Hebrews Lesson 170 August
27, 2009
NKJ Psalm 119:9 How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your
word.
Open your Bibles to Hebrews 10. We have
had about 2 months or so of topical study coming out of Hebrews 10:24-25
talking about the “one another” passages. Now we are going to shift gears a
little bit into the next subsection, which begins in verse 26 and goes down to
the end of the chapter which is a warning passage. I believe this is our 4th
warning passage, and it comes at the end of a section that started in chapter
7. So what I want to do a little bit tonight at the beginning is just to remind
us of the basic structure of Hebrews.
It’s important when we get down into
all the details and start drilling down on specific doctrines or issues within
certain passages and in certain chapters that we come up every now and then and
take a breath and sort of get a bird’s eye view of what is going on so we don’t
loose the forest for the trees.
That’s just the importance of
context. Context is just the hermeneutical principle of location, the same
thing you have in real estate – location, location, location. It’s
context, context, context. The more I study, the more I’m in the Word, the more
I’ve come to understand context; the more I realize how important it is and how
much the interpretation of the Word is really dependent on understanding the
context. What is the author talking about? What has he been writing about? What has he said? It’s so easy to look at a passage and
to just look at that verse and take it out of context because it sounds like
something said in another verse.
We’ve all heard pastors who do what
I call Rorschach exegesis. You know Rorschach is the guy who invented the
inkblot test.
So you look at an inkblot and say,
“What does that remind you of?”
“Well, that looks like a butterfly.”
“That looks like you know an African
lion eating the head of a native.”
Or, whatever it is depending on what
mood you’re in that day. People see all kinds of things. Well what happens
sometimes when pastors are studying (I’ve seen this). They’ll look at a verse
and something in the verse reminds them of something else. That’s what they
teach!
You’re scratching your head
thinking, “Well, how in the world does that relate to what’s here in this
passage?”
Sometimes it may seem like I do
that. Some people may think, “Well, how I’m the world did we get off to this
when were studying there in Hebrews.”
I always try to bring that back
because there are times when you have words or phrases – like with “one
another” – that touch on or are a part of a much broader doctrine that is
in the Scripture. So what we will do is take a step back and take a look at the
topic of that particular verse that’s mentioned there so that we have a broader
understanding of it so that then when we come back to the particular passage we
have a greater capacity for understanding all of the nuances that are there in
that particular verse or in that particular section. We did that with the
Tabernacle. We’ve done that with all the different sacrifices and offerings
just to come to grips with all the Old Testament background passages in this
section. That just continuously brings great dividends for us as we continue to
go through the 10th chapter. So it’s important to have that context
and to really understand it and to understand key words.
A lot of times it’s those key words
(We’ll see an example of that tonight) that really gives us the thread that
goes through the passage and helps us tie together what the writer is talking
about and helps us to get into his mind to understand what he is trying to
communicate. That is important as we get ready to go into this next section
because this is one of the two most difficult or problem passages that people
will come up with to challenge the Doctrine of Eternal Security.
The Doctrine of Eternal Security
teaches that when a person believes that Jesus Christ died on the cross for
their sin that at the instant that they believe in Jesus there is such a
miraculous transformation that takes place from everything from the imputation
of righteous, declaration of justification, regeneration, indwelling of the
Holy Spirit, baptism by the Holy Spirit, filling of the Holy Spirit, all the
things that take place at that instant; that it is an irreversible process,
something that permanently takes place in the life of that individual that had
nothing to do with that individual’s morality, intelligence, has nothing to do
whatsoever with anything in their life. It has everything to do with what Jesus
Christ did on the cross. That’s the focal point!
The reason people fail to understand
eternal security is because they fail to understand two things – sin and
what Christ did on the cross. Usually their view of sin is too shallow. They
really don’t understand how all of the tentacles of sin spread out and affect
every aspect of life and every aspect of the soul and every aspect of the
universe. Because they have a shallow view of sin, they have a shallow view of
salvation and they really don’t understand that Jesus Christ had to do all of
it because if He didn’t do all of it, we wouldn’t have it. We are so corrupt,
so dead, so incapable. We can’t add anything of merit on the front end or the
back end to what Christ did on the cross. So it’s got to be all from God.
That’s what grace is: that God loved
us so much that He saved us though if He did the right thing, He would send us to
the Lake of Fire. But He doesn’t do the righteous thing. Instead He satisfied
His righteousness through Christ so by judging Christ He could thereby save us.
That is the beauty of grace.
Anybody who thinks there’s anything that you can do to lose salvation -
somewhere hidden away in the nooks and crannies of their brain, they believe
there is something that they do to merit salvation. You can’t get it any other
way.
Now I’ve had discussions with people
who’ll swear up and down that they don’t. But they do! You talk to them long
enough, think about it long enough – sooner or later there’s something
that they’re slipping in that is a reason why God saves them –
somewhere.
