NO MORE SACRIFICE Part 2 of 2 by John Niemelä

Transcription

1 2 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) NO MORE SACRIFICE Part 2 of 2 by John Niemelä Introduction Hebrews 10:26 27 arrests the reader s attention: For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries 1 (Hebrews 10:26 27). What does this mean? The first installment of this article critiqued the two views that this author held between 1968 and 1983: No-Security and the Never-Saved views. 2 In 1974 this author abandoned the no-security position, because eternal life is a gift, not merely a good deal (John 4:10; Ephesians 2:8). Then this author rejected the never- Saved view. Hebrews 2:11 defines Christ s brethren as those having the same Heavenly Father (through positional sanctification). Since Hebrews never countermands this definition, brethren are believers. In keeping with Hebrews self-characterization as a word of exhortation to the brethren (13:22), positive exhortations and warnings occur throughout the book (even in sections that many expositors relegate to pure doctrine ). 1 The Holy Bible, New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1982). All Scripture citations are from the NKJV, unless otherwise identified. 2 John Niemelä, No More Sacrifice: Part 1, CTS Journal 4 (October 1998), critiques the No-Security view (pp. 1 2) and the Never- Saved view (pp. 2 10).

2 No More Sacrifice 3 Since supposedly purely doctrinal passages warn and admonish the beloved, exegetes should re-outline the book, recognizing the repeated alternation of doctrine and exhortation. Through this pattern, the writer of Hebrews addresses his doctrine-based word of exhortation (and warning) to Christ s sanctified (and eternally secure) brethren. The remainder of this article seeks the best interpretation of Hebrews 10:26 27 as a warning to eternally secure Christians, resuming this author s trek at For ten years, he held the Fellowship-Sacrifice view. In 1993, a better solution presented itself, The Change of Covenants view. Therefore, leaving the discussion of the first half of this article, let us go on to complete the pilgrimage and reach an interpretive solution to a passage that has troubled many. Presentation of the Fellowship-Sacrifice View This article focuses on Hebrews 10:26 27, rather than considering the other warnings. 3 Neither does it trace views 3 Space constraints require a narrow focus. Several existing studies handle the warning passages well: Joseph Dillow, The Reign of the Servant Kings: A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man, 2nd ed. (Hayesville, NC: Schoettle Publishing, 1993); Zane Hodges, Absolutely Free! (Dallas, TX: Redención Viva, 1989; Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1989); Hodges, The Gospel Under Siege: Faith and Works in Tension, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: Redención Viva, 1992); Hodges, Hebrews, in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament edition, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaten, IL: Victor Books, SP Publications, 1983), ; T. Kem Oberholtzer, The Warning Passages in Hebrews, BibSac 145 (January March, 1988): pp ; 145 (April June, 1988): pp ; 145 (July September, 1988): pp ; 145 (October December, 1988): pp ; and 146 (January March, 1989): pp

3 4 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) with glaring weaknesses (e.g. the Hypothetical Apostasy view). 4 Hebrews 10:26b would describe a believer withdrawing from the sacrificial provision for post-justification fellowship with Him (the Fellowship-Sacrifice). As such, it would antithetically parallel the sacrificial language of 1 John 1:7 and 9. The Fellowship-Sacrifice idea is present in 1 John 1:7, 10: But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another [with God and with fellow believers], and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin... If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Fellowship with one another is both vertical (with God) and horizontal (with man). The cleansing refers to daily forgiveness, not to eternal justification. Believers who confess sins to restore fellowship and walk in the light have fellowship with God and with believers who walk in the light. However, those who sin willfully by forsaking assembly also forsake fellowship with God. 1 John 1:7 and 9 is positive. The Fellowship-Sacrifice view of Hebrews 10:25 26 sees that passage, as 1 John 1 s negative counterpart: 4 Hypothetical Apostasy sees the warnings as addresses to believers. It alleges that God threatens to take away eternal life from believers, but he will not do so. Would this false threat not make the Bible a book of situation ethics (ends justify means)?

