Hebrews 10:26

[1yugioh]

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins"

It seams pretty self explanatory. But what is the difference between a slip up and willful sin? Because every one sins, the bible tells us we do. It was explained to me that a slip would be stubbing your toe and cursing out of reaction, where as wilfull sin would be waking up in the morning planning on sinning like premeditated sinning for lack of a better word,

That made since, I mean I sinned today I'm sure but it was a spur of the moment thing maybe a cuss word when a customer at work was just being rude, even thought I know cussing is a sin I didn't plan on doing it ahead of time, so by that logic I am forgiven.

But for some reason this didn't make since for one reason, what about the people who know what there doing is sin and do it anyway, for instance adultery, but later in life do repent of it and stop? Does that mean its to late for them?
Or what of people who are trying to break a sinful habit such as masturbation, they may not have planed on doing it ahead of time knowing it was sin, but they know its sin at the time there doing it, but its a habit they are trying to break and sometimes that takes time. How does this scripture affect them?


But it has been explained that Hebrews is referring to rejecting the sacrifice of Christ when you know its true. Which considering we all sin and know that we will sin again like it or not, this interpretation makes a little more since, but I'm not sure.

So which is Hebrews 10:26 referring to? Planning on sinning ahead of time, or rejecting Christ's sacrifice. and could you add biblical answers not just your own personal opinion

 

[St_Worm2]

Hi 1yugioh, I don't have any time to post right now, but the commentary from "Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testament" is pretty detailed and should be helpful.

Here you go:

(10:26) This wilful sin must be defined in its context. It will not do to ignore the historical background of this book and its analysis, and then put an arbitrary meaning upon the words. That is not exegesis, namely, taking out of the text what is there, but eisegesis, putting into the text what is not there. The sin which the book warns against is that of a Jew of the first century who left the temple sacrifices, identified himself with the visible Church and made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, renouncing that profession and returning to the temple sacrifices. This sin is spoken of in 2:1as letting New Testament truth slip away, in 3:7, 8 as hardening the heart against the Holy Spirit, in 6:4 as falling away and crucifying the Son of God, in10:26 as a wilful sin, and is analyzed in10:29 as the three-fold sin against the three Persons of the Triune God. This sin could only be committed in the first century while the temple was still standing and only by an unsaved Jew or proselyte to Judaism. In this case, there can be no secondary application to present day circumstances or individuals.​

This sin is described as a wilful sin. The word is hekousios (ἑκουσιο&#962, which means, "voluntarily, of one’s own accord." It is opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or weakness. The Greek has it, "If we go on sinning wilfully," stress being placed upon the habitual aspect of the sin. The immediate context defines that sin as one of the continued forsaking of the means of grace at the services of the Christian assemblies, and the habitual commission of the sin defined in 10:29.

The word "knowledge" is not the simple word gnosis (γνοσι&#962, but the stronger word epignosis (ἐπιγνοσι&#962. Alford quotes Delitzsch as saying: "When epignosis (ἐπιγνοσι&#962 is used, there is the assumption of an actual direction of the spirit to a definite object and of a real grasping of the same: so that we may speak of a false gnosis (γνοσι&#962, but not of a false epignosis (ἐπιγνοσι&#962. And the Writer, by the use of this word, gives us to understand that he means by it not only a shallow historical notion about the Truth, but a living believing knowledge of it, which has laid hold of a man and fused him into union with itself." Thus it is clear that the Jew who committed this sin, was fully informed by the Holy Spirit of the issues involved between the First Testament and the New Testament, and also of the meaning and the implications of the New Testament, (6:4, "who were once enlightened") and therefore, he sinned with his eyes wide open.​