If it’s at the back door, it’s the
works they’ve done after salvation – or the front door adding something
there. So when you come to passages like the warning passage in Hebrews 6 which
we dealt with already and this warning passage in Hebrews 10, there are some
things said that if you look at it without understanding the context, without
understanding how these words have been used, without understanding all the
dynamics of the Old Testament sacrificial system; you look at it and at first
blush it looks like, “Well, it looks like if somebody does something (If they
willfully sin, verse 26), there’s no long a sacrifice for sin. That means that
if you willfully sin after you’re saved, then you can’t get saved.
The problem there is they don’t understand
what willful sin is. And every one of us at sometime after salvation has willfully
sinned. It you don’t think you haven’t willfully sinned since you were saved;
then you are wrongly defining the concept of willful sin – completely!
You don’t understand what it means. If you wrongly define that, then what you
have to do is you have to limit it again to: “Well, sin really means the
terrible two’s, the nasty nine’s or the fearsome 5 or whatever they are.”
“I haven’t committed adultery or
murdered anybody and I haven’t bowed down to an idol so therefore I must be
okay.”
Well, that’s just three sins. But
the arrogance you demonstrated by saying that is the worst sin of all so you
have to deal with that. Anybody who is so arrogant to think that they can do
something to lose their salvation, something that God’s grace wasn’t great
enough to cover, has a real sin right there that is greater than any of these
others. So there are just all kinds of problems. But nevertheless people get
into a passage like this and they just stumble.
When you look at this passage there
is one of four ways in which people will interpret this passage. First off in
any passage (Hebrews 6 would be the same way) they’ll say there is no eternal
security. That’s what this means that there really isn’t such a thing as being
eternally secure – once saved, always saved. That’s the sort of truism or simplified version. That first
view is the view of what’s called Arminian theology. Arminian theology really
has a problem understanding the sufficiency of God’s Word.
Now the second view is that there is
eternal security, but those who stay in carnality or those who commit certain
sins that are just so bad, they never were saved to begin with.
“I believe in eternal security, but
you know that person? They’ve been on drugs and they have gambled all their
money away. They’re womanizers. They can’t be a Christian.”
What did you just say? You just said
that certain sins keep you from being a Christian. You said that if we commit
certain sins, there’s no way you could have been saved before that.
“You weren’t really saved.”
And, I don’t know – probably
everybody here in this room has been guilty of making that kind of a mental
judgment about somebody at one time or another.
“Just look at that Senator. Look at
the life he lived. He couldn’t possibly have ever, ever been saved.”
You’re making that decision, because
what? (I heard a pastor say this today.)
“There never was any evidence that
he had ever been saved.”
But see that slips inadvertently.
This was a free grace pastor. But that just comes out. It leaks out. We want to
slap our mouths that we’ve said that. But that’s what that implies is that
somehow if they’re really saved they are going to do something that’s going to
show it.
And how do you know you’re going to
see it when they do it? How do you quantify that? That was a problem John
MacArthur has with his whole lordship salvation thing.
I remember Dr. Hannah pointing that
out years ago when I was a student at Dallas.
He said, “How do you quantify fruit?
These people just want you to be a fruit inspector. Knowledge of salvation
isn’t based on the promise of God. It’s based on fruit.”
So those are the two positions.
They’re usually taken here: there is no eternal security. The second is, well there
is eternal security, but those who stay in sin or commit certain sins (sin
willfully) well they weren’t saved to begin with.
The third view is well, you have to
interpret this; but you have to realize he’s not talking about salvation. He’s
talking about fellowship.
Now that view is a very common view
and perhaps that’s a view that you’ve been taught in the past about this
passage. I think that’s what I’ve primarily heard. But as you study this
section and you really look at it contextually what we’re going to see is the
issue here is the failure to understand the implications of the New Covenant
and New Covenant blessings. That’s what’s going on here.
That’s what the willful sin is. The willful
sin isn’t adultery. The willful sin isn’t drug abuse. The willful sin isn’t
atheism. The willful sin is staying under the old covenant framework. That is
what the issue was with these Jewish believers who were threatening to abandon
Christ, abandon Christianity and go back into 1st century Judaism.
So we have to look at this thing contextually.
So to do that, we’ll have a little review. Remember I said
that there are 5 sections in Hebrews. Each section has two parts to it: a
doctrinal exposition or a teaching point, a section of instruction related to a
particular teaching or doctrine. So there’s an instruction and then it’s
followed by a practical challenge or application that’s connected to the main
idea in the teaching. I’m going to teach you about X point and now I’m going to
give you the application for it of why that’s important in your life –
what you need to do – and a warning. In some cases the challenge and the
warning are combined; in others they’re distinct.
