“…there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins…”
Download discussion questions: Hebrews 10:18-31
Jump to beginning of Hebrews Discussion Group Blog
I encourage you to look at the passage in Hebrews before you read this Blog entry. What do you see in the text yourself? What questions come to your mind? How would you interpret what the writer says? After even a few minutes examining and thinking about the text you will be much better prepared to evaluate the comments in the Blog.
A Change of Tone
The writer abruptly changes from inspiring words (“stimulate” and “encourage” one another) to an ominous “terrifying expectation of judgment.” Why does his tone change? Who does he have in mind? What does he mean by “sinning willfully?” A challenging passage provoked significant discussion.
Several times during our study of this passage more than one person reminded us all of the importance of context. Considering the context of a verse or a passage is a basic principle of any serious understanding of the Bible. A classic (if simplistic) example is the biblical statement that “There is no God.” (Look it up – Psalm 14:1). Context is critical for comprehension.
The context of any passage (in the Bible or a novel or a historical document) affects the meaning of the passage intended by the author. For a passage with such severe warnings, ignoring the context can have (and has had) demoralizing and disheartening effects on many Christian believers. Considering the context of Hebrews 10 was an important part of our group discussion.
Definitions
We started our discussion simply trying to understand the meaning of the strong language that opens this passage. What, exactly, is the condition the pastor is warning about: “sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth”? Almost every term in that phrase produced discussion.
Willfully
We agreed that all sin is “willful” since we are not robots. We make choices, often rationalizing or justifying ourselves. Other suggestions for “willful” included “intentional” or “freely.” One person mentioned the predicament of the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:15, “I am doing the very thing I hate.” The writer to the Hebrews must have had something more specific in mind than that common experience.
The word translated “willfully” (ἑκουσίως, hekousiōs) or “deliberately” (CSB, ESV, NIV) is used only one other time in the New Testament, in Peter’s exhortation to elders, “exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily” (1 Peter 5:2). A related word (ἑκούσιος, hekousios; perhaps a variant spelling of the same word?) is used one time concerning hospitality to a runaway slave, “not by compulsion but of your own free will” (Philemon 1:14). Interestingly, both words are contrasted with “compulsion” indicating intentional action. Numerous authors agree that this is more than casual sin.
The word placed first in the Greek text, a position marking it as important to the author, is the word translated as “deliberately” (hekousios). This adverb communicates the idea of willing participation in an action, something done with a clear mind and firm step, and is important to our interpretation of the passage. What the author has in mind is a deliberate, sinful lifestyle of high-handed rebellion against the gospel.[1]
The word ἑκουσίως connotes a conscious expression of an attitude that displays contempt for God…. The initial phrase in v 26a is thus the equivalent to the sin of “turning away from the Living God” in 3:12.[2]
Receiving Knowledge
If the pastor is describing a voluntary and deliberate rejection of God and His gospel, what did he mean by “after receiving the knowledge of the truth”? Is he referring to Christians who genuinely believed the gospel and were regenerated by the Holy Spirit? Is the warning for authentic believers who change their minds and reject the gospel? The word the pastor uses for “knowledge” is an emphatic form, ἐπίγνωσις (epignosis), sometimes translated as “true knowledge” (Colossians 1:2, 3:10; 2 Peter 1:8).
One person suggested that “receiving” could be applied to a gift someone got but didn’t really want. Another suggestion pointed back to Hebrews 6:7-8 (also in a “warning passage”) about the ground that “after drinking” (equivalent to “receiving”) rain, fails to produce useful crops. (Note already the value of context even when the context is several chapters earlier in the pastor’s sermon.) Another member brought up Jesus’ parable of the soils (Matthew 13:3-9, 18-23; Mark 4:1-20; Luke 8:4-15). All of the soils “received” seed, but in some cases the seed did not penetrate and have an effect.
Our group agreed that it is possible for a person to hear a clear and understandable presentation of the gospel, and to fully understand the message, and yet choose not to believe. Someone mentioned (context again) the extensive quotations from Psalm 95 earlier in Hebrews 3:7-11, 15; 4:3, 5, 7. There the warning pointed to the negative example of the Israelites and the refusal to enter God’s promised land. The people refused to trust God. They were “unpersuadable,” a fitting description for one who understands but rejects the gospel.
