No More Sacrifice (Part 2 of 2)

By John Niemelä

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 email address is langprof@aol.com

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 passage mean? The first installment of this article critiqued the two views that this author held between 1968 and 1983: the No-Security and the Never-Saved views. [2] In 1974 this author abandoned the former view in favor of the latter, because eternal life is a gift, not merely a good deal (John 4:10; Ephesians 2:8). Further research in 1983 led to rejection of the Never-Saved view and acceptance of the Fellowship-Sacrifice 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. How does the Fellowship-Sacrifice view proceed?

In keeping with Hebrews’ self-characterization as a word of exhortation to the brethren (Hebrews 13:22), positive exhortations and warnings occur throughout the book (even in sections that many relegate to pure doctrine). Since passages that supposedly contain only doctrine warn and admonish the beloved, many have imposed their own outline upon Hebrews and ignored the repeated alternations between doctrine and exhortation. To the contrary, through this alternating pattern, the writer of Hebrews addresses his doctrine-based word of exhortation (and warning) to Christ’s sanctified (and eternally secure) brethren.

For ten years, the author of this paper held the Fellowship-Sacrifice view, until in 1993 the Change of Covenants view presented itself as the best solution. Therefore, leaving the critique of the No-Security and Never-Saved views from this article’s first installment, let us renew the pilgrimage and reach an interpretive solution to a verse that has troubled many. [3]

The Fellowship-Sacrifice View

The Fellowship-Sacrifice view of Hebrews 10:26b perceives a believer withdrawing from the sacrificial provision for post-justification fellowship. Hebrews 10:26b and 1 John 1:7 and 9 would be antithetic parallels (like heads and tails).

In 1 John fellowship with one another is both vertical (with God) and horizontal (with the apostle and fellow-believers).

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 (1 John 1:7, 9).

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 fellow- believers who likewise walk in the light. However, those who sin willfully by forsaking assembly also forsake fellowship with God. First John 1:7 and 9 are positive. The Fellowship-Sacrifice view sees Hebrews 10:25–26 as the negative counterpart of 1 John 1:7 and 9:

… 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.

Whereas 1 John presents God’s provision of the Fellowship-Sacrifice, Hebrews 10:26b speaks of the believer’s forsaking of that provision. Understood in this light, Fellowship-Sacrifice requires the ongoing confession of sin by the believer (1 John 1:7 and 9). The basis for this cleansing is His once for all (Hebrews 10:10) sacrifice on the cross. The defining characteristic of this view is that eternally secure apostates face terrible discipline in time, since they abandon restoration to temporal fellowship (through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross). Thus, this view sees Hebrews 10:26b as the penalty for a believer’s willful sin.

A Fellowship-Sacrifice advocate describes the position as,

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. [4]

Another advocate of the Fellowship-Sacrifice view says,

Willful sin committed… (“after receiving the full-knowledge of the truth”) results in no sacrifice for sins …. The loss is not salvation but the loss of the means by which we can have daily cleansing of sin….[5]

Still another says, “We have been warned that there is no sacrificial protection from judgment in time (Heb. 10:26) for willful sin.” [6] This view affirms eternal security and perceives the warning passages as addressing believers. This is excellent.

The first installment of this article argued from the vocatives and from Hebrews 13:22 that the warning passages address believers. [7] Three arguments from Hebrews 10 further 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

Hebrews addresses brethren (10:19) who have already been washed. They are believers. The grammatical relationship between the main verb and its participles shows that the sequence of Hebrews 10:19–22 is: [8]

1. “Having been sprinkled and having been washed” (22b),
2. “Having boldness” (19) and “having a High Priest” (21),
3. “Let us draw near with a true heart” (22a).

These believers are to draw near with a true heart (Hebrews 10:22). Therefore, the author of Hebrews exhorts his audience with three hortatory subjunctives (e.g. Let us…): Let us draw near (Hebrews 10:22), Let us hold fast the confession (Hebrews 10:23), And let us consider one another (Hebrews 10:24).

