Hebrews 10:26-30 - No More Repentance? The James 3 Dilemma - Hebrews part 13

About two years ago, I started to study the origins of church doctrine, and I must say I took a quite, quite the blow to my ego. I found out that the doctrines that I believed about huge things, big topics like salvation and repentance and baptism and eternal security, these beliefs that I held were doctrines that emerged during the time of the Reformation in the 1500s.

Key doctrines. I found that these key doctrines would face that before the 1500s, there was zero record of any Christians believing what I believed about these things.

I want to share with you some emotionally challenging things that have risen in my life as I've been teaching over the past 12 weeks. Through these past 12 weeks, there have been some times where I realized after the fact that some things that are taught weren't accurate, weren't correct. Everyone was very gracious with me, and I was very grateful for that. But I'll admit, there were some times I embarrassed myself a bit. It's a weird feeling. I don't like it at all. It turns out being embarrassed, it ain't my thing.

Not a big fan. Nothing good about sticking your foot in your mouth. And because these are such uncomfortable feelings, the following question has been cycling through my mind: How can I learn to be careful and to teach in a way to minimize the possibility of communicating things that simply aren't the truth, while at the same time trying to bring people to the truth? Let's look at James 3:1 together. It says, "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." I don't like that. I don't like that at all.

In contemplating this passage, I have two potential reasons why I think God may judge those who teach more strictly. One is because to teach positions a man to be a hypocrite. If I stand up there and say, "This is what we need to do, and this is how we need to behave, and we don't need to do this, and we don't need to behave this way," then I can violate my own teachings.

And Jesus made it very clear many times that he has a serious problem with hypocrisy. And the second reason that teachers may be judged more strictly, I think, is because ideas have consequences. And not only do ideas have consequences, but beliefs have consequences. For example, think of the massive consequences for not believing in Jesus.

And that's what teachers are trying to do very often. We're trying to present ideas in a way to guide someone's beliefs. And so as a teacher, I find myself smack in the middle of something that I'm calling the James 3:1 dilemma.

My heart, it wants to teach. I long to expand God's kingdom. But here I am faced with James 3:1, and it's sobering. I have no formal training in this stuff. Previously in my life, I was never a teacher in any way, nor was I raised in these circles. Next thing I know, I find myself up here teaching some things, and it can be dangerous to teach things that lead people astray.

So let me take a minute and try to articulate what I mean when I say the James 3:1 dilemma. Take any topic you can imagine, and within instants, you can have thousands upon thousands of hours of study in front of you. Take a topic, you type it in the phone, boom, it's all right there. And with so many voices teaching different things about the same thing, how do we know when we have arrived at the truth in order that we can teach it? How in the world can I teach in a way that does not put other people's souls in danger? And this is the dilemma. And this is what I'm going to be talking a little bit about today.

My plan for this lesson today is this: I want to share the struggle with you, and I want to give you one good, tangible example of how this struggle presents itself, presented itself to me. And then I want to explain to you how I am attempting to handle this in my own life. And I'm going to do this for two reasons. One is that it is a real struggle.

I need to know if my logic is flawed. If I'm doing things the wrong way, then I need to know. And if there's a better way to do it, then I also want to know that. And number two, I hope to continue teaching. And I need to ask all of you for patience with me. You will see today that this struggle, the James 3:1 dilemma, in many ways is dictating or controlling the way in which I am willing to teach. And this has caused there to be some strife, some strain in some of my relationships.

There is some friction in some of my relationships in my life that wasn't there before, not with anyone here in this room. I'm referring to relationships with people that I have from my past life. They have seen what little teaching of mine has been put up online, and some of them and some of the things that have come out in my teaching have rubbed some of my old friends the wrong way.

And it's not in a really nasty or ugly way. These are friends they genuinely do care about me. We have relationships, good relationships. I've had two different people say to me, "Jason, I don't know this path you're on. It seems like you're dabbling with some things that aren't good for you.

These are spiritually dangerous," they say. And that's a weird experience in itself. To feel like you're diligently pursuing God, pursuing His kingdom with everything that you can muster up, and then you have people who you actually care about, and you have high respect for these people, and they're saying, "I don't know, Jason. This doesn't seem good.

It's a very difficult thing to deal with, and I'm dealing with it."

What I've decided to do today is explain why. At this time of my life, my teaching must be the way that they are. Maybe someday I will change, but for today, it must remain this way. My desire is to hopefully clear the air with some of my friends, hopefully to communicate with them that I am actually listening to them, that I do really care about what they think and what they say, while at the same time communicating that I believe that what seems to them to be dangerous territory may actually be the safest place for me to be in, especially while I'm in the infancy of teaching.

So for my friends and for anyone else out there in the world who maybe I have rubbed the wrong way, I ask that you please have patience with me. Bear with me long enough to hear these thoughts today, for I will be the one who is judged more strictly because of what I choose to teach.

