowing the grumble to grow, then like the weeds and thistles it will choke the seed which has taken root in us.

It's not a matter of "Oh, you sinned, God don't like you anymore"; it's that if we feed the old man, rather than starve him, then we drive ourselves away from God. Our faith suffers. We begin to cease to feel the sting of guilt, the pain of grief over our sin, we become numb, our conscience becomes singed and loses feeling. And so we begin to justify ourselves, we drift away. We fall away.

That is the danger the Author of Hebrews speaks of.

But we have a good and merciful God, a Good Shepherd who stubbornly chases down the one lost lamb out of a hundred; we have the Loving Father who runs out to meet his prodigal son when he sees him in the distance. That's who we have as our Savior.

It's not up to us to work maintenance, and if we falter then we're screwed. It's about trusting in what the Lord Himself has done for us, and having hears to hear the harshness of the Law that crucifies our flesh, and the soothing comfort of the Gospel of God's invincible and indelible loving mercy richly and limitlessly poured out onto us sinners in Christ.

When we fail to preach the Law as Law; and fail to preach the Gospel as Gospel, we inevitably preach falsehood. Indeed, we preach that which itself may very well shipwreck our faith.

Whether through the arrogance of our own ability; or the hopeless despair of our endlessly falling short--if there is no beating down of the old man, and no comforting the new man; then either arrogance or despair will devour us from within.

Which is why the faithful preaching of the word isn't just for funsies. It's about life and death.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[St_Worm2]

What pointers do we find in the book of Hebrews to determine the intended audience?

Hello again Public Hermit, it seems to me that their sin, the continual/willful ~rejection~ of Jesus as their Lord and Savior, is the thing that points us (tells us) who they really were, because a "true" believer is, first and foremost, someone who ~accepts/receives~ Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior instead, yes?

Thanks

--David

 

[Ceallaigh]

Hey Brian (@MMXX), I hope that you and @HIM don't mind me jumping in here, but it seems to me that "sinning willfully" involves knowing that what you are about to do is sinful, but choosing to commit the sin anyway. This type of sin also involves someone, "thumbing their nose at God", to one degree or another anyway. Perhaps it could be referred to as a "premeditated" sin?

--David

Would you say that occasionally succumbing to temptation is different than sinning wilfully?

 

[public hermit]

Hello again Public Hermit, it seems to me that their sin, the continual/willful ~rejection~ of Jesus as their Lord and Savior, is the thing that points us (tells us) who they really were, because a "true" believer is, first and foremost, someone who ~accepts/receives~ Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior instead, yes?

Thanks

--David

Sure, of course. But the reader is not assumed to continue the error engaged. The intended audience is included in the last verse,

"But we are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved."

It's pedagogical. The intended audience is both the ones going to the temple and the ones who will wake up as a result of hearing this read in the community and proper reflection. They all are "we."

At any rate, today- this moment-it's a moot point because there is no temple and no sacrifice. To try and apply this passage outside the intended audience is a grotesque misuse of proper exegesis. It's an interesting historical read, but there are no Christians attending sacrifice in the temple, today.

 

[St_Worm2]

Would you say that occasionally succumbing to temptation is different than sinning willfully?

I think so, especially when we get caught up in the moment (emotionally) and sin is the "result", not the premeditated "choice".

For instance, if you are driving down the road and someone suddenly cuts you off (or does some other dumb driving move) and you react badly (with hate/anger toward them for a time), then I believe that you'd need to ask the Lord to forgive you, of course, even though you did not "decide" to sin before you did so.

What do 'you' think about all of this? Some believe that all sin is willful sin (and while I can see their point, I think Hebrews 10:26 is referring to something more specific).

Thanks!

--David

 

[Ceallaigh]

As Christians, in our struggle against the old man, we will fail to live up to God's high calling--we will sin, we will fall short. And for this reason we must confess our sins one to another, faithfully believing that if we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Does that mean that confessing our sins to God alone in prayer is insufficient?

 

[Ceallaigh]

I think so, especially when we get caught up in the moment (emotionally) and sin is the "result", not the premeditated "choice".