[The pastor] is using this familiar expression, “the knowledge of the truth” (cf. 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Tim 2:25; 3:7; and Titus 1:1), to encompass all that he has just said [i.e., context of Hebrews up to this point – mw] about the fully sufficient Christ… All who have listened to the pastor’s message recognize the danger of persisting in that now-willful neglect of what Christ has provided.[3]
Sinning
Some members wondered if the “sinning” mentioned was a particular sin or type of sin. Clearly it did not mean “a sin committed once” since the verb is a present participle, indicating continuous action. As someone suggested, it shows a lifestyle characterized by sin.
So in Hebrews 10:26 those whom the author has in mind demonstrate a continuity between the time before hearing the gospel and after, continuing a lifestyle of rejecting God’s Word.[4]
In other words, becoming a Christian does not result in instant perfection. But there should be observable improvement in seeking and following God’s desire for conformity to Christ. Even the most modest beginnings, the uncertain “baby steps” in sanctification are welcome evidence of God’s work. A complete “continuity” with no discernable difference from previous habits and desires is a danger sign.
One author suggested that the description the pastor gives in verse 29 indicates rebellion against the Triune God, a “three-fold sin”[5]
-
- Treading under foot the Son of God, is a sin against God the Father who gave the Son to become the Sin-offering…
- Counting the blood of the New Testament an unholy thing, is a sin against God the Son who shed His blood…
- [Insulting] the Spirit of grace is a sin against God the Holy Spirit. … It refers to the act of this professed Hebrew, who after allowing the Holy Spirit to lead him along in His pre-salvation work of convicting him of sin and of energizing him to the act of repentance, now turns away from His further ministration of imparting faith, back to the temple sacrifices
Whatever the pastor’s intention was in describing that negative response, our group saw a connection between the “willful sinning” and the previous paragraph. The rejection of the gospel might result from ignoring the three “let us” exhortations (v. 22-25): the sin of not drawing near, or not holding fast to our faith, or not assembling together. Spending time to know God better, deepening our understanding of His will, and building godly relationships are critical. Ignoring those essential disciplines could lead to the drifting or falling away from superficial belief or tentative convictions.
Sanctified
Another phrase in this passage often raises concern about the application to believing Christians. Verse 29 mentions “the blood by which he was sanctified.” The argument is, if the person under consideration was “sanctified” (i.e., made holy, ἡγιάσθη, hēgiasthē), doesn’t that imply genuine salvation? Does that mean a saved believer can lose his or her salvation?
We first considered the meaning of “sanctified” as “dedicated” or “consecrated.” As mentioned before, we need to be cautious about applying our twenty-first century theological standards and definitions to any ancient writer. One suggestion was that the writer could mean simply a person who had joined the church, who had been “set apart” and identified with the Christians. The previous warning about “not forsaking assembling together” might have been a reference to “hangers on” who dropped away from any Christian association because of persecution. Another person pointed to a similar warning from the Apostle John regarding those who abandoned fellowship: “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:19). If the Apostle and the pastor were describing similar circumstances, then there was not a question of a believer losing salvation, but of a seeker who “drifted away” or who succumbed to threatened persecution.
Our discussion brought out another possibility. The pronoun (“he was sanctified”) is implied but not actually stated in the original text. Like some other languages (e.g., Spanish), Greek uses “inflected” verbs, meaning the form of the verb changes depending on the intended subject. (For example, hablo in Spanish is “I speak.” But habla is he/she/it speaks. Either the context makes clear the identity of the subject, or the pronoun is explicitly included. Él habla is he speaks; ella habla is she speaks.) Without the pronoun in Greek, we are dependent on the context, just like the original Greek speaking audience. Adding the English custom (sadly disappearing) of capitalizing divine pronouns, the possibilities become he/He/it was sanctified; he (the person), He (Christ), it (the covenant) was sanctified by Jesus’ blood.
This can be tricky ground, logically. We (at least those of us with a reformed theological bent) might tend to say that the pronoun cannot be “he” (the person), since we know that believers cannot lose their salvation. But the question we are concerned about is, does this passage teach that believers can lose their salvation? We must not allow our theological assumptions to fall into begging the question, the circular reasoning of assuming the truth of what we are trying to prove.
The pronoun could certainly be “it”, as in “the covenant was sanctified by His blood. The pastor has recently referred to the blood used to consecrate the old covenant: “even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood” (Hebrews 9:18-22). And as an observant member pointed out, the word “covenant” is the nearest noun to the verb, often a good case for determining the antecedent. But as important as the new covenant is in Hebrews, the central theme is Jesus, the mediator of that covenant (Hebrews 12:24).