Those are the first 3 sections. Each
builds on the previous one. I’ve spent a lot of time in the past going through
those and I’m not going to hit those again. Those are usually indicated on tape lessons by the letter
“a” after the number. “A’s” are overviews, synthesis; “b’s” are detailed
doctrinal exposition; “c’s” are topical studies.
To understand 10:26-39 we have to be
able to connect it to what is said in 19 to 25 and to understand the practical
challenge, the practical application, we have to understand and be reminded of
what the main ideas were in 7:1 to 10:18.
Then we’ll come to the 5th
section (11:1 to 13:25). The main teaching will be in 11:1-40. The first
practical exhortation is in 12:1-29. Then there’s a warning 12:25 to 29 and
then a practical exhortation, the second practical exhortation is 13:1-25. So
the last one has two practical exhortations.
I’m going to leave that up there a
minute because some of you are still trying to work hard to get that down and I
keep getting emails from people saying, “Those people back there in the video booth
need to leave that up on the screen a little longer. We don’t always get it
down.”
So they’re working at that. Some of
it’s my fault because I’ll reach over there and turn it off because I watch
you. What will happen is something is one the screen, you zone out. It’s been a
long day, and I’m looking at the screen. I’m looking at one word and the next
thing you know you’re just gone. So visuals are nice, but I have to take them
off quickly or you’ll go to sleep.
What we see in 7:1 to 10:18 is the
centerpiece of the book. Now chapter 7. Just turn back a couple of pages, and
let’s just think our way through chapters7, 8, 9, and 10.
Chapter 7 starts of talking about
Melchizedek and makes the comparison of Melchizedek as the royal priest, the
priest king of Salem as a pattern for the priesthood of Jesus Christ, that
Jesus Christ’s priesthood isn’t patterned after that of Aaron. It’s not a
Levitical priesthood. It is patterned after Melchizedek who was a Gentile
priest-king. So this distinguishes the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
In the course of that he talks about
the limitations of the Levitical priesthood and therefore a need for a new
priest who is going to be able to have a universal priesthood and not one that
is limited. One of the limitations of the Levitical priesthood if you remember
is that the requirements were all physical. They weren’t spiritual. There is no
requirement to be a Levitical priest to be saved. There’s no requirement for a
Levitical priest to be in fellowship spiritually. None of that applies. It’s all physical. He has to be
genetically related to Levi. The High Priest has to be a descendent of Aaron.
He can’t have any physical defect or other problems. He can’t fall under any
categories of uncleanness that are listed in the Mosaic Law. If he fits all of
those, then he can serve in the Temple.
So everything is physical and
ritual. It’s not spiritual and related to salvation. These are really two different
things. We have to keep that in mind that you can be an unsaved priest that’s
genetically related to Levi and you can go through ritual cleansing and serve
in the Temple. But if you are saved and you’re not ritually clean, you can’t.
You can’t be in fellowship with God. So there are two different issues. There’s
the ritual service of God in the Temple, and then there’s your spiritual
service to God that is distinct. These are two things. If you think that being
ritually clean equals being saved then you’ve got problems. That’s why a lot of
people get confused when they go through these passages because they confuse
those two as if they’re identical. We spent a lot of time going through those
passages.
Chapter 7 goes on to point out that
Jesus Christ is the High Priest, is the royal High Priest, eternal High Priest
and is superior to the Levitical priesthood. So the value of His priesthood is
going to be eternal where as the Levitical High Priest is temporal and limited.
In chapter 8:1 through 9:15 there’s
a shift that points out to Jesus Christ priestly ministry itself and that this
is based on the New Covenant. That’s when it brings in the New Covenant. But it
doesn’t really develop that idea, it just points out the fact that Jesus Christ
by virtue of a new priesthood we have a New Covenant because the change of
priesthood indicates a change in covenant.
As our High Priest, He is seated at
the right hand of God the Father. His priesthood is based on a superior
covenant. That brings in a very important idea because what the problem is is
these Jewish believers who are under some sort of persecution and attack and
they are under some sort of rejection. They want to give up or abandon their
Christianity and go back into 1st century Judaism. What the writer
is trying to explain to them is that Christianity fulfills everything that was
in the Old Testament and brings them under a new covenant basis relationship
with God and you can’t go back to the old covenant.
So tonight when I talk about some of
this, I’m going to use some of that terminology to contrast New Covenant to old
covenant because that’s the issue.
They want to go back under the old covenant.
Now 8:1 to 9:15 talks about the
superiority of Jesus’ priesthood. Then starting in 9:16 -28 the writer deals
with the fact that the death of Christ establishes that New Covenant.
NKJ Hebrews 9:16 For where there is a testament,
Or a covenant
there must also of necessity be the death of the
testator.
NKJ Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no
power at all while the testator lives.