4 No More Sacrifice 5... not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. Fellowship-Sacrifice would refer to Christ s continuing cleansing (1 John 1:7 and 9). The basis for this cleansing is His once for all (Hebrews 10:10) sacrifice on the cross. This writer, when he held this view, characterized it as: Eternally secure apostates face terrible discipline in time, since they abandon the restoration to temporal fellowship (Christ s sacrifice on the cross). Thus, Hebrews 10:26b would be a penalty for willful sin. This understanding is characteristic of the view. An advocate of the describes the position as, Fellowship-Sacrifice view Apostasy from the faith would be such a willful act and for those who commit it no sacrifice for sins is left (cf. Heb. 10:18). If the efficacious sacrifice of Christ should be renounced, there remained no other available sacrifice which could shield an apostate from God s judgment by raging fire. 5 Another advocate says, Willful sin committed meta; to; labei`n th;n ejpivgnwsin th`" ajlhqeiva" ( after receiving the full-knowledge of the truth ) results in no sacrifice for sins. The loss is not salvation but 5 Cf. Hodges, Hebrews, 805.

5 6 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) the loss of the means by which we can have daily cleansing of sin... 6 Still another says, We have been warned that there is no sacrificial protection from judgment in time (Heb. 10:26) for willful sin. 7 This view affirms eternal security and perceives the warning passages addressing believers. The first part of this article argued from the vocatives and from Hebrews 13:22 that the warning passages address believers. 8 Evidence within the context of the warnings themselves supports the general case. Three arguments from Hebrews 10 establish that this chapter warns believers: (1) Verse 26 links directly to 10:19 25, (2) Only Christians receive the knowledge of the truth, (3) Hebrews 10:32 36 cannot refer to unbelievers. Verse 26 links directly to 10:19 25 The author addresses brethren (10:19) who have already been washed. They are believers. The grammatical relationship between participles and the main verb 9 shows that the sequence of Hebrews 10:19 22 is: (1) Having been sprinkled and our bodies having been washed (22b), (2) Having boldness (19) and having a High Priest (21), (3) Let us draw near with a true heart (22a). 6 Oberholtzer, The Danger of Willful Sin in Hebrews 10:26 39, BibSac 145 (October December, 1988): p Dillow, Servant Kings, p Niemelä, No More Sacrifice: Part 1, pp Cf. Niemelä, No More Sacrifice: Part 1, p. 7, note 21.

6 No More Sacrifice 7 Thus, these believers are to draw near with a true heart (v 22). He uses three hortatory (exhortational) subjunctives (e.g. Let us... ): Let us draw near (v 22), Let us hold fast the confession (v 23), And let us consider one another (v 24). Hebrews 10:26 links the warning against willful sin to 10:19 25 s exhortation to believers through the conjunction for (ga;r). Furthermore, the author uses the word we (hjmw`n). Thus, he included himself in the warning, just as he included himself in the prior exhortation ( let us... occurs three times in 10:22 24). In context, therefore, two of these first three words in v 26 ( For... we ) offer evidence that it applies to believers. Only believers receive the knowledge of the truth Expositors recognize similar phrases in Acts 2:41; 8:14; 11:1; and 17:11 in this light. Luke 8:13 makes the same point, as well. 10 The introductory phase ( For if we... ) contextually identifies the addressees as believers. This leaves two options for the meaning of receiving the fullknowledge of the truth. It could refer to: (1) believing the truth regarding Christ s work that gave them eternal life. (2) It could state that these believers who received the truth contained in Hebrews 10:25, that forsaking the assembling of ourselves is wrong. Rejecting known truth would be willful sin for these believers. In either case, Hebrews 10 In Luke 8, they receive the word with joy... who believe for a while. This meets 8:12 s one condition for salvation: they believed. Their faith did not continue long enough to produce ripe seed (8:14). That is, they did not reproduce [The sower sowed seed that germinated (life) and was supposed to reproduce seed that for planting to become another generation of believers]. Though they did not reproduce, they germinated. Thus, they have life.