The conjunction for (γάρ), which introduces Hebrews 10:26, links this warning against willful sin with the preceding exhortation to believers in Hebrews 10:19–25. Just as in the prior exhortation (the thrice repeated let us… of Hebrews 10:22–24), the author includes himself in verse 26’s warning by using the first person plural, we. In this context, two of verse 26’s introductory words (For… we) show that he addresses believers.

Only believers receive the knowledge of the truth

Acts 2:41; 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; and 1 Thessalonians 2:13 apply phrases like receiving the knowledge of the truth to believers. Luke 8:13 makes the same point, as well. [9]

The introductory phase (For if we…) contextually identifies the addressees as believers. This leaves two options for receiving the full-knowledge of the truth. It could refer to: (1) having believed the truth regarding Christ’s work that gave them eternal life, or (2) receiving the truth contained in Hebrews 10:25, that forsaking the assembling of ourselves is wrong. Regarding both of these options, rejecting known truth would be willful sin for these believers. In either case, Hebrews 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 (φωτισθέντες) refers to those who are the subjects of second person plural verbs in Hebrews 10:32–36. [10] This aorist participle precedes its main verb: you endured (ὑπεμείνατε). This endurance occurred during the former days (τὰς πρότερον ἡμέρας). The sequence in Hebrews 10:32 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 initial step. The author of Hebrews wants them to focus on the former days, which given the context, came after they were enlightened. Following the flow of the argument in Hebrews and parallel word usage, the word enlightened refers to the positional enlightenment that comes at the time one believes in Christ.

Hebrews 6:4 [11] and 2 Corinthians 4:3ff. also refer to positional enlightenment. Furthermore, Hebrews 10:34 affirms the certainty of their knowledge which they received when they believed the Gospel. Regarding Hebrews 10:34–36, one commentary seeks to avoid the obvious by paraphrasing, “They had the prospect of a better possession and an abiding one” [12] [emphasis mine].

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 logic leading to this commentator’s mistranslation [13] is simple, but wrong. The rendering errs by equating the possession of Hebrews 10:34 with the reward of verse 35. The participle knowing (γινώσκοντες) in verse 34 is causal. The reason for their compassion is because they know that they indeed have a possession, not the mere chance to receive it. While verse 34 says that they already have the possession, verse 36 presents the future reception of the promise (the reward) as potential. Therefore, the reward does not equal the possession. They are distinct.

An analogy from everyday life may clarify the meaning. 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 (not the mere prospect of intelligence), but does not possess a full reward. God-given intelligence (a possession) is distinct from the reward.

Likewise, as Christ’s sanctified brethren, Hebrews’ original readers all possessed eternal life. They knew that they already owned a better possession (eternal life) than their plundered goods. Based on that certain fact, the writer said, (D)o not cast away (Μὴ ἀποβάλητε) this 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; however, in 1993, a fourth view, which also addresses believers, recommended itself.

Change of Covenants View

Summer 1993 was a time of preparation for doctoral comprehensives at Dallas Seminary. The likelihood that those exams would probe the warning passages 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

My younger son, Joseph, entered the study. Looking up to greet him caused me to momentarily lose my place in the Greek text. While searching again for Hebrews 10:26b:

“οὐκέτι περὶ ἀμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται θυσία”

my eyes mistakenly found verse 10:18b:

“οὐκέτι προσφορὰ περὶ ἀμαρτίας.”

The wording of verses 10:26b and 10:18b are similar, both in Greek and in English.

This unexpected interlude interrupted my reading, but not my train of thought—which accorded with the Fellowship-Sacrifice view of 10:26: These believers no longer had Christ’s sacrificial provision for restoration of fellowship. However, I was reading 10:18b, not 10:26b. It became apparent that the Fellowship-Sacrifice view is foreign to Hebrews 10:18.

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 10:26b are good news.