Last week, we looked at Hebrews 6:4-6, and we said that this passage makes the shortlist of the most scary verses. Another passage that makes this shortlist is Hebrews 10:26. As I was studying to teach on Hebrews 6:4-6 last week, I also looked at this verse, Hebrews 10:26, because they're so closely related. And so I decided that instead of picking the next verse in Hebrews, like I have been doing for this last lesson, I'm going to skip ahead to Hebrews 10:26, and we'll read it shortly. But first, let me describe to you how the study of this passage unfolded for me. And I also want to show you how the James 3:1 dilemma has presented itself to me in this particular study of Hebrews 10:26-31.

Many written articles on the internet are referred to as blogs. About 16 years ago, YouTube came out introducing a new concept called vlogging. That's blogging with a V. It's a video blog. And the purpose of both blogs and vlogs are often identical. They are to communicate ideas, to sway beliefs.

One does this in written form, and the other does it in the form of video. Me not being an avid reader, I personally prefer the video format. Because of this, as I started the study, the very first thing that I did was I went to YouTube and I typed in Hebrews 10:26. It's that simple. You want to know about something? Type it in.

And then I proceeded to watch the first 19 videos that taught specifically on this passage. I carefully evaluated each of these 19 videos, and then I grouped them into four different categories. Of these 19 videos, a total of four meanings or four different interpretations of this passage were presented. Next, let me read the passage, and then I will go through and explain the criteria that I used, which passages were interpreted differently to create these four groups. "For if we sin willfully after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment do you suppose will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has counted the blood of his covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing and has insulted the spirit of grace? For we know him who said, 'Vengeance is mine. I will repay,' says the Lord. And again, the Lord will judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God."

So this here is the entire passage. Now what I'm going to do is highlight the three sections that had different interpretations. And these different interpretations is how I categorize these groups. The first is, "The Lord will judge his people and the fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries." So his people and adversaries. Interpretation number one is that this is referring to born-again Christians. Interpretation number two is that the author is speaking only about unconverted Jewish Israelites. All of these 19 videos fell into one of these two interpretations.

The second is the fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation. One of the first interpretations of this is that fiery indignation is hell. And the second interpretation of this is that fiery indignation is some sort of earthly chastisement or earthly discipline from God. And again, all 19 videos fell into one of these two interpretations.

The third is, "Sin willfully and trampled the Son of God underfoot." The most popular interpretation of this was to say that this is referring only to the sin of not believing that Jesus was the Messiah. The second interpretation is saying that this is referring to all sins. So let's look at group number one. They said, "One is referring to believers. Number two, fiery indignation is earthly chastisement. And to trample the Son of God underfoot is all sin."

In this group, there was only one video that fit this category. This is the only person I found who did not think that fiery indignation was hell. He thought the interpretation was that it's some sort of earthly chastisement. Group number two says this is referring only to non-believers. Fiery indignation is hell, and to trample the Son of God underfoot is all sin. Once again, we only had one in this group. It was a video from John Piper who had this combination of interpretations. Group number three is referring only to believers. Fiery indignation is hell, and to trample the Son of God underfoot is all sin.

Three of the 19 videos I watched fell into this interpretation. And finally, group number four says that this is referring to non-believers. Fiery indignation is hell, and to trample the Son of God underfoot is only sin being spoken of is the sin of unbelief in Jesus.

Fourteen of the 19 videos fell into this interpretation. That's 74%. All 14 of these videos said something of this nature. To understand what this verse says when it says sin, what it means, and to understand who's being sent to hell in this passage, you have to understand the context. If you don't understand the context, you're going to get it wrong. And we'll look at what the context is here a little bit later.

But here's the dilemma. I'm the teacher here.

And here I am being presented with four different interpretations, and I'm the one that's going to be judged more strictly. And each one of these interpretations comes with their own set of consequences. These four different interpretations can influence the beliefs that someone has about sin and judgment. That's not small stuff.

And from the standpoint of being judged more strictly, how am I supposed to teach? What view do I teach? Or how do I know when it is appropriate to say that none of these teachers have it right? And I have my own interpretation. Is it ever appropriate to take that route?

If I pick wrong and then you believe me, could I be putting your soul at danger and possibly my soul at danger? Is it okay to just pick which one I want? Think this through with me. 74% of those videos are all given the same interpretation. And every single one of them presented their argument for their position through the understanding of the context. But there's a problem with that.

Because 90% of the videos actually made this claim. These 14 videos all presented the argument that context is key, but this is only 74% of the videos. Three other videos that had different interpretations also claimed that their authority was understanding the context. So what am I supposed to do with that? Just pick one?

Whichever I feel is best? Some will say, "Make your decision based on scripture." Well, that sounds like a great idea. But 100% of these teachers backed their entire position up with scripture after scripture after scripture. And none of them seemed bizarrely far-fetched. They all had made some sort of logical connections through their arguments.