So he’s drawing this analogy to a
will, which is one form of a covenant. He’s arguing that Christ’s death on the
cross establishes this New Covenant, this superior covenant and because of that
Christ is able to enter into the heavenly tabernacle, the heavenly dwelling
place of God and He’s now seated at the right hand of the Father and then he’s
going to draw the implications of that.
Then when we get into chapter 10
verses 1 down through 18. He deals with the fact that what the Law is pointing
out in terms of the sacrifices under the Law. They had limited value, and they
had to be repeated over and over and over and over again and they really didn’t
solve the problem of sin. They just solved the problem of ritual cleansing.
That’s why they had to do it again tomorrow and again the next day. The annual
Day of Atonement sacrifices had to go on year after year after year; but they
didn’t solve the problem of sin. They only solved the problem of being ritually
unclean.
That brings us up to where we are.
So I’ve hit the major themes and the key verse that we have to hone in on is
the last verse in that section before we got into the exhortation or the
challenge in verse 19. That is verse 18.
NKJ Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no
longer an offering for sin.
Now the word remission is the Greek
word aphesis,
which means to release, to pardon, to cancel, to forgive, to forgive a debt;
that kind of a thing. The idea there is that because Christ has died (verse
14)…
NKJ Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those
who are being sanctified.
Because there is a complete payment
for sin, there’s no longer another need for an offering of sin. See the
contrast is with the priests back in verse 1.
NKJ Hebrews 10:1 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,
Verse 11, it’s daily.
make those who approach perfect.
But now in contrast where there is
remission of sins, because those couldn’t forgive sin; but where there is
(Christ’s death could do it), there is no longer an offering for sin. We don’t
have to do it anymore. Now at the end of verse 18 it says:
here is no longer an offering for sin.
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
It’s a good thing. We don’t have to go through that anymore. That’s a good
thing.
Now hold on to that thought because
when we get down to verse 26 and it says:
NKJ Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the
truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
It’s the same phrase. It’s a good
thing in 18, right? Then it’s got to be a good thing in 26, right?
But see everybody reads that in the
English and they think, “Ah. Golly, you can’t be saved now, there’s no more
sacrifice for sins. I did something too much.”
Well, if it’s a good thing in 18,
it’s got to be a good thing in 26 or the writer is crazy.
Once you get a hold of that in your
head, then that’s going to make this a little more understandable and a little clearer.
After he says this in verse 18 that:
there is no longer an offering for sin.
He’s going to draw the implication
of that and that’s what happens in verse 19.
NKJ Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the
Holiest by the blood of Jesus,
Whenever you see “therefore”, you
have to see what it’s there for. He’s drawing a conclusion. Because Christ has
died and He’s offered one sacrifice for sins forever and it’s completed, that
means something. Now we can do something that could never be done before. He’s
going to draw out that conclusion.
NKJ Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood
of Jesus,
19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood
of Jesus,
20 by a new and living way
which He consecrated for us, through the veil,
NAS Hebrews 10:22 let us adraw near…
NKJ Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast…
NKJ Hebrews 10:24 And let us consider one another…
NKJ Hebrews 10:25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together…
That’s the implication. Because it’s
finished and there’s no more sacrifice for sin, we can now do these four
things. We can draw near to God; we can hold fast the confession (that is hold
on to the body of doctrine, the belief system that we now have as Church Age
believers based on the finished work of Christ on the cross). We can think
consciously about one another for the purpose of stirring up one another to
love and good deeds and not forsake the assembling of ourselves together.
So that conclusion is very
important. He says:
NKJ Hebrews 10:19 Therefore
What?
brethren,
Now this is a very important word to
understand contextually if we’re going to be able to interpret the passage. He is
talking to a group of people that he calls brethren and he applies this message
to them as brethren.
NKJ Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood
of Jesus,
Are the brethren believers? Yes,
they are viewed as believers. There is no doubt in his mind that every one of
the brethren are believers and they have by virtue of the New Covenant, death
of Christ, are now in Christ and therefore have access into the presence of God
through His blood which as we studied is a way of talking about His death. So
if we substitute His death for His blood and we’ll get the idea that because of
Christ’s death on the cross, we now each one of us has immediate access to God.
Those are the brethren.
But there’s a problem with understanding
the word brethren. Some people take the word brethren as equaling just Jews. He’s
a Jewish writer and he’s talking to Jews, so he’s using the term brethren in a
horizontal sense to refer to his ethnic brethren. The word is used that way in
a number of passages in the Scripture where the writer is addressing Paul. For
example, when Paul was in Jerusalem and he is arrested and he talks to the
Sanhedrin or talks to the crowd; he calls them brethren. He’s talking
ethnically. He’s talking horizontally. There are other passages where it’s very
clear that when the writer of Scripture is using the word brethren, he’s
talking to them as fellow members of the royal family of God.