Hebrews 10:18 and 26 are in the same section

The No-Security, Never-Saved, and Fellowship-Sacrifice views would all accept the following commentator’s portrayal of the relationship between Hebrews 10:18 and 10:26. Each regards 10:18b as good news, but 10:26b as bad news:

… [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”….[14]

He presupposes two differences between 10:18b and 10:26b:

• Levitical offering is in 18b, but the cross is in 26b. 
• The cross causes 18b, but apostasy causes 26b.

By contrast, a study of the theme of Hebrews 10 points to verses 18b and 26b as parallels. E. Earle Ellis demonstrates an overall unity that transcends the shift to application (within the chapter) at verse 19. [15]

The general outline appears in Hebrews 10:5–39:

5–7	Initial text: Psalm 40:7–9
8–36	Exposition… linked to …the initial text by catchwords
37–39	Final text and application alluding tothe 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 10:7 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 (10:26b) and there is no longer an offering for sin (10:18). In this light, both 10:18b and 10:26b accomplish what God desires (10:5) and wills (10:7). God desired and willed the cessation of sacrifice and offering, so the good news is that they no longer remain.



Figure 1. Sacrifice No Longer Remains (Fulfilling God’s Will) [16]

The whole of Hebrews 10 merges a doctrinal exploration of Psalm 40 and a practical exhortation from the same passage into a unified exposition. That is, Christ fulfilled the Father’s will by implementing the New Covenant, ending all offering (verse 10:18b) and sacrifice (verse 10:26b) for sins. The strategic placement of verse 10:18 at the end of the final paragraph in this section gives it a special role, as a summary.

Hebrews 10:18 is a major summary statement

Ending with verse 10:18 which summarizes eighty-seven verses, the fourth doctrinal section is the longest in Hebrews.

	Doctrine	# vss	Practice	# vss
1	1:1–14	14	2:1–4	4
2	2:5–3:6	20	3:7–4:13	26
3	4:14–5:11	14	5:12–6:20	23
4	7:1–10:18	87	10:19–39	21
5a	11:1–11:40	40	12:1–29	29
5b	13:1–25	—	13:1–25	25
Doctrinal verses:		175	Practical verses:	128

Figure 2. Overview of the Five Doctrine and Practice Sections

The author of Hebrews labors for eighty-seven verses to prove that Christ’s superior priesthood culminated in His superior offering (Hebrews 7:1–10:18). In contrast with the never-ending 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. Why would the author, only eight verses later, treat verse 10:26, sacrifice for sins no longer remains as bad news? The discontinuity underlying this approach makes it highly suspect: Not once does the author of Hebrews contradict himself, let alone within eight verses of his summation of the largest doctrinal section of the book.

Since one anticipates Hebrews 10:18b and 10:26b to define terms similarly, it is appropriate to question the two purported differences between verses 18b and 26b. In a citation appearing earlier in this article, a commentary intimated: [17]

• Levitical offering is in 18b, but the cross is in 26b. 
• The cross causes 18b, but apostasy causes 26b.

The characterization of Hebrews 10:18b is correct, but both assertions about verse 10:26b are incorrect. Why? Christ’s work on the cross was once for all and is not a continuing sacrifice in any sense. [18] Unless the sacrifice on the cross were a continual sacrifice of the Mass (which it is not), how could its removal be a penalty for willful sin? The very idea of withdrawal as a penalty would necessitate that the justifying (or sanctifying) sacrifice for the penitent be ongoing. [19] The fact that no continual sacrifice exists under the New Covenant (10:18b) precludes viewing a withdrawal of sacrifice (10:26b) as a penalty for willful sin.

One might compare the idea that sin offering no longer remains to a bank account with a zero-balance. If a father penalizes his son for disobedience by withholding from him an account containing no money, the penalty is hollow. The father’s understanding of both family discipline and banking is faulty.

Nevertheless, a few verses in English might give the impression that the cross is a forever-sacrifice, that is, a continuing one. However, that misconstrues the argument. The obvious thrust of this section of Hebrews is that all sacrifice has ended, because Christ’s completed work has already secured eternal forgiveness. The Greek is quite clear, even when English translations have muddied the waters.

The cross is not a continuing sacrifice in Hebrews

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.