We discussed the question, “How could Jesus be sanctified?” Again, thinking of “sanctify” as “set apart” or “consecrate” Jesus was set apart as a priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1, etc.) and was “designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:10). In fact, near the middle of his sermon, the pastor made the emphasis unmistakable: “Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest” (Hebrews 8:1). Like the priests under the old Mosaic covenant, blood was a central part of His consecration:
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; 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. (Hebrews 9:11-12, emphasis added)
Rather than causing doubts and insecurity (“Can a genuine sanctified believer lose his or her salvation?), the reference to “sanctification” is an affirmation of the superiority of our High Priest in securing our permanent and eternal salvation.
No Sacrifice
We talked about what the writer might have meant by “there no longer remains a sacrifice.” Does the work of Christ on the cross no longer apply? Does “sinning willfully” nullify the effect of His shed blood?
That would be an astonishing conclusion considering what the sermon has said so far about that work:
-
- 7:22 Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant
- 7:25 He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them
- 8:1 we have such a high priest
- 9:12 having obtained eternal redemption
- 9:15 those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance
- 9:28 will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin
- 10:10 we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all
- 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
- 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin
- 10:19 we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus
Notice that at least half of these comments are in the immediate context of our passage in Hebrews 10. Also notice, that these affirmations don’t contain any conditions, such as “unless they keep sinning” or “if they grow in righteousness.”
Plus (without listing another catalog of verses), much of Hebrews is about the end of the old Mosaic covenant and the ineffective sacrificial system (especially Hebrews 7-10).
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18-19).
Or, more succinctly,
He takes away the first in order to establish the second. (Hebrews 10:9)
The “sacrifice” mentioned in verse 26 is not Jesus on the cross. Numerous declarations earlier in the sermon leading up to this point have established the absolute efficacy of that sacrifice. At the same time, the pastor has gone into great detail to show why the old sacrifices are no longer relevant. In other words, there is no “Plan B” to the cross. Rejecting the cross leaves no viable option, especially not the return to the old, familiar (and politically safer) system.
In 10:1-18 the author has already made clear that the sacrifice offered by Christ has rendered all others obsolete. Where, then, can one go other than to Christ for an efficacious, sacrifice? Once he and his provision have been rejected, there is nowhere else to turn.[6]
Thus, those who repudiate what Christ has done are left without remedy, recourse, or hope. The pastor has made; this statement most emphatic by beginning the Greek sentence with “no longer” and bringing it to a conclusion with “sacrifice. [NOTE 14: A literal rendering of the Greek word order would be, “No longer for sins remains there a sacrifice.”][7]
The pastor brings his argument back to his renunciation of the old covenant system. Abandoning association with believers (“forsaking assembling”) is not a solution. The effectiveness of the old sacrifices has been abolished, but there is no danger of nullifying Christ’s sacrifice.
Considering Context
Interspersed through our diverse discussion was the question of context. How does this passage fit into the sermon structure of Hebrews? What happens if this passage is taken in isolation from that context?
The second question underscores the importance of the first question. Cut off from the context, this passage can be devastating, leading to doubt and despair, even abandoning all hope of the Christian faith. The goal is not to “prove” the perseverance of the saints because we don’t like the alternative. The goal is to understand the intent of Scripture as clearly and as honestly as possible. That makes understanding the context of this (and other) “warning passages” in Hebrews critically important.
One of the first thoughts someone shared in our discussion was that this passage is only illustrative. The pastor is making the hypothetical (but impossible) case for what would happen if a believer abandoned the faith. But nothing in the passage or anywhere else in Hebrews indicates a hypothetical argument. The pastor is quite serious about the consequences of rejecting the faith.
Another question came up, this one about the pastor’s use of “we” in verses 26 and 30, at the beginning and end of the passage. Is he including himself in the category of those who might fall away? We concluded the answer was “yes” even if only rhetorically. The pastor wanted to identify with his congregation, and he wanted to illustrate to them that his severe warning (here and elsewhere) applies to us all. Even if we affirm the truth of God’s sovereign preservation of the elect, that believers cannot lose our salvation, we need to (in Paul’s words to the Corinthians), “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!” (2 Corinthians 13:5). The intention (for Paul and for the pastor) is not to instill anxiety and uncertainty about salvation. The pastor wants the congregation to take the warning seriously, not to be presumptuous, taking salvation for granted regardless of lifestyle. Most likely the pastor wanted those who were genuine believers to recognize and celebrate God’s ongoing work in their life, and to affirm the work they saw in other believers. That would correspond to Paul’s exhortation to “examine” yourselves, using a word that suggests “approval after a trial” (δοκιμάζω, dokimazō). That kind of approval or confirmation is a strong antidote to growing persecution in the first century or in the twenty first. But the pastor (and Paul) probably also wanted border-line followers of Christ to recognize their own uncertain status and then to respond to the gospel.
