Featured Paul and the Dispensation of Grace

Those in Chapter 6 who merely professed saved by christ, but then turned away and went back to the temple, as they never were really his!

 

the specific sin they did of rejecting in the end the shed blood of jesus as the atonement for their sins, and of going back to the Temple and OT sacrifices for their sins, and that showed that they were never really one of his, but merely professing faith in him!

 

But the text doesn't say that, at all."Once enlightened, tasted of the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Spirit, tasted the good word of God" hardly seems descriptive of the unregenerate, and what you're forcing into the text goes contrary to the type the writer has built upon.

But the text doesn't say that, at all.

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.
28 A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses:
29 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Heb 10:26-31

The text says they were really his people, just like those in the type the writer has built upon that rejected the gospel, they were really his people.

 

It is a specific sin defined right in the text.

To properly understand it one should, at the very least, begin in chapter one. Don't worry, I won't do that right now, lol, but will just show a few key elements of the Writer's teaching, so that when we get to v.26 we have a proper understanding of what is in view.

First we understand that this is written specifically to Hebrews, and throughout the Book there is a contrast drawn between the First Covenant (Covenant of Law) and the New Covenant.

Four sections that are key:


Hebrews 10:1-4

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


A few things to keep in mind is that first, the Writer makes it clear in v.1 that the Law, the Covenant...is in view. Secondly, he will state what the Law could not do, which is make the worshipper perfect, which means, in the Greek, complete. Third, he makes it clear that it could not make complete for the specific reason that the Law could not take away sins.

This chapter deals primarily with remission of sins through Christ.


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


The "which will" is the will of God. It was God's will that Christ die on the Cross, to do that which the Law could not...take away sins.

One Sacrifice. One sanctification. Perfected forever.

That is the completion the Law was lacking. As the writer states, those priests, on a daily basis, offering the same sacrifices over and over...would never, and could never...make the comer thereunto, the one coming to receive atonement...complete in regards to remission of sins.

They would be back.



Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Now you watch, KR, because in our next passage we are going to see the identical statement, yet it is received in a negative sense because the warning is in fact negative. It is not a matter of one sinning and there being no more sacrifice for that sin, because that would cancel out and nullify the writer's statement here.

This statement is dogmatic: "Where forgiveness in completion has been given, there is no further need for offering for sin...because it has been forgiven in completion."

And it hinges on the Covenant promised by God which has been established through the Blood, the Death of Christ. Even as Ezekiel spoke of the New Covenant, God states "I will put my Spirit within them and cause them to walk in my statutes and to keep my judgments."

That is precisely what the Writer of Hebrews is speaking of here.

Notice again...


Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;


The Writer is saying this has come about. Now who would this be relevant to? The Hebrew people.

He is contrasting, as he does throughout the Book, the First Covenant and the New, and the exhortation is to embrace Christ.

Our key text:


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

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


It is a simple statement: "If you reject Christ there is no other sacrifice that will avail you. Those who abandon the brethren do so because they did not draw near with a true heart. And that is his point in chs.3-4...be not unbelieving.

If one does not draw near with a true heart and forsakes the assembling of the brethren, they have nothing else to expect...


27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.


Born again believers are not adversaries. Those who are hostile to Christ are adversaries.

In v.29 he will define the adversary's characteristics.

Now again, just as we saw in the first three passages we looked at, the Writer will again contrast the First Covenant and the New:


28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:


"Moses' Law" is a reference to the First Covenant, the Covenant of Law. His point is that those who rejected the will of God then died without mercy.

Now he states the outcome for those who reject the New Covenant:


29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


This is the specific sin right in the text you asked about.

While it might seem reasonable to view the one sanctified as the sinner, in view is Christ. If you look back at 10:10-14 you will see that remission of sins brings those sanctified to a state of perfection/completion in regards to remission of sins. We know that believers who sin can be forgiven, so it only makes sense in the context of not just the Chapter, but in the Book, that in view here the specific sin is the same sin Christ taught as the only sin that could never be forgiven, which is the Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Those in view are not believers who have fallen into sin, but those among the Hebrews who, like in Chapter 6, have not "gone on unto perfection," and have not left "the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ."

The principles of the Doctrine of Christ are what the Law provided.

Perfection is what the New Covenant provides.

The warning, therefore, is simply "If you reject the Sacrifice of Christ...there is no other offering for sin."

And: only Christ's death can take away sins, and the penalty for sin.


God bless.

 

You need to back up to see who is in view, and those in view are being severely rebuked for their ignorance of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old Testament...which contains the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, which the writer states those in view are ignorant of:


Hebrews 5:8-14

King James Version (KJV)

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.


The writer begins speaking about Christ, but has to stop in the middle to rebuke those addressed:


11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.


We can bracket this verse up to 6:12, where, presumably in the future, he is confident they will not be dull of hearing, or to put it better...lazy to hear.

He is saying it's hard to teach you better about Christ, because...


12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


The milk is the foundational principles, the meat the more complete understanding of that which was foundational. In view is "You should be, for the time you have been associated with Christ...teaching others about Christ with a fuller understanding." But...

"...you need one teach you again the foundational principles about Christ."

In other words...they are not able to see Christ differentiated between the foundational principles and that which has been revealed to them in that day.