For instance, if you are driving down the road and someone suddenly cuts you off (or does some other dumb driving move) and you react badly (with hate/anger toward them for a time), then I believe that you'd need to ask the Lord to forgive you, of course, even though you did not "decide" to sin before you did so.

What do 'you' think about all of this? Some believe that all sin is willful sin (and while I can see their point, I think Hebrews 10:26 is referring to something more specific).

Thanks!

--David

What you're talking about is happenstance. I was talking about is giving into temptation. Like when someone on a diet gives into the temptation to eat ice cream. The weakness of their flesh overrides their desire to abstain from fattening foods.

I listened to a lecture on 1 John, where a distinction was made between stumbling in sin and practicing sin. When a toddler is walking he stumbles a lot. But you don't say "little Johnny is stumbling" you say "little Johnny is walking". Whereas to practice sin can be likened to a doctor practicing medicine.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I think this post nails the point, more or less. Do you think this passage is aimed at Jews or Jewish Christians?

Jewish Christians for sure.

 

[St_Worm2]

Sure, of course. But the reader is not assumed to continue the error engaged.

Hi Public Hermit, actually, both the context and the verb tense tell us that the sin of rejecting the Lord is a continual one in this case (just like it is today for many in our churches).

Hebrews 10
26 If we 'go on' sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
​

If someone continues to reject Jesus as their Lord and Savior, after receiving a full knowledge and understanding of who He really is, then their sin becomes (in a very real sense) unpardonable (because they can become hardened against the truth, and in doing so, be lost, forever, since His sacrifice/His blood that they continue to reject is their only hope for salvation). This reminds me of a similar passage from Hebrews (and the OT),

Hebrews 3
15 Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me in the rebellion.​

The intended audience is included in the last verse, "But we are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved." It's pedagogical. The intended audience is both the ones going to the temple and the ones who will wake up as a result of hearing this read in the community and proper reflection. They all are "we."

I believe that the "we" in v26 is a far more generalized "we" than the "we" that is found in v39. One has the sense of being inclusive (of all in the church) .. v26, while the other is exclusive (of believers/believers to be), alone .. v39. I believe that the context (even of v39 alone) bears this out nicely for us as it literally means, "~we~ are not of shrinking back .. but of faith"), though I admit (as you did earlier) to not being absolutely certain about what is meant, so I keep an open mind and continue in "learning mode" throughout several portions of this Book!

The "language" that we find (by which I mean, the way that things are put) in the Book of Hebrews is often problematic such that it makes coming to a proper/correct exegesis difficult, which is why I'm glad that we have the rest of the Holy Writ to lean on

At any rate, today- this moment-it's a mute point because there is no temple and no sacrifice. To try and apply this passage outside the intended audience is a grotesque misuse of proper exegesis. It's an interesting historical read, but there are no Christians attending sacrifice in the temple, today.

I will need to respectfully disagree with you here as well, because I think that what is being taught is for this age, not for the 1st Century Church alone.

After all, Gentile churches have been/will continue to be loaded with both wheat ~and~ tares (sons of the kingdom and sons of the devil, respectively .. Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). The tares are perpetual unbelievers who join and become part of the visible church (because they are interested in receiving the blessings that it AND God have to offer them), but they never believe, never come to true, saving faith. They are those who recognize and want the ~blessings~ that God has to offer them, both directly and through the church, but they don't want Him

Therefore, the Jewish ~almost~ Christians in the 1st Century Church are just like Gentile ~almost~ Christians have been in the church ever since. IOW, it's not really about them picking one sacrifice over the other, rather, it's about them rejecting Jesus Christ by refusing to believe in Him as their Lord and Savior .. John 3:18.

I will happily agree to disagree with you about part or all of this however (for the reasons I mentioned above).

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - here is a (somewhat frightening) example of tares in the church, those who claim (and who may even believe themselves) to be Christians (and who may 'appear' to be super-Christians to others in their churches), but they ~never~ were .. true/saved believers, that is.