Should he commit this sin, there would remain no more sacrifice for sin. Expositor’s quotes Delitzsch as follows: "The meaning is not merely that the Jewish sacrifices to which the apostate has returned have in themselves no sin-destroying power, nor even that there is no second sacrifice additional to that of Christ, but further that for a sinner of this kind the very sacrifice of Christ itself has no more atoning or reconciling power." Alford, commenting upon this same thing says: "There is but One true sacrifice for sins: if a man, having availed himself of that One, then deliberately casts it behind him, there is no second left for him. It will be observed that one thing is not, and need not be, specified in the text. That he has exhausted the virtue of the one sacrifice, is not said: but in proportion to his willing rejection of it, has ceased to operate for him. He has in fact, as Delitzsch observes, shut the door of repentance behind him, by the very fact of his being in an abiding state of willing sin." All of which means that this abandonment of the New Testament sacrifice, the Messiah, and the return to the abrogated sacrifices of the First Testament, was not a snap judgment on the part of this first century Jew, but a confirmed state of heart.​

​

--David

 

[1watchman]

Hello 1Yugiou.

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins"

It seams pretty self explanatory. But what is the difference between a slip up and willful sin? Because every one sins, the bible tells us we do. It was explained to me that a slip would be stubbing your toe and cursing out of reaction, where as wilfull sin would be waking up in the morning planning on sinning like premeditated sinning for lack of a better word,

That made since, I mean I sinned today I'm sure but it was a spur of the moment thing maybe a cuss word when a customer at work was just being rude, even thought I know cussing is a sin I didn't plan on doing it ahead of time, so by that logic I am forgiven.

But for some reason this didn't make since for one reason, what about the people who know what there doing is sin and do it anyway, for instance adultery, but later in life do repent of it and stop? Does that mean its to late for them?
Or what of people who are trying to break a sinful habit such as masturbation, they may not have planed on doing it ahead of time knowing it was sin, but they know its sin at the time there doing it, but its a habit they are trying to break and sometimes that takes time. How does this scripture affect them?


But it has been explained that Hebrews is referring to rejecting the sacrifice of Christ when you know its true. Which considering we all sin and know that we will sin again like it or not, this interpretation makes a little more since, but I'm not sure.

So which is Hebrews 10:26 referring to? Planning on sinning ahead of time, or rejecting Christ's sacrifice. and could you add biblical answers not just your own personal opinion

I believe you got it straight in "...rejecting the sacrifice of Christ". There is no other sacrifice or hope if one turns from what God has provided in His "beloved Son". The Hebrew Christians were needing to unlearn the Jewish religion, which was hard for them. They needed to see that all is in Christ, and if they could not be satisfied with Him there is nothing else (see Acts 4:12).

 

[REPHAIAHPEDAHEL]

Spot on St_Worm2.

 

[konroh]

In the context of the verses just before the readers were encouraged to let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25not forsaking our own assembling together.

If we willfully sin then it means to not pray, not hope in God, and not stimulate each other to good deeds. Not continuing in the Christian life of faith. We sin against God all the time and I agree there is some context to Jewish Christians about not rejecting Christ but this is an encouragement to persevere as a Christian, to set aside sin. Notice that the discipline is terrifying, but it is God judging His people. Sure, if you reject Christ completely there is judgment, but if you choose to accept Christ's sacrifice but choose to continue to sin and insult the Spirit of grace then God will judge. This can be punitive judgment but also corrective judgment. God wants our good and when we choose evil He will judge. This in no way means that He rejects us or takes away justification-salvation, on the contrary, He's chasing after us when we sin. And look at what the result is: 35Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

 

[ebedmelech]

Here's the point of Hebrews 10:26...it is speaking hypothetically of something it is impossible to do...which is be saved and yet continue to sin willfully. If we do that we prove we are not saved, and all we can look for is God's judgment.

The first part sets the hypothesis:
For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

So the "if" sets up the hypothesis.

We know this because 1 John 1:8-10 tells us:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.

I hope that helps you.

 

[Juelrei]

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins"

It seams pretty self explanatory. But what is the difference between a slip up and willful sin? Because every one sins, the bible tells us we do. It was explained to me that a slip would be stubbing your toe and cursing out of reaction, where as wilfull sin would be waking up in the morning planning on sinning like premeditated sinning for lack of a better word,

A plan to sin is a thought that becomes a habit, catering to a fleshly desire, rather than having the conviction and the knowledge of God to resist it. That can be speaking of getting angry and cussing as well as any other yielding to the appeal of sinful behavior.