Once for all (ἐφάπαξ) points to cessation, not continuation. It signifies something completed at one point in time. [20] Hebrews conceives of Christ’s sacrifice as completed, not as continuing. This is even true in Hebrews 10:12–13.

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 English makes it seem that Hebrews treats the cross as a forever-sacrifice. However, the phrase translated as forever, needs correction.

The phrase that verse 10:12 renders as forever (εἰς τὸ δινεκὲς) should be the word continually as 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 Greek phrase does not mean forever, but continually. The correct translation, continually, allows punctuating verse 10:12 properly according to the existent word order of the Greek text. The corrected translation of Hebrews 10:11–13 follows:

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.

What is the point of Hebrews 10:11–13? The Levitical priests perpetually remained standing, because they never finished their sacrificial work and no continuing sacrifice could ever take away sins. By contrast, after offering only one sacrifice, now Christ continually sits. He is able to sit until His enemies become His footstool, because He never will offer another sacrifice. His one sacrifice is over, having accomplished the goal.

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. The cross is not a continuing sacrifice. Even though Hebrews 10:26b reaffirms the New Covenant grace of verse 10:18, verses 10:26a and 10:27 solemnly warn these believers.

Hebrews 10:26–27 is a non-reversible condition

Some conditional propositions reverse, but others do not. [21] Testing propositional reversibility requires adding or subtracting ‘not’ from both the if and the then clauses. If both forward and reverse are true, the condition reverses. Illustrations may clarify.

REVERSIBLE (Both statements are true):

Forward:	Forward: If she is a mother, she has been pregnant.
Reverse:	If she is not a mother, she has not been pregnant.

NON-REVERSIBLE (Only one statement is true):

Forward:	If she is a mother, she is female.
Reverse:	If she is not a mother, she is not a female.

TRUE RESTATEMENT OF NON-REVERSIBLE:

Forward:	If she is a mother, she is female.
1/2 Reverse:	If she is not a mother, she is female
	or
	Whether or not she is a mother, she is female.

Compound propositions may contain a mixture of reversible and non-reversible propositions. For example:

If she is a mother, then (1) she is female and (2) she has been pregnant.

The first then clause is not reversible, since motherhood is not prerequisite to being female. Quite the contrary, being female is requisite to motherhood. The second then clause is reversible, because one cannot be a biological mother apart from pregnancy.

Verse 10:26b exemplifies a non-reversible then clause, as with illustration (1). Verse 10:27 resembles a reversible then clause (2). This issue—that verse 10:26b does not reverse, even though verse 10:27 does—is the key that unlocks this passage.

The logic of Hebrews 10:26–27 yields two propositions. Verse 26b is not reversible, but 10:27 is reversible.

(Forward/ 1/2 Reverse)	Whether or not we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, sacrifice for sins no longer remains (10:26).
(Forward)	If we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries remains;
but (Full Reverse)	if we do not sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries does not remain (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. This universal truth is a direct consequence of the New Covenant and therefore cannot be a penalty for willful sin. Hebrews 10:5 declared that God did not desire offering and sacrifice. Verse 10:7 says that Christ came to do the Father’s will. Neither sacrifice nor sin offering remains after the cross, because their cessation is God’s will in instituting the New Covenant.

If Hebrews 10:26b is a restatement of Hebrews 10:18b, then it is also a reminder of the 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. Hebrews 10:26 amplifies the magnificence of God’s grace and the sufficiency of Christ’s once for all sacrifice on the cross. Far from being a penalty, it is a wondrous truth.

Verse 10:26b is not a reversible condition. It does not announce a penalty. Whether or not we sin willfully, Christ has ended all sacrifice. One the other hand, Hebrews 10:27 is a consequence of willful sin. The penalty for sinning willfully is judgment in time, [22] designed for God’s adversaries [23] (Hebrews 10:27).