7 8 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) 10:26 warns eternally secure believers who have received the truth. Hebrews 10:32 36 cannot refer to unbelievers The whole warning addresses believers. Verse 32 s participle enlightened (fwtisqevnte") refers to the people who are the subjects of second person plural verbs in 10: As an aorist participle, it precedes its main verb: you endured (ujpemeivnate). This endurance occurred during the former days (ta;" provteron hjmevra"). The sequence of action is: (1) First they were enlightened (10:32b) (2) Then they endured struggles in the former days (10:32c), (3) Now they are to recall steps 1 and 2 (10:32a). In other words, the grammar shows that enlightenment was the first step. The author of Hebrews wants them to focus on the former days. Those days came after they were enlightened. Now that the sequence is clear, it is necessary to contextually define enlightened. It refers to the positional enlightening that comes at the time one believes in Christ. This exegetical decision rests primarily upon the flow of the argument in Hebrews and parallel uses of the word. 11 The standard usage of the nominative case for participles is in apposition to the stated or implied subject of the controlling verb. The implied nominative subject of the verbs in verse 32 would be you (ujmei`"). Thus, the readers are the same people who were enlightened before they endured the former days.

8 No More Sacrifice 9 Hebrews 6:4 12 and 2 Corinthians 4:3ff. also refer to this. Furthermore, Hebrews 10:34 builds upon the idea that their enlightenment occurred when they believed the Gospel. After all, Hebrews affirms that they know that they have a possession in heaven.... for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven (Hebrews 10:34-36). Oddly, one commentary seeks to avoid the obvious by rendering it, They had the prospect of a better possession and an abiding one 13 [emphasis mine]. What caused the wrenching of a simple phrase 14 into knowing that you have the prospect of? The logic leading to this mistranslation is simple, but wrong. 12 Many debate Hebrews 6:4. Some rely upon an ill-advised if in the English of verse 6. This mistranslation ignores the article governing all five participles: (4) those who were once enlightened (tou;" fwtisqevnta"); who have tasted (geusamevnou"); who have become (genhqevnta"); (5) who have tasted (geusamevnou"); and (6) who fall away (parapesovnta"). Since one article governs each participle, they are all substantival and none of the participles is conditional. Besides grammar, one must deal with the meaning of the words. For example, taste cannot mean something less than eating. Otherwise, what does it mean for Jesus to taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9)? Jesus died fully. He did not swoon. Likewise, tasting the heavenly gift means the salvific reception of it. Hebrews 6:4 refers to the enlightening that occurs when one believes the Gospel. 13 John F. MacArthur, Jr., Hebrews, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1983), The infinitive simply introduces indirect discourse as in Mark 8:29. The addition of the prospect of has no sound basis.

9 10 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) The rendering errs by equating the possession of Hebrews 10:34 with the reward of v 35. Verse 34 says that they already have the possession, but verse 36 regards the future reception of the promise (the reward) as potential. Rendering this as had the prospect of a better possession, is incorrect, since the reward does not equal the possession. You had compassion on me in my chains and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, [because of] knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise (Hebrews 10:34-36). The participle knowing (ginwvskonte") is causal. The reason for their compassion is because they know that they indeed have a possession, not the mere chance to receive it. An analogy from everyday life may clarify the meaning of these verses. Sometimes students lose confidence after a tough exam, causing them to ponder quitting their studies. It is appropriate to encourage them by saying, God gave you all the intelligence that you need for pleasing Him. Do not throw away your confidence, because He rewards faithfulness in studying and applying His word. The student already possesses the intelligence, but does not possess a full reward. One must distinguish God-given intelligence from the reward. Likewise, Hebrews original readers all possessed eternal life. They knew that they already own a better