A willful sin is done by those who are stubbornly rebellious, being influenced by the god of this world. For which Jesus was sent to destroy his works among Christians.

what about the people who know what there doing is sin and do it anyway, for instance adultery, but later in life do repent of it and stop? Does that mean its to late for them?

It is never too late to repent and receive forgiveness. Repentance occurs because conviction of the Holy Spirit being continuous upon them all their lives, finally hit paydirt.
Let us all be sensitive enough now, and repent quickly, and not practice rebellion to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

Or what of people who are trying to break a sinful habit such as masturbation, they may not have planed on doing it ahead of time knowing it was sin, but they know its sin at the time there doing it, but its a habit they are trying to break and sometimes that takes time. How does this scripture affect them?

Scripture only effects at the point of the person being tenderhearted to do God's will, and determination to carry it out by resisting the habit to yield. Resisting by using the scriptures that convicted them when they read them or heard them preached.

When Jesus was tempted, he quoted scriptures. We are to do the same thing.

But it has been explained that Hebrews is referring to rejecting the sacrifice of Christ when you know its true.

What does it take for such a mature Christian as described in that text to turn away from God? Specific high level temptations that don't happen to the less mature.

Which considering we all sin and know that we will sin again like it or not, this interpretation makes a little more since, but I'm not sure.

So which is Hebrews 10:26 referring to? Planning on sinning ahead of time, or rejecting Christ's sacrifice. and could you add biblical answers not just your own personal opinion

Let us learn how to resist the temptations of the devil that are presented to us on our lower level of maturity.

 

[Deacon Don]

Some may use this to believe this about a Christian receiving Christ then willfully sinning and losing his salvation. Rather it's about someone who has received the precise and correct knowledge of salvation and rejects it. Knowledge isn't salvation any more than faith is salvation.

 

[Purge187]

Or what of people who are trying to break a sinful habit such as masturbation, they may not have planed on doing it ahead of time knowing it was sin, but they know its sin at the time there doing it, but its a habit they are trying to break and sometimes that takes time. How does this scripture affect them?

I think people in this situation would be better referred to Paul's words in Roman 7. He knew whatever sin he was committing was contrary to God's Word--and as a single man, that could've been masturbation--but he aknowledged it as such and presumably confessed it and leaned on God's grace.

An unrepentant backslider, on the other hand, goes about his or her daily sins and doesn't feel the need to aknowledge or confess them, or thinks that deeds or works will earn them forgiveness.

 

[food4thought]

Hi 1yugioh, I don't have any time to post right now, but the commentary from "Wuest's Word Studies in the Greek New Testament" is pretty detailed and should be helpful.

Here you go:

(10:26) This wilful sin must be defined in its context. It will not do to ignore the historical background of this book and its analysis, and then put an arbitrary meaning upon the words. That is not exegesis, namely, taking out of the text what is there, but eisegesis, putting into the text what is not there. The sin which the book warns against is that of a Jew of the first century who left the temple sacrifices, identified himself with the visible Church and made a profession of Messiah as High Priest, renouncing that profession and returning to the temple sacrifices. This sin is spoken of in 2:1as letting New Testament truth slip away, in 3:7, 8 as hardening the heart against the Holy Spirit, in 6:4 as falling away and crucifying the Son of God, in10:26 as a wilful sin, and is analyzed in10:29 as the three-fold sin against the three Persons of the Triune God. This sin could only be committed in the first century while the temple was still standing and only by an unsaved Jew or proselyte to Judaism. In this case, there can be no secondary application to present day circumstances or individuals.​

This sin is described as a wilful sin. The word is hekousios (ἑκουσιο&#962, which means, "voluntarily, of one’s own accord." It is opposed to sins committed inconsiderately, and from ignorance or weakness. The Greek has it, "If we go on sinning wilfully," stress being placed upon the habitual aspect of the sin. The immediate context defines that sin as one of the continued forsaking of the means of grace at the services of the Christian assemblies, and the habitual commission of the sin defined in 10:29.