What interpretive benefits result from regarding Hebrews 10:26b as non-reversible? Taking Hebrews 10:18b and 10:26b as parallels affords unity within this chapter’ s exposition of Psalm 40. Thus, verse 10:26b reinforces 10:18b’s point, the summary of eighty-seven verses of doctrine. It avoids saying that Christ’s sacrifice continues, a contradiction of Christ’s once for all sacrifice (Hebrews 10:10). Verse 10:26b is non-reversible, but a common English mistranslation causes misunderstanding.

Translating Hebrews 10:26b

The NKJV, NASB, NRSV, ASV, and RSV all add the indefinite article a to Hebrews 10:26, even though no such word is present in the Greek text. The New King James Version shows the addition: “There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.” The strikeout font indicates the indefinite article a that does not belong in the passage. On the other hand, neither the KJV nor the NIV say: “a sacrifice.”

• There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins (KJV). [24]
• 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 think of Christ’s sacrifice when they see a sacrifice. Thus, most people incorrectly read it as, “If we sin willfully.., there no longer remains [for the willful sinner] Christ’s sacrifice for sins.”

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. Hebrews 10:10 expresses it well. Christ’s sacrifice is once for all. Adding a to Hebrews 10:26 creates an unnecessary misunderstanding.

One other issue is pertinent. What is the relationship between Hebrews 10:26b and the presumptuous or high-handed sin of Numbers 15?

Verse 26b does not parallel Numbers 15

Clearly there is similarity between Hebrews 10:26a and Numbers 15:30–31. 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).

Indeed, verses 30–31 contrast with Numbers 15:24–25, the 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 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 similarity between Numbers 15 and Hebrews 10. The extent and meaning of this similarity within the context of Hebrews chapter 10 is the point of concern.

Many exegetes assume that since Hebrews 10:26a relates to the sin of Numbers 15:30–31, 10:26b offers a penalty corresponding to Numbers 15:30–31. This parallels the wrong verses. Under the Old Covenant the effect of no sin offering was physical death. What is wrong with connecting verse 26b with Numbers?

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 which is much worse punishment than swift death under the Mosaic Law. [25] Thus, 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? 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 lies 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 believers that there only remains the fearful prospect of severe discipline for them, if they willfully sin by forsaking Christian assembly.

Many expositors have seen no alternative to verse 10:26b except as an ultimate statement of divine judgment, namely, hell. This is a classic example of man turning God’s blessing into cursing. Seeing Hebrews 10:26b for what it is, good news that parallels 10:18b, enables a fresh look at the warning passages as a whole. Hebrews deserves such a reappraisal, because the author warns and exhorts eternally secure brethren throughout the book.

Unlike the No-Security view, the Change of Covenants view of Hebrews 10:26b affirms eternal security. In contrast with the Never-Saved view, it recognizes that (1) not only the doctrine and the positive exhortations are for believers, but the warnings are also, and that (2) the author sprinkles those exhortations and warnings throughout the book. Unlike the No-Security, the Never-Saved, and the Fellowship-Sacrifice views, it perceives Hebrews 10:18b and 26b as parallels. This allows Hebrews 10 to flow smoothly without pitting these verses against each other. In keeping with Hebrews 10:10, it recognizes that no Mass-like forever-sacrifice exists. It also avoids reading an Old Covenant sacrificial concept into a thoroughly New Covenant verse: Hebrews 10:26b.

Implications

Is it not a remarkable irony that Protestants regard 10:26b as a problem passage, while 10:18b troubles Catholics? The idea of penalizing willful sin (by withdrawing the sacrifice of the cross) is thoroughly Catholic. Viewing 10:26b as a penalty conflicts with the clear truth of Hebrews 10:18b, as much as the sacrifice of the Mass does. Thus, Protestants, who readily embrace 10:18b, strain to minimize Catholic or Old Testament intrusions into Hebrews through 10:26b. Yet, vestiges remain. The amount of ink devoted to Hebrews 10:26b demonstrates that a post-cross interpretation of a Protestant variety has eluded those who see it as a penalty.