10 No More Sacrifice 11 possession (eternal life) than the plundered ones. Based on that certain fact, the writer said, Do not cast away (Mh; ajpobavlhte) their rewardable confidence. The most natural reading of chapter 10 is as an exhortation to believers. As a result, this author accepted the Fellowship-Sacrifice view in 1983: the third step in his pilgrimage. In 1993, a fourth view recommended itself. CHANGE OF COVENANTS VIEW Summer 1993 was a time of preparation for doctoral comprehensives at Dallas Seminary. The likelihood that warning passages might be on the exams prompted intensive review. The goal was to reinforce conclusions, not to change views. However, that August day did not go according to plan. The Relationship of Hebrews 10:18 and 26 While reading Hebrews 10:26, my younger son, Joseph, entered my study. I looked up and greeted him, but lost my place. Then, I started looking for verse 26b s phrase, oujkevti peri; ajmartiw`n ajpoleivpetai qusiva. Instead, I found oujkevti prosfora; peri; ajmartiva" (10:18). The wording of verses 26b and 18b are similar, both in Greek and in English. The interlude interrupted reading, but not my train of thought the Fellowship-Sacrifice interpretation of 10:26: These believers no longer had Christ s sacrificial provision for restoration of fellowship. However, I was reading 10:18, not 10:26. It became apparent that the fellowship-sacrifice concept is foreign to Hebrews 10:18.

11 12 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Why is it foreign? Hebrews 10:18 argues that offering for sin ceased, because Christ accomplished complete and total forgiveness under the New Covenant. The cessation of offering is good news in verse 18. How could there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (eight verses later) be bad news? Several considerations force the conclusion that both 10:18b and 26b are good news. Hebrews 10:18 and 26 are in the same section The three views that this writer held (from ) regard 10:18b as good news, but 10:26b as bad news. The following commentator s summary portrays this approach well,... [W]hat is said here [verse 26b] is not at all a repetition of the affirmation of verse 18 above, that there is no longer any offering for sin ; for there the reference is to those who, coming from unbelief to belief in Christ, find forgiveness on the basis of his all-sufficing sacrifice... Here, [apostates]... move from open belief to open unbelief... For such persons there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins This supposes two differences between 18b and 26b: Levitical offering is in 18b. The cross is in 26b. The cross causes 18b. Apostasy causes 26b. 15 Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 419.

12 No More Sacrifice 13 By contrast, a study of the theme of Hebrews 10 points to 18b and 26b as parallels. E. Earle Ellis demonstrates an overall unity that transcends the shift to application at 10: The general outline appears in Hebrews 10:5 39: Initial text: Psalm 40:7 9 Exposition linked to the initial text by catchwords. Final text and application alluding to the initial text. Ellis observes that Hebrews 10 expounds Psalm 40:7 9. The exposition does not end at 10:18, but continues to the end of the chapter. The first half considers the psalm doctrinally, whereas the latter half develops practical exhortations and warnings from Psalm 40. Chapter 10 has unity. Hebrews 10:5 says, Sacrifice and offering You did not desire. Verse 7 amplifies. Christ came to do God s will: Then I said, Behold, I have come In the volume of the book it is written of Me To do Your will, O God. The cross accomplished God s will, because there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (26b) and there is no longer an offering for sin (18). In this light, both 10:18b and 26b accomplish what God desires (v 5) and what He wills (v 7). God desired and willed the cessation of sacrifice and offering, so they no longer remain. 16 E. Earle Ellis, How the New Testament Uses the Old, in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Exeter, England: Paternoster, 1977; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 204.

13 14 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) Sacrifice Sacrifice for sins no longer remains. and offering Offering for sin is no longer. 17 You did not desire Figure 1. Sacrifice No Longer Remains (Fulfilling God s Will) All of Hebrews 10 coheres together as an exposition of Psalm 40, so Hebrews 10:18b should parallel 26b. Christ fulfilled the Father s will by implementing the New Covenant, ending all sacrifice. One should not part Hebrews 10:26b asunder from verse 18b. Each is part of the overall exposition of Psalm 40. The strategic placement of verse 18 at the end of its paragraph gives it a special role, as a summary. Hebrews 10:18 is a major summary statement The fourth doctrinal section is the longest: eighty-seven verses. Verse 18 summarizes half of the book s 174 doctrinal verses. See diagram at the top of the next page. 17 The translation of 10:18b and 26b is the author s own. They reflect an exegetical decision for which pages (below) argue.