The word "knowledge" is not the simple word gnosis (γνοσι&#962, but the stronger word epignosis (ἐπιγνοσι&#962. Alford quotes Delitzsch as saying: "When epignosis (ἐπιγνοσι&#962 is used, there is the assumption of an actual direction of the spirit to a definite object and of a real grasping of the same: so that we may speak of a false gnosis (γνοσι&#962, but not of a false epignosis (ἐπιγνοσι&#962. And the Writer, by the use of this word, gives us to understand that he means by it not only a shallow historical notion about the Truth, but a living believing knowledge of it, which has laid hold of a man and fused him into union with itself." Thus it is clear that the Jew who committed this sin, was fully informed by the Holy Spirit of the issues involved between the First Testament and the New Testament, and also of the meaning and the implications of the New Testament, (6:4, "who were once enlightened") and therefore, he sinned with his eyes wide open.​

Should he commit this sin, there would remain no more sacrifice for sin. Expositor’s quotes Delitzsch as follows: "The meaning is not merely that the Jewish sacrifices to which the apostate has returned have in themselves no sin-destroying power, nor even that there is no second sacrifice additional to that of Christ, but further that for a sinner of this kind the very sacrifice of Christ itself has no more atoning or reconciling power." Alford, commenting upon this same thing says: "There is but One true sacrifice for sins: if a man, having availed himself of that One, then deliberately casts it behind him, there is no second left for him. It will be observed that one thing is not, and need not be, specified in the text. That he has exhausted the virtue of the one sacrifice, is not said: but in proportion to his willing rejection of it, has ceased to operate for him. He has in fact, as Delitzsch observes, shut the door of repentance behind him, by the very fact of his being in an abiding state of willing sin." All of which means that this abandonment of the New Testament sacrifice, the Messiah, and the return to the abrogated sacrifices of the First Testament, was not a snap judgment on the part of this first century Jew, but a confirmed state of heart.​

​

--David

[reply=^^^This^^^]

Scripture must always be taken in context, context, context: context of the immediate passage, context of the book it is contained within, and context of the Scripture as a whole. In this case, we see that at the beginning of the chapter the author was speaking of the OT sacrificial system and how the sacrifice of Christ was superior and sufficient. In the context of the book we see that this epistle was written specifically not to gentiles but to Jewish believers who would be tempted to return to the Jewish culture and Temple worship in order to not be ostracized by family, and to avoid persecution. In the context of the whole Bible we know that our salvation in Christ is eternally secure.

[/thread]

 

[Nig]

And now for something completely different. This must be read with the understanding that 70ad is coming. Gods wrath against the ministry of law is about to be consummated . The writer has just got through a section explaining the completeness of Christ and how the old sacrifices were not able to do the job.

It is also in the context of gathering together, thought to be written three years before the sacking of Jerusalem these Jews were dabbling in the new covenant but were going back to the temple. They did not believe that their consciences were made clean by Jesus sacrifice on the cross, so were going back to their old covenant. The writer tells them that there is no other sacrifice for sins but judgement.

History records that when Jerusalem was sacked that not one Christian died, because they heeded the warning that Jesus gave them in mathew 24.

These dabblers or tasters as Hebrews 6 calls them would have been swallowed up in Gods wrath expressed against the old system of sacrifices for sin.

It is important when reading the scripture to know to whom a letter is written and why it is written. I love Hebrews; it is one of my favorite books but it is not written to me. It is written for me though. We can learn from it if we are willing to divide the word.