The solution is so simple and elegant. Hebrews 10:26b is good news, restating 10:18b, despite lying within a warning context. Since the New Covenant ended sin offering in 10:18, then 10:26 cannot attribute withdrawal of sacrifice to willful sin. Hebrews 10:26 affirms the good news that sacrifice is over, whether or not we sin willfully. Verse 27 contains the bad news of discipline for those who sin willfully by ceasing to assemble.

Protestant exegetes agree on Hebrews 10:18. Thus, if expositors start regarding Hebrews 10:26b as a parallel to verse 10:18b, then verse 26b ought to cease being a major point of contention. Regardless of persuasion, students of God’s Word would do well to agree that verse 26b is a parallel to verse 18b.

Commentators will continue to debate the warning passages. However, a new consensus (that Hebrews 10:26b is good news) could have four positive effects. It would:

1. dissipate tension imposed upon Hebrews by theologians,
2. remove a vestige of Catholicism from Protestant theology,
3. showcase grace, especially to those whom God warns,
4. enable a renewed examination of the warning passages.

Let us hold forth God’s grace. A serious misunderstanding of Hebrews 10 has made a provision of grace look like a threat of eternal condemnation. Is God an ominous and capricious judge who uses bait-and-switch tactics? No! How can grace really be attractive, unless the gospel enables one to know that his destiny is eternally secure? Even in the smaller details of his ministry, Paul drew upon God’s faithfulness that he might not misrepresent his travel plans:

But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No (2 Cor. 1:18).

Neither does Hebrews 10:26b convert God’s Yes into No. It is a restatement of the good news of 10:18b that all believers may rely upon God’s faithfulness—sacrifice for sin is no more!

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.

	No Security	Never Saved	Fellowship Sacrifice	Change of Covenants
Certain of Security?	—	YES/*	YES	YES
Heb 10 Warns Believers?	YES	—	YES	YES
Heb 10:18b = Heb 10:26b?	—	—	—	YES
Heb 10:26b ¬ Num 15:30?	—	—	—	YES

*All holding the Never-Saved view affirm the believer’s security, but not all affirm that anyone can know the certainty of his eternal destiny (before death). Those who deny knowledge of certainty reduce the gospel message to: “Believe that Christ might save you.” This is not a salvific proposition, because they do not believe that Jesus gave them the free gift of eternal life. A person who does not know his destiny at the point of faith, has believed insufficient content. It is less than the truth that gives eternal life. This form of the Never-Saved view has a “—” in regard to “Certain of Security?” On the other hand, those who know that one can be “Certain of Security” exclaim, “YES”!