Now one of the problems you have in
interpreting Hebrews is that some people think that the writer uses it both
ways. Now you’ve got a problem, because it’s never used like that by any writer
in Scripture. It’s either A or B. It’s never both A and B. You don’t have that
C option on a multiple choice that A and B are both true. A and B would be he
is talking to gentile believers in the instruction part and he’s giving a
warning to Jewish unbelievers in the warning part. And that’s a common way of approaching Hebrews. But that’s
just not right. It doesn’t fit how the word is used.
I put this up on the screen.
Brethren can either have a horizontal meaning of relating horizontally to refer
to ethnic Jews. One Jew talking to other Jews would refer to them as brethren.
Or it can refer to other members of the family of God, the royal family of God.
It’s a vertical thing so it’s talking to brethren meaning other members of the
royal family of God or believers. It never combines the two. It’s never used in
one sense as it’s addressing the group as brethren, that you’re Jews. Some of you
are unsaved. And then in the next chapter brethren and now it’s shifted over to
talking to them as members of the body of Christ. The writers don’t do that.
Some people think they do; but they don’t. You can’t demonstrate that anywhere.
For example in the book of Acts,
there are two sections. There are two things going on in Acts. One is you have
Luke writing it from the position of a narrator. This is telling the story of
what happened. Sometimes he’s there. That’s when he says, “We went to
Philippi.” Then he says Paul went to Thessalonica. That’s because Luke stayed
behind in Philippi. See it’s we went to Philippi, but Paul went on. So he
stayed behind. So you have to watch those pronouns very carefully.
So when Luke is writing in the
narrative portion, he always uses the term brethren to refer to believers. He
always uses it in the horizontal way. But in other places there are speeches
that he records, that he faithfully records what Paul said or what Peter said
on the Day of Pentecost, what Peter said at the Temple (that’s the next chapter)
what Paul said other places. And when he is quoting Peter or Paul they might
use the word brethren in that speech to refer ethnically to fellow Jews, which
is what Paul did in several places where he is addressing a Jewish audience.
But the writer doesn’t change unless he’s putting words in somebody else’s
mouth. The writer stays true to his own voice so to speak.
That’s why you have to read
carefully. The biggest reason people don’t understand the Bible – I’m
beginning to realize more and more – is people can’t read. They just
can’t read; they can’t comprehend what they’re reading. Our school systems are
such a failure today and parents are such a failure not backing it up and
following it up with kids. It is just amazing to me how poorly so many people
read and comprehend things. It’s just not there. And I see this all the
time.
I’m in class. “Read that verse and
tell me what it means.”
I’m talking to pastors. I’m not
talking about people who aren’t in a position where they should know
something.
They read it and come up with, “How
in the world did you get that?”
I sure hope you have an accountant
fill out your income tax because you can’t read anything and figure out what it
means. I mean we all get confused at times, but my goodness. People just can’t
read. They don’t know how to comprehend. It’s terrible.
That’s why back under the Puritans
when they established their colonies in New England, the lowest reading rate in
any village in Massachusetts in the 17th century was like 98%
because they had to be able to read the Word of God. 98% - we don’t get that
anywhere today, not even in private schools I don’t think. So we have to really
learn how to read and pay attention to the details inside the text.
So, we have this passage that talks
about brethren. In Hebrews 2:11 we have one of the first places where the word
“brethren” is used in the epistle. It says:
NKJ Hebrews 2:11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of
one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
That’s our first use of the word
brethren. Obviously it sets the tone. He’s talking about other believers. They
are other believers. He’s not using it in an ethnic sense.
NKJ Hebrews 2:12 saying: "I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of
the assembly I will sing praise to You."
So again “brethren” is related to
believers. They are set apart positionally. It’s not talking about
experience.
For example in 3:1 it talks about
holy brethren. Are there unholy brethren? No, there are no unholy brethren
because when a person believes in the Jesus Christ, he is sanctified. That’s
how the writer of Hebrews uses this in several passages. For example in 2:11
sanctification there is phase 1 positional sanctification set apart in the body
of Christ. There is no such thing as an unholy brethren. You can’t be an unholy
believer. You are a holy believer and every believer in the Lord Jesus Christ
no matter how carnal they might be is sanctified. They are a saint. They are
set apart to God positionally – every single one of them/us.
Now one of the next key passages
that uses brethren is Hebrews 3:12.
NKJ Hebrews 3:12 Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief
in departing from the living God;
See he’s addressing them as
believers. The context: he goes back and he compares to the Exodus generation
as believers. But they were unbelieving. Here he says, “Don’t be like that.
Don’t be like that generation.”
As a believer that you rebel against
God depart from truth
Hebrews 7:5 is one place where he
does use the word in an ethnic sense, but it’s clear from the context.