14 No More Sacrifice 15 Doctrine # vss Practice # vss 1 1: : :5 3:6 20 3:7 4: :14 5: :11 6: :1 10: : a 11:1 12: : b 13: Figure 2. Overview of the Five Doctrine and Practice Sections Hebrews labors for eighty-seven verses to prove the superiority of Christ s priesthood that culminated in His superior offering (7:1 10:18). In contrast with the neverending Levitical sacrifices and offerings, that could never take away sins, Christ s work on the cross permanently forgave sins. Hebrews 10:18 serves as a capstone summary: Now where there is forgiveness of these [sins and lawless deeds] offering for sin is no longer. He labored for eighty-seven verses to say that the cessation of sin offering is good news (10:18). Why would the author, only eight verses later, treat sacrifice for sins no longer remains as bad news? That is not what one would expect from as careful a writer as the author of Hebrews. Since one anticipates that Hebrews 10:18b and 26b would define terms similarly, it is appropriate to question the two purported differences between 10:18b and 26b. In a citation appearing earlier in this article, a commentary intimated: Hughes, Hebrews, 419. See note 15 (above).

15 16 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) Levitical offering is in 18b. The cross is in 26b. The cross causes 18b. Apostasy causes 26b. The characterization of Hebrews 10:18b is correct, but both assertions about verse 26b are wrong. Why? Christ s work on the cross is not a continuing sacrifice. Note that there cannot be a withdrawal of Christ s sacrifice as a penalty for willful sin, unless Hebrews views Christ s sacrifice as a continuing sacrifice. Withdrawal of it as a penalty would imply that the sacrifice would continue for those not facing the penalty. How could God penalize someone by withdrawing sacrifices that He had already withdrawn? Since Hebrews argues that all sacrifice ended, the concept of Christ s sacrifice as a continuing one conflicts with the thesis of the book. However, it is necessary to discuss a few verses that may seem to point to the cross as a forever-sacrifice, that is, as a continuing one. The cross is not a continuing sacrifice in Hebrews The thrust of this section of Hebrews is that all sacrifice has ended, because Christ s completed work has already secured eternal forgiveness. In this regard, Hebrews 10:10 says, By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. The word once (ejfavpax) points to cessation, not continuation. It signifies something completed at one point in time. 19 Hebrews conceives of Christ s sacrifice as completed, not as continuing. This is even true in Hebrews 19 Cf. Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27; and 9:12.

16 No More Sacrifice 17 10: The English makes it seem that Hebrews treats the cross as a forever-sacrifice. However, the phrase translated as forever, needs correction. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool (Hebrews 10:12 13). The phrase that verse 12 renders as forever (eij" to; dihneke;") is the word continually in Hebrews 10:1, For the law can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect (Hebrews 10:1). The word does not mean forever, but continually. This meaning allows translators to punctuate 10:12 correctly. The problem with attaching the word forever to the verb sat, is that Christ does not sit forever. Verse 13 says that He sits only till His enemies are made His footstool. One should replace the word in strikeout print with the underlined one. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, continually sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool (Hebrews 10:11 13). What is the point of Hebrews 10:11 13? The Levitical priests perpetually remained standing, because they never finished their sacrificial work and it never took away sins. By contrast, after offering only one sacrifice, now Christ