—End—

Notes

1. Quotations are from The New King James Bible unless otherwise indicated.
2. John Niemelä, “No More Sacrifice: Part 1,” CTS Journal 4 (October-December 1998), critiques the No-Security view (pp. 1–2) and the Never-Saved view (pp. 2–10). Therefore, “No More Sacrifice: Part 2 of 2, ” considers primarily the Fellowship-Sacrifice and Change of Covenant views.
3. This article focuses on Heb 10:26–27 for space reasons. Cf. 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), 777–813; T. Kern Oberholtzer, “The Warning Passages in Hebrews,” BibSac 145 (January-March, 1988): 83-97; 145 (April-June, 1988): 185-96; 145 (July-September, 1988): 319-28; 145 (October-December, 1988): 410-19; and 146 (January-March, 1989): 67-75. Neither does this article trace views with glaring weaknesses (e.g. the Hypothetical Apostasy view). Though that view knows that the warnings address believers, it asserts that they threaten the loss of eternal life, although God never planned such a loss. If the human and the Divine authors so disagreed, it would render the inerrant Bible errant. The view is unacceptable.
4. Hodges, “Hebrews,” 805.
5. Oberholtzer, “The Danger of Willful Sin in Hebrews 10:26–39, ” BibSac 145 (October-December, 1988), 413.
6. Dillow, Servant Kings, 534.
7. Niemelä, “No More Sacrifice: Part 1,” 2–10.
8. Cf. Niemelä, “No More Sacrifice: Part 1,” 7, note 21.
9. 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 as fruit (8:14). The sower sowed seed that germinated and was supposed to reproduce seed for planting. Germinated seed has life, even if it does not reproduce.
10. The standard usage of nominative 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 (ὑμεῖς). Thus, the readers are the very ones who were enlightened before enduring the former days.
11. 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 (τοὺς φωτισθέντας); who have tasted (γευσαμένους); who have become (γενηθέντας); (5) who have tasted (γευσαμένους); and (6) who fall away (παραπεσόντας). Since one article governs each participle, they are all substantival. None of the participles is conditional. One must also deal with each word’s meaning. That is, “taste” cannot mean anything less than “eating.” Otherwise, what would it mean for Jesus to taste death for everyone (Hebrews 2:9)? He died fully and did not swoon. Likewise, tasting the heavenly gift means the full salvific reception of it. Hebrews 6:4’s enlightening occurs when one believes the Gospel.
12. John F. MacArthur, Jr., Hebrews, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1983), 281.
13. The infinitive simply introduces indirect discourse as in Mark 8:29. The addition of “the prospect of” has no sound basis.
14. Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 419.
15. 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.
16. The translation of 10:18b and 26b is the author’s own. Unfortunately, many translations add a misleading indefinite article. Cf. page 40 for discussion.
17. Hughes, Hebrews, 419. See note 14 (above).
18. Hebrews 13:15 speaks of a non-expiatory sacrifice continuing, the sacrifice of praise. Furthermore, the sacrifices in the Millennial Temple will have a memorial function, not an expiatory one.
19. A. Cody, “Hebrews,” in A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 2 ed., Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1969), 1232, says: “The maxim [Heb. 10:18] is made in the realm of objective redemption. The sacrifice of Christ has been made once for all, and the forgiveness it achieved has been achieved once for all. There is no more sacrifice to be made for sins. There remains only to apply the sacrifice of Christ to individual men through the sacramental order …. “ Cody claims, in this writing that bears the nihil obstat, that Heb. 10:18 ends objective redemptive sacrifices, while perpetuating the subjective sacrifice of the Mass. Au contraire, since Hebrews 10:18 ends all offering for sin, no expiatory sacrifices remain following the cross. Protestants know this, but their explanations of Hebrews 10:26b often draw nye unto Catholicism.
20. Cf. Romans 6:10; Hebrews 7:27; and 9:12.
21. Cf. Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 63–65. They refer to reversing a condition as denying the antecedent. Another writer, Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 682–87, views it from general semantics of conditional clauses. Both of these books discuss the concept of reversibility well, but I do not recommend their interpretations in some of the examples they suggest.
22. Oberholtzer, “Willful Sin,” 413–14, says, “The metaphor of fire, employed in 10:27 (cf. 6:8), is identified by some scholars as a reference to the fire of hell. Since the addressees are ‘brethren’ (i.e., believers), this cannot be loss in hell, for the believer’s eternal destiny is certain from the moment of salvation (John 5:24; 10:27–30; Eph. 1; 1 John 5:13). There is nothing in the context to indicate the writer has shifted to the soteriological topic of eternal damnation. It is preferable to view the metaphor of fire against the background of the Old Testament, where Yahweh’s anger toward His failing covenant people is described by the metaphor of fire (Isa. 9:18–19; 10:17). Those who forsake the assembling must now await the discipline of the Lord (Heb. 12:5–11). They have willfully chosen to so live that they will be disciplined from the Lord.” Some think that the worse punishment of verse 10:29 necessitates eternal condemnation. However, 10:28 looks at swift physical death as an Old Testament punishment. Verse 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.
23. God designed the A.D. 70 judgment to devour His adversaries. Two options exist: (1) the adversaries could be willfully-sinning believers of verse 26a, or (2) they could be unbelievers (unmentioned 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 associated with the adversaries and ceased assembling with the church, died in a judgment designed for others (the adversaries). The decision between (1) and (2) is not central to this article’s argument, so no further discussion is necessary here.
24. Although this author generally prefers the NKJV, the old KJV’s rendering of this verse is superior. It underlies the title for this article.
25. See note 22.