Banner
Covenant Boldness and Covenant Fear PDF Print E-mail
Expository - Hebrews
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Friday, 10 March 2006 06:24

The tenth chapter of Hebrews really needs to be considered all together. In this chapter we find a great deal of the theology of our author coming together as part of an integrated whole. If we step back and get the big picture, we will see more than just the tenth chapter—we will begin to see the entire book. In this chapter we have one of the best examples found in Scripture where the meaning of the text cannot be ascertained apart from the immediate historical context. Not only is this the case, but when that context is explained and set out, many blurry things in the book of Hebrews suddenly come into sharp focus. It is like watching an impressionist painting turn into a painting from the photo-realism school. In order to get at this, it is best to read through the entire chapter at one go.

"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come—In the volume of the book it is written of Me—To do Your will, O God.’' Previously saying, 'Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them' (which are offered according to the law), then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 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, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, 'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,' then He adds, 'Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 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, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. And again, 'The Lord will judge His people.' It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; 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. 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: 'For yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith; but if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.' But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul (Heb. 10:1-39).

Now shadows of the reality cannot do what the reality can. The true sacrifice cannot be offered in the outer sanctuary—that is reserved for the inner Most Holy Place. In the first four verses of this chapter we have a reiteration of what we have been learning in the ninth chapter—the repetition of the Levitical sacrifices reveals the problem with it. These sacrifices were a successful shadow (vv. 1-4). The shadows repeat themselves, and as they do so, they are being good shadows. But they are also revealing that they are not the reality.

Even though these blood sacrifices were offered according to the law (and therefore were according to God’s will), God still told the people in Psalm 40:6-8 that He had no pleasure in the sacrifices. He followed this with Christ saying that He had come to do God’s will, to do God’s pleasure. This indicates the priority that Christ’s sacrifice has over that of bulls and goats. God takes away the animal sacrifices to replace them with the once for all sacrifice of Christ (vv. 5-9).

Those who have been blessed with the grace of God described here have been made perfect forever. When God fulfilled His pleasure, the result was a perfect setting apart of His people. Consider: "By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (v. 10). "For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified" (v. 14). We have a perfect sanctification—a definitive sanctification.

Christ has been seated at God’s right hand. This seating indicates: 1. He is waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool (vv. 12-13); 2. He has sanctified a certain class of people forever (vv. 10, 14); 3. He has established the new covenant (vv. 16-17); and 4. He has annihilated sin offerings (v. 18). This last is crucial for understanding verse 26.

The end result is a sprinkled heart. The result of this theology is confidence before the throne of God. The blood of Jesus has opened the veil to the Holy of Holies, which is the flesh of Jesus. Now we have a High Priest forever, and we are exhorted to draw near with full assurance. Our hearts have been sprinkled with the blood, and our bodies have been washed in baptism. So we are to hold fast, not so that we can be faithful, but rather because He is faithful. This and only this is the basis of love, good works and church attendance (vv. 24-25).

Now this is the place where context matters so much, and where, if we grasp that context, the lights come on. Remember that the elect have been made perfect forever. But we still must deal with those who are covenantally attached to Christ, but who do not know Him in truth. The "sinning willfully" cannot be understood apart from the context of the first century, at which time some Christian Jews were attempting to go back to the blood of bulls and goats (v. 26). They are warned (again) that Jerusalem is going to burn—no sense going back there (v. 27).

Contrast two differently contextualized paraphrases of verse 26:

Time --anywhere in Christian history: "For if we sin willfully by reading Penthouse after we have received the knowledge of the truth that to do so is a violation of the 7th commandment and the Sermon on the Mount, there no longer remains a sacrifice for our lustful sins, meaning that Jesus didn't die for heart-adulterers like us, but all that awaits us is a certain fearful expectation of the final judgment, and the fiery indignation of Hell which will devour the adversaries" (v. 26).

Time -- c. 66 A.D. just before the war broke out that destroyed Jerusalem, prophesied by Jesus to happen within one generation of 30 A.D. In other words, when Hebrews was written, about ten minutes to midnight. "For if we sin willfully by returning to the Levitical sacrifices, which must be offered in Jerusalem (which means in turn that we have to get on the boat and go there, just in time for the war), after we have received the knowledge of the truth that Christ died once for all, putting an end to these repetative sacrifices in doomed Jerusalem, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins back in Jerusalem where we are thinking to go, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, catapults, Roman armies, forests of crucified Jews, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries, as Jesus prophesied" (v. 26).