17 18 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) continually sits. He can sit until His enemies become His footstool, because He never has to offer another sacrifice. His one sacrifice is over, having accomplished the goal. That is why He now sits. Thus, Hebrews 10:18b concludes: Offering for sin is no longer. Hebrews 10:26b reinforces it: Sacrifice for sins no longer remains. Neither Christ s sacrifice nor the Levites sacrifices remain. All sacrifice is over, according to Hebrews. The cross is not a continuing sacrifice. How does one incorporate this understanding into 10:26 27 s warning? Hebrews 10:26 27 is a non-reversible condition Some conditions reverse. Others do not. 20 Testing for this involves adding (or subtracting) not from both the if and the then clauses. If both the condition and its reverse are true, the condition is reversible. Illustrations may help. REVERSIBLE (Both statements are true): True Condition: If a child is a boy, it is not a girl. True Reverse: If a child is not a boy, it is a girl. 20 One book that discusses this issue is: Norman L. Geisler, and Ronald M. Brooks, Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), They refer to reversing a condition as denying the antecedent. Another book is: Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), , discusses the general semantics of conditional clauses well, though I do not endorse all of his examples.

18 No More Sacrifice 19 NON-REVERSIBLE (Only one statement is true): True Condition: If he is a thief, he does sin. False Reverse: If he is not a thief, he does not sin. TRUE RESTATEMENT OF NON-REVERSIBLE: True Condition: If he is a thief, he does sin. True Reverse: If he is not a thief, he does sin. TRUE UNIVERSAL: Whether or not he is a thief, he does sin. Before applying this to Hebrews 10:26 27, note that sentences with two then clauses constitute a special case. This is because sometimes only one of the then clauses may have a non-reversible relationship with the if clause. For example, If Abraham of Ur was a father, then (1) he was male and (2) he had at least one child. Clause (1) is not reversible. Whether or not Abraham was a father, he was male. He was male before and after having children. Clause 2 is reversible, because Abraham was not a father until he had a child. Hebrews 10:26 27 is comparable to the illustration of Abraham. V 26b is not reversible, but v 27 is. One may paraphrase this into three statements, Whether or not we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, sacrifice for sins no longer remains (Universal: 10:26). If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation

19 20 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) which will devour the adversaries remains (Condition: 10:27) If we do not sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries does not remain (Reverse: 10:27). What does the passage now mean? Hebrews 10:26b reiterates 10:18b. The fact that sacrifice no longer remains is true for everyone, both for those who sin willfully and for those who do not. The reason that this is universal truth is because the lack of sacrifice for sins is a consequence of the New Covenant. It is not a penalty for willful sin. Hebrews 10:5 announced that God did not desire offering and sacrifice. Verse 7 said that Christ came to do the Father s will [i.e., the desire]. Neither sacrifice nor offering remains after the cross. Thus, Heb 10:26b is a reminder of good news, that Christ s work was so complete that He sits at the Father s right hand. He does not need to offer another sacrifice. Neither do the Levites need to offer sacrifices. Hebrews indicates that God accepted no sin sacrifices after the cross. V 26b is a reminder of grace and the sufficiency of the cross. It is not stating a penalty. Since it does not announce a penalty, verse 26b is not a reversible condition. The idea is that, whether or not we sin willfully, Christ has ended all sacrifice. The semantics parallel clause (1) in the sentence: If Abraham of Ur was a father, then (1) he was male and (2) he had at least one child. Becoming a father is not what made Abraham male. Likewise, sinning willfully is not what ended sacrifice.

20 No More Sacrifice 21 On the other hand, Hebrews 10:27 is a consequence of willful sin. Thus, its semantics parallel clause (2) in the sentence: If Abraham of Ur was a father, then (1) he was male and (2) he had at least one child. The consequence of becoming a father is gaining a child. Similarly, the consequence of sinning willfully is facing judgment in time 21 that Hebrews 10:27 indicates was designed for God s adversaries. 22 What interpretive benefits result from regarding Hebrews 10:26b as non-reversible? It perceives unity in Hebrews 10 s exposition of Psalm 40, by taking 10:18b and 26b as parallels. Thus, verse 26b reinforces 18b s point, the summary of eighty-seven verses of doctrine. It avoids saying that Christ s sacrifice continues, in contradiction of Christ s once for all sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10). The evidence supports taking 10:26b as a non-reversible condition. One minor correction in the English translation helps make nonreversibility easier to see. 21 Many commentators read hell into Hebrews 10:27. However, 10:28 looks at swift physical death as an Old Testament punishment. 10:29 speaks of a punishment worse than that of the OT. In A.D. 70 many died slowly from deprivation or in other torturous ways: a punishment worse than swift death. 22 God designed the judgment of A.D. 70 to devour the adversaries. There are two options for the adversaries: (1) they could be willfully sinning believers of verse 26a, or (2) they could be unbelievers (not mentioned in verse 26). In case (1) God designed A.D. 70 to devour these rebellious believers. In case (2) God designed the vengeance of A.D. 70 to devour unbelieving adversaries, but rebellious believers who ceased assembling with the church associated with the adversaries and were consumed in a judgment designed for adversaries. The decision between (1) and (2) is not central to this article s argument.