Now note that the Strong meat belongs to them of "full age," which means those brought to completion.

Now note the Writer's next exhortation:


Hebrews 6

King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.


Several key elements to grasp here:

1. They are told they are not perfect, and that they must go on unto perfection;

2. They are to leave the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, which doesn't mean abandoning Old Testament teachings of Christ, but understanding them in light of Christ being revealed, and all that entails;

3. They are not to lay again those foundational principles.


And that is what the Writer is addressing.

Laying again the foundational principles of the Doctrine of Christ is to remain under the Law. We can look at every one of these foundational principles and contrast it with Christian Doctrine. The one that might be clearest as a foundational principle would be baptisms, which is properly...washings. We don't have a doctrine of washings in Christianity. But Judaism did. Remember the objection to eating without washing one's hands? The foundational principle was external, but cleansing in Christ is internal and eternal.


3 And this will we do, if God permit.


Note "And this will we do..."

He is speaking collectively as Hebrews. The writer is not suggesting he includes himself among those who need to be saved, or those that need to leave the foundational principles of the Doctrine of Christ...he has already done that.

Now, the list that is so often called distinctively Christian characteristics:



4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,


Most of this centers on the Ministry of the Holy Spirit, and in particular His Ministry as Comforter. This is a similar Ministry as seen in the Old Testament, where God enlightened every individual for His purpose.

But what we cannot do is make this Ministry exclusive to the saved...it is not. All Prophets received a similar ministry in the past, as did those they ministered to. Born again believers do not taste, for example, of the Heavenly Gift and the good Word of God...they embrace it in eternal union.

The disciples during Christ's ministry partook of the Holy Spirit. For that matter, so did Judas, so did Caiaphas.

And when we balance the Writer's statement we cannot make these people exclusively born again, but people needing to leave the Foundational Principles of the Doctrine of Christ and go on unto Perfection.

Nothing changed between 5:11-6:4.

It is the Holy Spirit in the capacity of Comforter that enlightens today, and the primary difference between the enlightenment now and that of Old Testament Economies is the specific revelation concerning Christ, which we see contrasted here between that and the Foundational Principles, which the writer makes clear those he rebukes here...

...are in need of being taught again.

One last passage (in two parts):


Hebrews 6:7-12

King James Version (KJV)

7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.


The knowledge of Christ is likened to the rain, and the point is that there will be two results: herbs that are profitable, and thorns and briars which are rejected. This is reminiscent of Christ's teachings of good/evil trees and fruit. His point is that there is one message, that is Christ, and two outcomes, which is itself a basic Bible Principle.



9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.

10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.


Note the things in view accompany salvation, leaving salvation as one of the possible outcomes as suggested in the metaphor of rain. His desire is that all of them show the same diligence (remember he just accused those he rebukes of being lazy)...and not be lazy.

Two audiences (the perfected and those in need of going on unto perfection) within one audience (Hebrews).

The bottom line is that it is. like we see throughout the Epistle, an exhortation to embrace Christ and to leave the Law. Those rebuked are said to be in need of being taught the First Principles again, so it is impossible to say they have an understanding of that which is perfect/complete, which is the revealed Doctrine of Christ that had come available to them, and in fact they had been familiar with long enough to be teachers of.


God bless.

God bless.



6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

 

Interesting how such a simple post about Paul's Gospel of Grace could get so hijacked and scatterbrained after just a few posts.
It's getting into Epistles that have nothing to do with Paul's Gospel of Grace, and even getting into Gospels that have nothing to do with Paul's Gospel of Grace. Confusion abounds. Is God the author of "confusion", or is that the work of the "god of this world"?

 

That the same Gospel is found by all of the Apostles and writers shouldn't be confusing.

The Gospel of Christ is the only Gospel that maintains a consistent message that Christ is the only remedy for man's condition and that this salvation is eternal.

If you go back to the beginning of this "hijacking" you might see why that is relevant.


God bless.

 

There is ONLY one Gospel taught in the Bible, by Jesus and all of his Apostles, and the central theme is that the messiah has come to die in the place of sinners such as you and I, and that God grants unto those of us saved by the Cross godly repentence and faith towards the Beloved!

And as you stated so well, hebrews 10 was addressing to us that if we claim to profess jesus as Lord, and yet show that by turning back to saved by law, we were never his own!

 

It is not just a matter of bondage to Law, but even those who do outwardly Christian things religiously that stand in danger:


Matthew 7:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


It took me a little while to fully understand why some people would say "It's not a Religion...it's a relationship." I understand that now. Salvation is the bringing of separated man back into relationship with God. Above, the Lord states "I never knew you," not..."Your works were not sufficient."

I think the primary problem is prevalent in a number of doctrinal issues we discuss: we have the tendency to go from one extreme to the other. It's either works, or easy believism. When it is as simple as understanding what you just stated:

The Old Testament Saint did not understand this as we do today. There was, in many of their minds, that controlling sense of innate goodness, and all that was lacking was God dealing with those who were not "good." Things would have been peachy if it were not for those Romans, lol. Get rid of them...problem solved. And I think many of us maintain a portion of that mindset even after regeneration, when the truth is, the better we understand the magnitude of the Work of the Cross, the better we see just how personal salvation is, and the need for our own salvation.


God bless.