NKJ Hebrews 7:5 And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the
priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to
the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from the loins of
Abraham;
But see he’s not using it in the
vocative. What’s that? The vocative is when you call somebody something. You
call your father Dad or you call your mother Mom. That’s in the vocative. You
are calling them. You’re addressing them by a name. But he’s not using brethren
in Hebrews 7:5 as a vocative. He’s using it as a description. But all these
other passages whenever he uses the word brethren as a vocative addressing them
by a name, it refers to them as believers.
NKJ Hebrews 10:19 Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood
of Jesus,
See in our context the brethren are
believers. They have the ability to enter boldly into the throne of God.
Again we see this in Hebrews 10:22.
NKJ Hebrews 10:22 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
So they’re believers obviously from
Hebrews 10:22.
Then Hebrews 13:22:
NKJ Hebrews 13:22 And I appeal to you, brethren, bear with the word of exhortation, for I
have written to you in few words.
So again all the way through to the
last chapter brethren always refers when it’s used in the vocative to them as
believers, not as unbelievers, not as Jews related to him ethnically.
So that tells us that that’s a very,
very important principle because this talks about the fact or shows us that
he’s talking to them as believers, not as unbelievers. Now if you look at the
Doctrine of Eternal Security, when people question it, they think that somehow
they can lose that salvation. Well, he addresses them even in the context of
carnality, or sin or disobedience or willful separation as he did back in
Hebrews 3:12 that they can be brethren and still have an evil heart of
unbelief. They’re still brethren.
Go back to Hebrews 13:22. One other
comment on Hebrews 13:22. Hebrews 13:22 says that the next verse in verse 23 is
talking about brethren. Then in verse 23 it refers to our brother Timothy. So
Timothy can only be “our brother” if we are all believers. So it's very clear
that he's talking to believers.
Now as we go forward in this, we
have to unveil a couple of other things in terms of the process of
investigating the context.
So I've looked at what the two
things.
They're able to draw near. Verse 22:
NKJ Hebrews 10:22 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.
That is the terminology that is
related to positional sanctification coming right out of the sprinkling of the
priest when he is initially with blood when he's initially inaugurated into the
priesthood. So we're able to draw near because of that position in Christ.
Second, are they’re to hold fast the
confession. The way confession is used here is not like a confession in terms
of admission of guilt, but it's confession in terms of admission of what you
believe. And it's antiquated English now to talk about a confession of faith.
We usually talk about a doctrinal statement. But it's the same thing. You go
back into earlier periods in history – 16th century, 17th
century, 18th century – then churches, denominations would
write a confession of faith. It is an admission of what they believe. It is a
statement of what they believe.
And so when the writer of Hebrews
says:
NKJ Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope
without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
“Let us hold true to the doctrine
we've been taught and not fade out, not give up, not fade under pressure and go
back to Judaism because it seems to be a little bit easier on us.”
So we’re to hold fast to our
doctrinal confession, and then on third to consider or meditate or to think
profoundly about a one another in order to excite or stir up or stimulate,
challenge one another to love and good works. Then fourth, not forsaking the
assembling of ourselves together. So those are the four things.
But if you notice after he says,
“for forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” he says, “as the manner of
some.” That's a clue as to what the problem is. Some of those Jewish believers have already given up.
They’ve already abandoned Christianity. They’ve abandoned Christ.
They said, “You know, I don't
believe Jesus is the Messiah anymore. I don't believe that our sins are paid
for. I don't believe in anything related to the New Covenant. We have to go
back to Judaism. We have to go back to the old covenant. We have to go back to
regular sacrifices on the Day of Atonement and all of Mosaic ritual.”
So there are those who’ve already
given up and they're no longer associating with believers. They're no longer
involved in local churches, local assemblies. That's the context in which he says, “For if we sin willfully.”
Now what do you think the willful
sin is in the context? Going out and getting drunk? No, he never mentions that.
Getting involved in adultery? He never mentions that. The willful sin here
specifically is the sin of abandoning Christianity in order to go back into
first century Judaism. Now by application we can relate it to some other
things; but that's not what he's talking about to that audience. What he’s
talking about to that audience is exactly what they're doing which is just
giving up on Christianity completely and going back to their to their former
belief system. That's what the willful sin relates to.
Now when we look at a difficult
passage, a warning passage or any other difficult passage in Scripture, one of
the principles that you have to use in hermeneutics is what I call the Sherlock
Holmes principle of hermeneutics. When we have eliminated the impossible,
whatever's left no matter how improbable it might be is the answer. Now, that’s
in almost any Sherlock Holmes story. It’s just a project of logic and deduction
and elimination.
A lot of times you look of passage
like this and say, “Well, this passage looks like it could mean that you could
lose your salvation.”