21 22 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) Translating Hebrews 10:26 Most English translations add the indefinite article a in Hebrews 10:26, even though no such word is present in the Greek. The strikeout font (below) indicates the addition of a word that does not belong in the passage. There no longer remains -a- sacrifice for sins (NKJV). There remaineth no more -a- sacrifice for sins (ASV). There no longer remains -a- sacrifice for sins (NASB). There no longer remains -a- sacrifice for sins (NRSV). There no longer remains -a- sacrifice for sins (RSV). Neither the KJV nor the NIV say: -a- sacrifice. 23 There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins (KJV). No sacrifice for sins is left (NIV). What difficulty does the word a pose here? The statement, If we sin willfully... there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins predisposes readers to think that it refers to Christ s sacrifice. That is, one thinks of Levitical sacrifices (plural), but Christ s one sacrifice. Without giving it much thought, readers substitute Christ s for -a-. Thus, most people read it as, If we sin willfully... there no longer remains [for the willful sinner] Christ s sacrifice for sins. 23 Incidentally, the KJV s rendering is also the title for this article.

22 No More Sacrifice 23 Contrast this with, If we sin willfully... sacrifice for sins no longer remains. In this, sacrifice for sins has a qualitative sense. That is, sacrifice [whether Levitical sacrifices or Christ s sacrifice] no longer remains. Sacrifice for sins no longer remains, whether or not we sin willfully. All sacrifice has ended. Hebrews 10:10 speaks of Christ s sacrifice being once for all. Hebrews argues that no sacrifice continues. Adding a to Hebrews 10:26 involves a little word, but great is the tragedy. One other issue is pertinent. What is the relationship between Hebrews 10:26b and Numbers 15? Verse 26b Does Not Parallel Numbers 15 Clearly there is contact between Hebrews 10:26a and Numbers 15: The bold words parallel: If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth. But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him (Numbers 15:30 31). Verses contrast with Numbers 15:24 25, which made sacrificial provision for unintentional sin. Then it will be, if it is unintentionally committed... that the whole congregation shall offer one young bull as a burnt offering... So the

23 24 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) priest shall make atonement for the whole congregation and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unintentional... (Numbers 15:24 25) High-handed sin had no sacrificial provision. Numbers 15:31 explains the reason for singling-out this type of sin: Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment. Certainly, there is contact between Numbers 15 and Hebrews 10. The extent of connection is the point where controversy arises. Many exegetes make the linkage between Numbers 15:30 31 and Hebrews 10:26 too complete. They reason: Since Hebrews 10:26a relates to the sin of Numbers 15:30 31, would not 10:26b offer a penalty corresponding to Numbers 15:30 31? This makes the wrong verses parallel. Under the Old Covenant, what was the effect of sin offering? Sacrifice could spare one from physical death as punishment. The effect of having no sacrificial provision was that the person died. Hebrews 10 is under the New Covenant, where no sacrifice exists. In this context, Hebrews 10:27 29 sets the awful prospect of agonizing death in the A.D. 70 cataclysm in Jerusalem is the much worse punishment than swift death under the Mosaic Law. 24 Therefore, the exegetical reasoning should be: Since Hebrews 10:26a (but not 26b) relates to the sin of Numbers 15:30 31, would not 10:27 offer a penalty even worse than Numbers 15:30 31? 24 See note 21 (above)