Beyond the book of Hebrews, we thought of the broader biblical context. One person brought up the example of Peter. He was rebuked by Jesus (Matthew 16:23) and actively denied Jesus (John 18:17-27). Later, he compromised the gospel and was rebuked publicly by another apostle (Galatians 2:11-14), even “forsaking assembling” (v. 12, “he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof”). Like the Hebrew congregation, he seemed to be drawn to the more familiar and comfortable atmosphere of Judaism, especially when experiencing awkward peer pressure. Yet nowhere is any connection made between the unfortunate failures of Peter and the warnings in Hebrews, such as in this passage. The warnings, shown by the entire context of Hebrews as well as the rest of the New Testament, are not threats to the security of believers, but alarms to those who trivialize or underestimate the gospel.
Applying a Challenging Passage
Two questions concluded our discussion time.
First, after such lively interaction, one person asked, “How would we summarize this passage?” (A great question, and another person suggested we should ask that every week.) Our response was, “The danger of willfully neglecting the cross of Christ.”
Second, and perhaps more complex, was, “How should we apply this passage? What does this mean for us as believers?”
One suggestion was that the real application of this passage is found in the next paragraphs (as indicated by the final lines of the handout, “But remember the former days.…” We can look for additional application next week. Someone else observed that this passage was, in a sense, the application of the previous verses (“Let us…”) in the form of the consequences of not following the directives.
A very practical application relates to doubt, whether in ourselves or in others. How do we respond when others share with us their doubts, especially their doubts about salvation? The doubts may even be driven by reading in Hebrews.
We have talked often about Soul Care and the importance of exploring what is going on in the person’s inner world. With that in mind, explaining the context of Hebrews, or even providing a link to this blog is not necessarily the best initial response. An individual who has experienced doubts suggested that a possible path to explore would grow from the questions such as:
-
- “Why is this person struggling?”
- “What does the struggle look like for the person?”
- “Is the person overly sensitive to their ongoing sin?”
- “Does the person not fully understand the gospel?”
- “Has this person actually accepted the gospel?”
- “Does the person understand that confidence is in God’s faithfulness to us, not in our faithfulness to God?”
- “Is the person ‘stuck’ on doubt? Is this a conversation that continually repeats? Why?”
(This in not a list of prescribed questions to pepper the person with! These are suggested questions to ask ourselves and to ask the Holy Spirit as we seek His gentle guidance in a conversation, not an interrogation.)
There would likely come a time when some careful Bible study together may be what is most needed, but not if it becomes a facile attempt to “fix” the person’s problem.
The same “Soul Care” approach applies when we are dealing with our own doubts. In order for soul care to happen we must be willing to share those doubts with others who can help us explore our own inner world. As someone pointed out in our discussion, “Let us draw near” and “Let us hold fast” emphasize the personal and individual relationship with God but with an underlying corporate framework. The “not forsaking assembling” emphasizes that corporate reality but is dependent on the environment of individuals “drawing near” and “holding fast.” Even when (especially when) our drawing near or holding fast are unstable or precarious and we want to withdraw, assembling together is most important. Likewise, when we exuberantly experience the confidence and the full assurance of faith and the hope without wavering (v. 19-24), then we most need to assemble together to share that settled conviction with others. There is never a difficult time or an embarrassing circumstance or an emotional mood that should preclude our assembling together.
[1] George Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 174; https://www.hoopladigital.com/play/12149791
[2] William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13, Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991), 292.
[3] Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 485.
[4] George Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 174; emphasis added; https://www.hoopladigital.com/play/12149791
[5] Kenneth S. Wuest, Hebrews in the Greek New Testament, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament; Volume II (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973), 183, 185-186.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6smVijz2aFdMXBFcDZxN19SR00/view?resourcekey=0-A8Jrle6SOuTbWMPKQwc_mw
[6] George Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 174, emphasis added; https://www.hoopladigital.com/play/12149791 .
[7] Gareth Lee Cockerill, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012), 485.