But that can’t be because there are
so many really clear passages that talk about the security of the believer that
what I have to do is say, “Okay, it can’t be loss of salvation because that's
impossible.”
It can't be that “Well, I wasn’t
really saved to begin with” because that's impossible. Why is that impossible?
You hear people all the time say this.
“Well, they were just a false
professor.”
It doesn’t mean that they were
teaching a college somewhere. They just made a false profession. They said they
were Christian's, but they weren’t.
Now this is where it gets really important.
You have to be very careful as to what someone is saying. Scripture makes it
very clear that if you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins, you will
have eternal life. But what you have to believe is that Jesus Christ died on
the cross for your sins.
Hold your place here and turn with
me to John 2. This is the only passage I have ever seen that people try to go
to to say that there are people who can claim to be Christians, but they’re
really not. It’s John 2. John starts off with Jesus turning the water into
wine. That was a miracle of time. He sped up the process. Then when you go on
down passed that that establishes Himself as His credentials. Then He cleanses
the Temple in verses 13 through 17.
Then he's asked about a sign in verse
18.
NKJ John 2:18 So the
Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do
these things?"
NKJ John 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in
three days I will raise it up."
The Jews didn’t understand Him and
what He was talking about at all. They thought He was talking about the
physical Temple and He was talking about the temple of His body.
NKJ John 2:21 But He
was speaking of the temple of His body.
The disciples finally figured out what
he was talking about after the resurrection.
Then we come to verse 23.
NKJ John 2:23 Now when
He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His
name
The verb is pisteuo.
when they saw
the signs which He did.
That is a phrase that is used over
and over and over again by the Apostle John to describe what you believe in
order to be saved. Just skip down the page a little bit or the next page in
your Bible to John 3:18.
NKJ John 3:18 "He
who
Pisteuo eis auton.
believes in Him
is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he
has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
So what do you have to do? You have
to believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
So John 2:23 says:
NKJ John 2:23 Now when
He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His
name when they saw the signs which He did.
So according to John 3:18 if you
believe in His name, what are you? You're a believer. You’re saved. But see the
next verse says that Jesus did not commit Himself to them because He knew all
men. If they were really saved they would have works in keeping with their
salvation and Jesus would have trusted them.
Do you trust every person that you know
that’s a believer? No, we shouldn't. Just because somebody is a believer
doesn't mean he can fix your car better than somebody who’s not a believer. He
may be a carnal lazy believer and the guy down the street is working his way to
heaven. He's a Jehovah's Witness and he’s working his way to heaven so he's
going to do a better job. I've had people tell me that.
I used to house sit when I was in
seminary. I had one couple say,
“You know we always hired Jehovah's Witnesses to work on a house because they’re
working their way to heaven and do a good job; but these Christians are
lazy.”
What a terrible testimony. But
there’s a lot of truth to that. So what you hear from people (John MacArthur is
one) is that because Jesus didn't commit Himself to them, they weren't saved.
That's not what the text is saying. The text is saying. They're saved, but
they’re stupid. They still want Jesus to come as the king and He doesn't want
to get involved with their political agenda so He's not going to entrust
Himself to them. So He didn’t. The phrase indicates that they were believers.
They just weren’t trustworthy believers.
Now there's no other place in
Scripture that indicates this concept of false professor. But what we really
talk to people about is (this idea being a false professor) what are they
really saying? Well, there are people who claim to be Christians; but they're
not. That's right. I agree. If that’s your definition of a false professor is
someone who claims to be a Christian, but they're not. You can have all kinds
of people who think they're a Christian because they go to this church or that
church or they got baptized or their parents were Christian or they grew up in
a Christian country. Whatever it is, they think they're a Christian. But
thinking you're Christian or claiming to be a Christian is not the same as
claiming that you have personally believed Jesus died for your sins. Those are
two different things.
See you cannot falsely say: Well,
you could just be lying. You can’t falsely believe in the name of Jesus. If you
believe in the name of Jesus, you believe in the name of Jesus. If you don't
believe in the name of Jesus, then you don't believe in the name of Jesus. You
may believe you’re a Christian; but if you don't believe in the name Jesus all
you're doing is professing to be a Christian. But you're not professing to
believe in Jesus. A person who believes in Jesus is not a false professor.
So it's sort of the word game there,
a word trap, that people can get into on this idea of a false professor. We all
know people who claim to be Christians and they're not. But that's different
from people who claim to believe that Jesus died for their sins and live as if
they'd never heard of the Bible. Those are two completely different categories.
So we eliminate number one eternal
security because of key passages, which we’ll look at in a minute. Second, we
eliminate the second option that this is talking about people who really
weren’t saved but they lost it. And then the third option fellowship: well,
it’s not really talking about fellowship because I’ve kept emphasizing what? It’s
positional sanctification. He’s not talking about experiential sanctification
so you can’t interpret this in terms of being in fellowship, confessing your
sins or anything like that. There's only one thing left and that must be the
answer. That fits the context and that is what he's talking about: that those
who are sinning willfully by wanting to go back under the old covenant instead
of living in light of their New Covenant relationship with God which is
establish by Jesus Christ’s death on the cross.