24 No More Sacrifice 25 Indeed, Hebrews 10:27 sets forth a more severe penalty for willful sin than swift death. Thus, Hebrews 10:26a and 27 parallel Numbers 15:30 31, but verse 26b does not. The reason that Hebrews 10:26b cannot parallel Numbers 15 is the very reason that Hebrews 10:18 cannot. Both passages in Hebrews describe the New Covenant, in which no sin sacrifice remains. Christ s death on the cross established the New Covenant, but He died in the Age of Israel (under the Old Covenant). The time following His death is under the New Covenant. No sin sacrifice occurs during the New Covenant. That is the very point of Hebrews 10:18b and 26b, so they cannot parallel any verses in Numbers 15. Change of Covenants View: A Summary Hebrews 10:26b is good news. Although it is in the midst of a solemn warning, it reminds the readers of God s grace under the New Covenant. Christ s provision for forgiveness is so complete that it caused sacrifice to cease. Since all sacrifice has ended, the author warned his readers that there only remains the fearful prospect of A.D. 70 for believers who willfully sin against the command for Christians to assemble. Many expositors have seen no alternative to v 26b as the ultimate statement of divine judgment, namely, hell. When one sees Hebrews 10:26b as good news, it enables a fresh look at the warning passages as a whole. Hebrews deserves such a reappraisal. The author warned eternally secure believers. Unlike the No Security view, the Change of Covenants view of Hebrews 10:26b affirms eternal security. Unlike the Never-Saved view, it recognizes that

25 26 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) (1) Hebrews addresses doctrine, positive exhortations, and warnings to believers, and that (2) the author sprinkles those exhortations and warnings throughout the book. Unlike the No Security, the Never-Saved, and Fellowship- Sacrifice views, it perceives that Hebrews 10:18b and 26b are parallels. This allows Hebrews 10 to flow smoothly without pitting these verses against each other. In keeping with Hebrews 10:10, it avoids calling the cross a forever sacrifice. It also avoids reading an Old Covenant concept into a thoroughly New Covenant verse: Hebrews 10:26b. Implications Through the years Hebrews 10:26b has given rise to a multitude of interpretations. On the other hand, widespread agreement on the meaning of Hebrews 10:18 exists. The reader can test this by observing how infrequently commentators argue with each other over the meaning of 10:18b, but how much space commentaries devote to disputes over 10:26b. The amount of ink devoted to 10:26b testifies to the confusion that exists over the verse. Unfortunately, the combatants from each faction (in this war of words) have failed to observe that verse 26b is good news. It is a restatement of verse 18b, even though it is in a warning. If expositors start to see Hebrews 10:26b as a parallel to verse 18b, it would cease to be a major battleground. Expositors of all persuasions ought to be able to agree that verse 26b is a parallel to v 18b. Although commentators will continue to debate the warning passages, a new consensus of the good news in Hebrews 10:26b may help evangelicals to start resolving

26 No More Sacrifice 27 some of the debates over Hebrews warning passages. To God be the glory. Appendix: Summary of Views The chart (below) poses this article s main arguments as questions to the four views it discusses. Affirmative answers correspond to the main thesis of the article. Certain of Eternal Security? Heb 10 warns believers? Heb 10:18b = Heb 10:26b? Heb 10:26b Num. 15:30f? No Security Never- Saved Fellowship- Sacrifice Change of Covenants No * YES YES YES No YES YES No No No YES No No No YES * All who hold this view affirm the security of believers. Some who hold the Never-Saved view also affirm that each believer can possess absolute certainty that he/ she is eternally secure. Others deny that individuals can possess absolute certainty of their eternal destiny before death. --End-- John Niemelä earned his B.A. at the University of Minnesota, Th.M. in New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary, and is a Ph.D. candidate in New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Dallas Theological Seminary. John is professor of Hebrew and Greek at Chafer Theological Seminary. His address is langprof@aol.com