An illustration I have used before is this: suppose the gift of prophecy were still operative today, and a prophet stood up in our church and predicted that within two years Salt Lake City was going to be destroyed by a giant meteor. We know that our prophet is a good guy named Agabus, so we know this is going to happen. Then, in a masterpiece of bad timing, a college student in our church with a Mormon background announces that his family has told him that if he forgets all this evangelical, born-again business, they will set him up in business (in Salt Lake City), get him a cute LDS wife, and really take care of him. For various reasons, let us say that our young man is wavering, and he is really considering it. Now of course, we are concerned about his soul. But our pleading with him is going to be greatly affected by our knowledge that he was contemplating moving to a city that was going to be squashed by a giant rock from space within a matter of months. We are not just concerned about judgment at the end of the world (though that is an important part of all this), but we are also concerned about temporal, historical judgment, about to happen, here and now. This is exactly the kind of situation that the author of Hebrews was facing. Some Jewish Christians suddenly start to waver in their faith, and are thinking of going back to Jerusalem to worship, when that city was on the very threshold of her destruction. And the whole Christian church knew of that pending destruction -- Jesus could not have been plainer. The mid to late sixties was a bad time to take up the practice of sacrificing bulls and goats in the Temple at Jerusalem.

We see in all this that the new covenant contains fearful curses indeed—far worse than the curses of the old covenant. It is a fearful thing for a covenant member to fall into the hands of the living God (vv. 29-31). We are warned of a far worse punishment than the Jews of the older covenant faced. So we are to live up to what we have already attained. Notice the exhortation here. The author of Hebrews tells them to recall "the former days." They are not told to pry into the Book of Life to try to find out if they are elect. Our election is confirmed to our knowledge here, in this life, by how we live (vv.32-39).



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
Last Updated on Friday, 10 March 2006 06:24
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Daniel  Friday, March 10, 2006 12:11 pm
I was a bit confused when I read the contextualized versions of the verses...the penthouse/Jerusalem ones. (I'm someone who has struggled with these verses severely, and still does)

Is the "penthouse version" the "modern day version" of this verse, or the verse being misunderstood?
John Simmons  Friday, March 10, 2006 1:13 pm
Daniel, the modern "Penthouse" interpretation is the misunderstanding. Interpreting that passage in that way would mean that you could lose your salvation over reading smut.
Daniel  Friday, March 10, 2006 3:02 pm
I'd interpreted those passages to speak of a spiritual "point of no return", which I'd always feared I'd passed.
John Simmons  Friday, March 10, 2006 3:31 pm
I think if you're afraid you've passed it, it's a pretty good sign that you haven't. And remember: once for all. That's our blessed comfort.
Gordan Runyan  Friday, March 10, 2006 11:21 pm
Until I got hold of this, I was mortified by the realization that just about every sin a person commits is, at bottom, an act of the will. Meaning, nearly all sin everywhere has an element of "willfulness" in it. You can't escape that. We sin because at some point we decide to yeild to whatever temptation. If that sort of thing is what the author of Hebrews is talking about, I'm already lost, and I'm betting everyone else is, too.
John Barry  Saturday, March 11, 2006 3:37 am
Gordan, I believe that our will *is* involved, at some point, in any sin we commit. The willful sin the writer to the Hebrews speaks of involves "trampl[ing]the Son of God underfoot, count[ing] the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insult[ing]the Spirit of grace". This sin strikes me as having an air of finality to it. I think the writer has in mind a particular kind of sin (and Douglas's interpretation above may be right.) I remember the promise John expresses in his first letter: if anyone may sin, we have an advocate (one who comes alongside) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
Weston  Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:18 am
John is right, Gordon. The writer isn't talking about any little sin. He is talking about the disposition of Sin. Its kind of like how we present-day Americans would use the word 'stray' in relation to a marriage.

Imagine an introspective audience (like us) in 500 years who don't have the term 'stray' in their common parlance the way we do. They could read a letter written in Kansas from 2006 that says, "If you Stray after being united once for all at marriage, there is no turning back and there is a fearful judgment (including half of everything you own) that awaits you."