Matthew 7
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I ~never~ knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
.​

 

[public hermit]

Hi Public Hermit, actually, both the context and the verb tense tell us that the sin of rejecting the Lord is a continual one in this case (just like it is today for many in our churches).

Hebrews 10
26 If we 'go on' sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.
​

If someone continues to reject Jesus as their Lord and Savior, after receiving a full knowledge and understanding of who He really is, then their sin becomes (in a very real sense) unpardonable (because they can become hardened against the truth, and in doing so, be lost, forever, since His sacrifice/His blood that they continue to reject is their only hope for salvation). This reminds me of a similar passage from Hebrews (and the OT),

Hebrews 3
15 Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me in the rebellion.​

I believe that the "we" in v26 is a far more generalized "we" than the "we" that is found in v39. One is inclusive (of all) .. v26, while the other is exclusive (of believers/believers to be), alone .. v39. I believe that the context (even of v39 alone) bears this out for us as it literally means, "~we~ are not of shrinking back .. but of faith"), though I admit (as you did earlier) to not being absolutely certain about what is meant, so I keep an open mind and continue in "learning mode" throughout several portions of this Book!

The "language" that we find (by which I mean, the way that things are put) in the Book of Hebrews is often problematic such that it makes coming to a proper/correct exegesis difficult, which is why I'm glad that we have the rest of the Holy Writ to lean on

I will need to respectfully disagree with you here as well, because I think that what is being taught is for this age, not for the 1st Century Church alone.

After all, Gentile churches have been/will continue to be loaded with both wheat ~and~ tares (sons of the kingdom and sons of the devil, respectively .. Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43). The tares are perpetual unbelievers who join and become part of the visible church (because they are interested in receiving the blessings that it AND God have to offer them), but they never believe, never come to true, saving faith. They are those who recognize and want the ~blessings~ that God has to offer them, both directly and through the church, but they don't want Him

Therefore, the Jewish ~almost~ Christians in the 1st Century Church are just like Gentile ~almost~ Christians have been in the church ever since. IOW, it's not really about them picking one sacrifice over the other, rather, it's about them rejecting Jesus Christ by refusing to believe in Him as their Lord and Savior .. John 3:18.

I will happily agree to disagree with you about part or all of this however (for the reasons I mentioned above).

God bless you!

--David
p.s. - here is a (somewhat frightening) Biblical example of tares in the church, those who claim and who may even believe themselves to be Christians (and who may even appear to be super-Christians to others in their churches), but they ~never~ were .. true/saved believers, that is.

Matthew 7
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I ~never~ knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
.​

Yes, I've known the reading your putting forth, most all my life. Perhaps the particular situation the passage references is extendable to today's circumstances. But, that's always a dangerous step.

The argument being made in this chapter of Hebrews is pretty specific, with a specific audience. When we encounter Christians who begin to despair on account of this passage, we always draw them back to this historical context. Why? Because it makes a difference.

When you tell people who have no hope, and no strength against the sin that they embody, that they have sinned away all hope, you have sat right down in the judgment seat of God.

That's what this passage does to people. So, how do you deal with the one who despairs on account of the words of this passage? You remind them that this passage was for a particular time and place. And, that God's grace is sufficient.

Now, is that wrong? Should we stoke the despair?

 

[St_Worm2]

What you're talking about is happenstance. I was talking about is giving into temptation. Like when someone on a diet gives into the temptation to eat ice cream. The weakness of their flesh overrides their desire to abstain from fattening foods.

Agreed. I would call it the same thing (so such sin is more of a "weakness" than it is "willful", yes?). So, what do you believe "willful" sin is then (or do you believe that all sin is willful sin, just in differing degrees perhaps)?

I listened to a lecture on 1 John, where a distinction was made between stumbling in sin and practicing sin. When a toddler is walking he stumbles a lot. But you don't say "little Johnny is stumbling" you say "little Johnny is walking". Whereas to practice sin can be likened to a doctor practicing medicine.

