While I too believe Paul was the Writer, we cannot be dogmatic about that. J. Vernon McGee and Harry Ironside make some great points as to why it is most likely Paul. Would make for a good thread.
was talking about those that after having knowledge that there is no more sacrifice for sins, and yet continue as if there is still necessity, then that is what the sinning willfully part applies to when they treat the blood of the Son of God on par with the blood of goats and bull that could never take away sins that bears repeating.
Agree wholeheartedly.
In view, as mentioned in the previous post, is a contrast between the Covenant of Law and the New Covenant, and in Hebrews 10 there is a specific focus on the Remission of sins. The Covenant of Law was imperfect (incomplete), and the New Covenant and the Sacrifice of Christ Complete.
That is the meaning of the words translated "perfection" and "Perfect" in this passage, not to mention a consistent theme of the writer.
If you study this theme (that of "perfection/completion") it will clear up another challenging passage...
(note-links inserted)
Hebrews 6:1-6
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.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
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,
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.
We find our context for what is in view by backing up to see the rebuke the Writer gives his Hebrew brethren:
Hebrews 5:10-14
King James Version (KJV)
10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
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.
We can bracket his statement made in v.11 at this verse:
Hebrews 6:11-12
King James Version (KJV)
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.
This is all one teaching yet some will unfortunately take the first 6 verses of Chapter 6 and use it to teach loss of salvation.
In view is the same point you make above in which a contrast between Christ and the Covenant of Law and it's services. The writer rebukes them for their ignorance and exhorts them to go on unto "Perfection," which is Completion through and in Christ.
Hebrews 10:1 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? .....4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
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. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us:
So it is after having knowledge that there is no more offering for sins is when they sin willfully by believing and practicing that there is still necessity to receive that one time sacrifice for sins again.
That is true, and if you note in the verse that the knowledge is accompanied by reference to the Spirit of Grace, which, when we correlate this to Christ's teaching concerning the Comforter...
John 16:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
The "doing despite unto the Spirit of Grace" of Hebrews 10:29 differs from Stephen's statement "Ye do always resist the Holy Spirit" in one way: the revelation being imparted. Then, it was the revelation that accompanied the Covenant of Law, whereas for the Writer of Hebrew's audience the Gospel is in view, which he so definitively explains in this Epistle.
So basically, Hebrews 10 th chapter is rebuking the Eucharist and the Mass when any believer receive the Eucharist as a means to make present Christ one time sacrifice for sins to be "received again".
No, actually it does not, for their was no Eucharist or Mass in that day. While some might apply it to that and in fact rebuke the beliefs of Catholics, we still maintain the Historical Context of the passage. Because people do not do this, we see grievous error such as interpreting the "forsaking of the assemblage of the brethren" as a rebuke for unfaithful church attendance, which trivializes what the Writer is teaching here. It is similar to Christ's teaching "Abide in Me" being used as a text for loss of salvation.
That is not the Writer's, nor the Lord's intent.
In view is a clear warning to Hebrews to "go on" from the Covenant of Law and it's services unto Christ and the New Covenant. They are to leave that which is incomplete and go on unto that which is complete. Christ's Priesthood as opposed to Levitical; Christ's Sacrifice as opposed to the sacrifices of the Law and those before the Covenant of Law was established (though this has particular correlation to Israel and the Law); Remission of Sins in completion as opposed to that which was incomplete and had to be, as the Writer states, repeated daily.
While I would agree that transubstantiation is an erroneous doctrine, that is not found in this text. We have to first and foremost maintain Historical Context and then make applications to our modern day carefully. And personally, I do not see those who actually embrace substantiation as in danger of idolatry, as we consider they are still trusting Christ. I visited a Methodist church once where they were teaching it, lol. I was very surprised.
But ultimately, salvation is not a matter of doctrinal flawlessness, and if it were, we would all be in trouble, because we all start out as babes, not knowing much more than the fact that we are sinners separated from God, that Christ is the SAvior, and that we must look to Him to save us from our sin.
We can see similar errors in all groups, so unless we want to condemn the entire Body of Christ for her ignorance, then we should show a little grace in regards to ignorant doctrines some have been indoctrinated into.
If God does not condemn us, shouldn't we seek to extend His grace to others He has shed His blood for?
God bless.