Now, if they took that to mean any little example of 'straying' activity, then technically being mean to you wife, having a billboard with a Victoria's Secret model catch your eye, etc would all qualify. And if the letter had authority like the Bible, they might all get really scared and invent a law-gospel dichotomy so they can say the verse doesn't actually apply.

But all of that would be missing the point. "Sin" is like "Stray" in common parlance. It is the turning away from righteousness and toward sin (like how stray means turning from our spouse toward sin/mistress). Its the verb form of the word 'Sinner" wich was always in the Jewish vocabulary and meant something like "pagans and apostates". It was people whose loyalty was on their sin and not God.
Weston  Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:20 am
I also dont think the writer of Hebrews was being a modern Calviist when he wrote the words "once for all". He's not suddenly making a decretal point in the midst of a very covenental letter. "Once for all" is juxtaposed to the temporary nature of the old covenant sacrafices. He wasn't making sure to affirm the P in TULIP. The letter is chalk full of unqualified warning against apostasy. I think he was using the term 'once for all' like we would use it for marriage.

Imagine a situation in which people dated each other with temporary connedctedness and loyalty. They promised to be faithful to the other person for a time, maybe three months, but after three months the bond had to be renewed or it passed away. In that context we could easily say "By this new thing called 'Marriage' God has once for all moved two people into lifelong connectedness and loyalty to each other". Now, in context the distinction is against the old, temporary bonds. The new bond has a 'forever' character. But that doesn't mean people don't sometimes turn away from their lifelong bond in sin, a point which the writer could probably be accused of belaboring throughout the rest of the letter. It happens, but its always an abortion to do so.

I don't think the author making a quick decretal point in the midst of a bunch of covenantal stuff. He is comparing the old temporary stuff with the new forever stuff.
Gordan Runyan  Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:21 am
John and Weston: Either I wasn't clear or you didn't read me right. I'm not arguing with either one of you. My point was that if one little act of the will involved with the committing of any particular sin is what the passage is talking about, then we're all lost. I think we're on the same page.
Gordan Runyan  Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:24 am
Weston: okay, I do disagree about the non-Calvinistic understanding in your second post. There are no abortive elect. There are abortive elect wanna-bes.
Weston  Sunday, March 12, 2006 4:13 pm
No, no, no, no, Gordan. I haven't made myself clear. I'm don't believe the Bible teaches that 'the elect' can become unelect. That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that Hebrews isn't broaching that issue when it says 'once and for all'. Hebrews is talking about a new once-for-all sacrafice through which we have been sanctified (literally means holyfied). Its once for all b/c it needs no repeating as the OT animal sacrafices did. I'm saying that is the difference that verse is drawing out. We modern day Calvinists read TULIP into just about everything and this passage is no exception. I just don't think that is the shape this text is taking.

Weston  Sunday, March 12, 2006 4:20 pm
Now, I do affirm that there are an 'elect' and that they all go to Heaven and that no 'non-elect' go to Heaven. But predestination is something that we are told *about*, but we are not told who is predestined. Instead we are told who is and isn't a Christian. Christians can fall away. There is a divine mystery in that, but that is nothing new. Human brains don't have to be able to reconcile it, because we are told that it is beyond us. Just like how God is three and one is beyond us or that Jesus is all human and all God. These things are not reconcilable in human heads, but we still know them to be true because we know the God who tells us these things to be trustworthy and all powerful. Such are the decrees of God, including 'election'. We get the human, covenantal perspective of who is a Christian and it is trustworthy. Hebrews gives Christians warning not to turn away.
Weston  Sunday, March 12, 2006 4:27 pm
I keep putting quotes around 'election' because I think it is misleading to use that term how we commonly use it. This is because the Bible almost always uses elect and election to refer to the church. The church is the elect of God, God's special people. Your election is in your church membership.

Don't get me wrong, I affirm predestination which is what we use 'election' as a synonym for. No problem there. Its just that we reformed love to read TULIP back into every verse and using a common biblical term like 'election' to mean 'predestination' can obscure Bible passages. I'd rather not use common Bible terms to mean something else, because it can cause people to read the new definition back into the Bible.

Mark Calhoun  Monday, March 13, 2006 1:41 am
I agree with both of you. I'm not the theologian either one of you are, but I believe Calvinism is covenental. It's written into the "warp and woof" of scripture, as a picture of the covenant faithfulness of God. Sorry to intrude into the conversation, but that's my two cents.