I think that is a very good example

I also believe that the practice of sin (of continuing on in unrepentant sin) that is spoken of in 1 John 3 could be thought of as living a sinful "lifestyle", just like we did as unbelievers (which should also be the cause of someone choosing to examine and test themselves, to see if they are truly in the faith or not).

--David

 

[Ceallaigh]

Agreed. I would call it the same thing (so such sin is more of a "weakness" than it is "willful", yes?). So, what do you believe "willful" sin is then (or do you believe that all sin is willful sin, just in differing degrees perhaps)?

I'm not sure.

I think that is a very good example

Credit goes to Steve Gregg.

I also believe that the practice of sin (of continuing on in unrepentant sin) that is spoken of in 1 John 3 could be thought of as living a sinful "lifestyle", just like we did as unbelievers (which should also be the cause of someone choosing to examine and test themselves, to see if they are truly in the faith or not).

--David

The thing for me personally is that I've never been an unbeliever as I was raised to believe. So I don't have a past life as an unbeliever to look back on as a frame of reference.

 

[St_Worm2]

When we encounter Christians who begin to despair on account of this passage, we always draw them back to this historical context. Why? Because it makes a difference.

I know, because I was very disturbed by this passage when I was a new believer (as much as I was by Matthew 7:21-23, and even more than I was by Hebrews 6:4-6).

Unfortunately, the historical context alone did almost nothing to calm my fears concerning those verses because, as much as I would have liked to have been able to do so, dismissing the verses, as if they were true for certain Christians (on the one hand), but not true for me somehow (on the other), didn't make sense or seem like it could possibly be true to me.

That said, when I finally understood what those passages were 'actually' saying, and who they were actually written about, I realized that I had no reason to fear or despair any longer because of them

When you tell people who have no hope, and no strength against the sin that they embody, that they have sinned away all hope, you have sat right down in the judgment seat of God.

Why would anyone tell a Christian who is in despair that they are w/o hope because of some sin that they are struggling with That said, Hebrews 10:26-27 is hardly concerned with just any sin, is it! Instead, its exclusive concern is with those whose continually reject Jesus Christ and refuse to accept Him as their Lord and Savior (even though they know and understand the truth about who He really is).

So, the folks being discussed in v26-27 are not Christians struggling in despair, rather, they are non-Christians who do not care

That's what this passage does to people. So, how do you deal with the one who despairs on account of the words of this passage? You remind them that this passage was for a particular time and place. And, that God's grace is sufficient. Now, is that wrong? Should we stoke the despair?

Should we stroke the despair My answer would be, "of course not", but that doesn't seem like a question that requires an answer!

If a Christian is in despair because of a sin that they are struggling with, and this passage is making things worse for them (due to their misunderstanding about what it actually teaches), I still believe that what needs to be done (first and foremost) is to help them come to an understanding of the truth (about why true believers 'never' need to despair over sin, even if a passage like Hebrews 10 is before them, rather, they simply need to confess it .. 1 John 1:9, over and over again, as needed .. cf Matthew 18:21-22).

I would tell them that it is a good thing that they are worried about their sin and want to repent of it, because that's what true Christians do whenever we realize that we've sinned. I think I would also explain that when we sinned as non-believers, we did so ~according~ to our fallen nature, but whenever we sin now, as believers, we are acting ~against~ our new nature instead, so sinning is never comfortable or fun for us (like it was prior to coming to saving faith). So again, helping them to understand that being upset/contrite over their sin, and then confessing it and seeking to be forgiven of it because they are, is one of the signs that tells us that we are who we claim and believe ourselves to be As pastor/theologian Arthur W. Pink once said,

"It is not the absence of sin, but the grieving over it, which distinguishes the child of God from empty professors."​

As for the worry that they are experiencing because of their misunderstanding of Hebrews 10:26-27, I would make sure that they understand that this passage has nothing to do with Christians like them, not because of its historical context, but instead, because v26-27 is referring ~specifically~ to those who (unlike them) reject/refuse to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior (which means that this passage could not be talking about Christians). That's where I'd start anyway

Yikes, it's late here. This is going to make for an interesting Sunday morning ..

God bless you!

--David