 

[konroh]

I think a clear reading of the passage is that it is definitely a warning. If it's a warning to some who had knowledge but didn't have salvation then it makes no sense as a warning, it should rather be an exhortation to have faith in the sacrifice of Christ, not a warning that one is rejecting it. It also doesn't make sense if it's merely hypothetical, as if warning them that they could lose something like salvation which it's impossible to lose. No, it only makes sense as a warning to believers, exhorting them to continue in their salvation, to not sin willfully, to mature beyond the elementary things, since to go backward is to reject the sacrifice.

 

[Purge187]

And now for something completely different. This must be read with the understanding that 70ad is coming. Gods wrath against the ministry of law is about to be consummated . The writer has just got through a section explaining the completeness of Christ and how the old sacrifices were not able to do the job.

It is also in the context of gathering together, thought to be written three years before the sacking of Jerusalem these Jews were dabbling in the new covenant but were going back to the temple. They did not believe that their consciences were made clean by Jesus sacrifice on the cross, so were going back to their old covenant. The writer tells them that there is no other sacrifice for sins but judgement.

History records that when Jerusalem was sacked that not one Christian died, because they heeded the warning that Jesus gave them in mathew 24.

These dabblers or tasters as Hebrews 6 calls them would have been swallowed up in Gods wrath expressed against the old system of sacrifices for sin.

It is important when reading the scripture to know to whom a letter is written and why it is written. I love Hebrews; it is one of my favorite books but it is not written to me. It is written for me though. We can learn from it if we are willing to divide the word.

The author of Hebrews might've been directing his message towards the Jews of his time, but I think the message is a universal one. We shouldn't rely on our works or deeds to earn forgiveness that can't be earned by us to begin with, and we shouldn't be like the dog that returns to its vomit (Proverbs 26:11).

I doubt the whole OS, AS theology more as time goes on.

 

[Deacon Don]

I think a clear reading of the passage is that it is
definitely a warning. If it's a warning to some who had knowledge but didn't
have salvation then it makes no sense as a warning, it should rather be an
exhortation to have faith in the sacrifice of Christ, not a warning that one is
rejecting it. It also doesn't make sense if it's merely hypothetical, as if
warning them that they could lose something like salvation which it's
impossible to lose. No, it only makes sense as a warning to believers,
exhorting them to continue in their salvation, to not sin willfully, to mature
beyond the elementary things, since to go backward is to reject the sacrifice.

Reading the verses following 26 clears up any question as to what verse
26 means.

 

[Nig]

I doubt the whole OS, AS theology more as time goes on.[/QUOTE]

What is OS and AS theology? Excuse my ignorance

 

[St_Worm2]

I doubt the whole OS, AS theology more as time goes on.

What is OS and AS theology? Excuse my ignorance [/quote]

It means Once Saved, Always Saved.

 

[Deacon Don]

I doubt the whole OS, AS theology more as time goes on.
What is OS and AS theology? Excuse my ignorance

I think it means once saved, always saved.

 

[Deacon Don]

It means Once Saved, Always Saved.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[Nig]

Thank you, what do you say for the "other theological camp" . The trouble with naming theologies is it makes it easier to deride them. Just the facts madam "in the style of a whodunit ".

I find that whole debate amazing, when I left an evangelical church in the nineties they were staunchly once saved always saved and the charismatics seemed to be opposite, now it seems things have switched around again.

I remember a bloke sitting down with me and talking to me about the blood of Jesus and how it covered all my sin, oh the rest it bought me.

And what are we to say; for when someone preaches Hebrews six and calls on those who have fallen away to repent, but the scripture says that it is impossible for them to be brought to repentance. So why bother? Unless you lead a life of continuous growth then you are unable to come back to God. Kinda puts a bad week into perspective eh.

 

[Deacon Don]

And what are we to say; for when someone preaches Hebrews six and calls on
those who have fallen away to repent, but the scripture says that it is
impossible for them to be brought to repentance. So why bother? Unless you
lead a life of continuous growth then you are unable to come back to God.
Kinda puts a bad week into perspective eh.

I believe that passage is saying the same thing and the preceding verses
make it clear. Also, there's no need for Jesus to die multiple times for our sin.