So we come to our passage Hebrews
10. I want to read the first four verses and then we’ll start getting into it a
little bit.
NKJ Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
NKJ Hebrews 10:27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation
which will devour the adversaries.
The New King James says same thing.
The New American Standard says:
NAS Hebrews 10:27 but a certain terrifying expectation of ajudgment,
and bthe fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.
As soon as they read “fire” what do
they think of? Lake of Fire. Now you haven't read the text. You’ve read into
the text if you think that, but you haven't read the context. You’re not
letting the context control your understanding.
NKJ Hebrews 10:28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony
of two or three witnesses.
So this is going to be an
illustration from the what? The old covenant
NKJ Hebrews 10:29 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,
He was sanctified –
positional. He was sanctified.
and insulted
the Spirit of grace?
So, this is talking about believers
who trampled the Son of God underfoot. This is not talking about unbelievers.
This isn't talking about the anti-Christian liberal union of lawyers (the ACLU). That’s describing them by activity, not by their actual name.
So how do we understand this
passage? This gets into some fun grammar; fun for me, not fun for you. Here's
the way I’ve broken down this verse. It says:
NKJ Hebrews 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the
knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
That is set off in the Greek from the rest of the sentence by
an unusual construction called a genitive absolute. That’ just means it has a
genitival construction (genitival participle) that is unrelated grammatically
to anything else in the sentence. What it's designed to do is to make that
stand out as something independent.
Now what's interesting is, I read
through about 8 Grammars today looking for the significance of a genitive
absolute. And they don’t tell you. To me that’s useless for a Grammar. It just
describes all of the grammatical characteristics of a genitive absolute. And it
fits all of those. But why does a writer use this unusual construction. Why
would he emphasize this the way he does?
So I picked up the phone I called my
good friend Pastor Mark Perkins up in Denver because Mark has really specialized
in studying this. He just loves talking about this and he’ll probably put most
people to sleep; but he’s writing a paper for a future presentation on genitive
absolutes. He has gone through and looked at almost every genitive absolute in
the New Testament. I don't believe in trying to reinvent the wheel so I’m going
to pick up the phone and talk to somebody who’s already done the work. Mark
makes a very good point. He said that when you have a genitive absolute, it
stands out as something completely separate from the main principle. The main
principle is there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. That's a good thing
just as it was it was a good thing back in verse 18. What happens with the
genitive absolute is the writer is going to set up a principle that he is going
to refute or that he is going to negate or he states something that is a false
belief; and then he's going to knock it down. So that's what he's going to do.
With a genitive absolute he indicates what they want to do, the wrong thing
they want to do which is voluntarily sinning by going back under the Mosaic
Law. But the principle of grace still stands out.
Because they're still saved, there
doesn’t have to be another sacrifice for sin because Christ paid it all. That's
the point back in verses 11 through 18. Christ paid at all.
So what he says here in verse 26 is
parallel to what he said in verse in verse 18. I have the Greek up there, which
you can’t read; but it's the same thing.
Those words are the same in both Greek statements. The only thing
different is what I have highlighted in yellow. Prosphora is the word for offering and thusia is the
word for sacrifice. Apoleupetai indicates remaining. So it’s saying the same thing with
almost identical vocabulary. Thusia for sacrifice; propsphora for offering are used
interchangeably in this passage.
Just look and that tells you what
this passage is really all about emphasizing these words. So if you go through
and you do a word study, prophora refers to a voluntary offering, a free will offering, a
sacrifice, or a gift. It’s used 18 times in Hebrews. It’s not used anywhere
else in the New Testament. Fifteen of the 18 uses are in this section from
chapter 7 through chapter 10. The noun is used 5 times, all in this chapter. So
you have both the verb and the noun used in this chapter.
Thusia is only
used in chapter 10 or only used in Hebrews 15 times in the New Testament
– all in Hebrews. Eleven of those are in this section and 6 are in this
chapter.
Those two words tell you, what is
this chapter talking about? It’s talking about a contrast between the limited
sacrifice under the Mosaic Law and the permanent sacrifice of Christ on the
cross.
We have to do some detailed work on
that so we’ll come back next time. I'm going to leave you hanging. Go through,
read the chapter for next time, highlight, underline every time you see the
word sacrifice or offer, offering – verb or noun. It doesn't matter, just
highlight it and you see that this is the main thread that runs through this
whole section. That takes us a long way to understanding what the writer is
saying.
So we’ll come back next time and
wrap this up a little bit to get into the passage.