Solo scriptura, they will say. Just keep reading the Bible and let the Bible answer itself. And again, that sounds really good. But if this is the case, what was the purpose of the apostles appointing elders and teachers? And teaching the scripture is more than just repeating the scripture out loud. Think about this with me. Myself and all 19 of these other teachers, we didn't ask to exist. All 20 of us within the last 100 years, we just popped into existence. We didn't ask to be here. And we were just children with no knowledge. All of us were born knowing absolutely nothing. And if it weren't for other people who existed shoving food in our mouths, we would have laid there and died.

We were helpless. All 20 of us teachers were in this exact situation that I just described within the past 50 to 100 years. We just woke up with zero knowledge of scripture. And here's the thing. Every single one of us was exposed to teaching and preaching. And this means that all of us have preconceived notions. There's no way around that.

But think about this with me. Imagine. Let's make a hypothetical situation. It could never happen. But imagine 20 teachers. They're all born on the same day. Somehow they're all magically able to read when they're born. They're isolated in a room with a Bible for 20 years of their life, and they have zero human contact.

All they've ever done is exist and read the scripture. Next, you bring them all into a room one by one, and then you ask them each the same question, Hebrews 10:26. What's it mean? How many interpretations do you think we'd come up with?

No way to know. 20. 20? Next question. If different interpretations are given, would any one of those interpretations have authority over another? No. Born the same day, lived the same life, isolated with the Bible for 20 years, those conditions produce zero authority. 2,000 years removed from the text.

None of us 20 teachers possess the authority to say that my interpretation is the right one. So it sounds noble, solo scriptura, only reading the scripture, but there is a reason why the apostles appointed elders and teachers. In Jude 3:1, it says this, "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write you, exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once and all delivered to the saints." To contend earnestly for the faith, is that standing up and quoting scripture and then just quoting another one? Is that contending earnestly? The very next verse says this, "For certain men have crept in unnoticed, ungodly men who turn the grace of God into lewdness and deny our only Lord and God."

So here we have men who've creeped in to pervert the gospel. Question, are the true teachers being called to do nothing more than just quote scripture and not add any of their own thoughts or any extra words to the conversation? No, it doesn't make any sense. And this circles us back to our dilemma.

So what do I do with this? How do I determine how and what to teach? If the vast majority of these teachers teach it this way, does that make it okay? Is truth determined by majority rule? And if I disagree with their message, on what authority do I make an opposing claim?

What is the standard? How do I know when it is safe to teach something as truth? Do I need to hear it from five different Mennonite preachers all preaching it the same way? Do I need to hear it from ten different Mennonite pulpits to know that it's safe? How does all of this work? And here's something else that I noticed.

None of these teachers presented their arguments with any hesitation or reservation. They were just, "Hey, this is what it means. You need to understand the context, and this is what it means." With authority, a few instances. There were a couple, I think two sentences that I counted where someone prefaced what they were about to say.

Don't get me wrong. After listening to these 19 teachers, I admit that I do have my own opinion about the matter. But here's the problem with my opinion. The best guess that I have about what this passage means is based on my own preconceived notions. I'll be honest, I have them. Is it okay for me to let my preconceived notions dictate what's right to teach?

Is it ever okay to teach something without telling someone what my preconceived notions are? So, so many questions.

About two years ago, I started to study the origins of church doctrine. And I must say, I took a quite the blow to my ego. I found out that the doctrines that I believed about huge things, big topics like salvation and repentance and baptism and eternal security, these beliefs that I held were doctrines that emerged during the time of the Reformation in the 1500s.

Key doctrines. I found that these key doctrines of the faith that before the 1500s, there was zero record of any Christians believing what I believed about these things. There might be records out there. I'm still looking. But so far, I haven't come across any. And after finding out that I've been wrong in my life about so many things, I realized how important it is that as I study and to teach, that every single lesson, I'm constantly asking myself this question, how exactly did I come to this conclusion?

Am I just parroting what I heard my preachers say all my life, who upon investigation were teaching me things that were disconnected from the Christianity that was handed down to the apostles? So that is the James 3:1 dilemma.

And that is why I'm asking you all for patience with me. Because I really am doing my best. I want to please the King. I want to build his kingdom. I want to teach and to edify at the same time. I want to protect souls yours and mine.

But why patience? Why am I asking for patience? Really, it is in response to my friends that I were telling you about earlier. They expressed their frustration with my approach on teaching. They are annoyed and frustrated with my continual quoting of the early church fathers. One said to me in an email, "Jason, I'm afraid for your soul. It's like you worship these men. You're reading their writings like they are scripture. You're elevating them above the apostles themselves."

But here's the thing. I know me. I know what my intentions are. I know what's in my heart and in my mind. And I know those things don't describe the truth about me. But somehow, I have portrayed myself this way. It just isn't coming from one source. Somehow, I'm doing something, and this is what people are seeing. Saint worship.

So what I did is I went back and I started to rewatch some of the lessons, and I started to evaluate myself, and I started to see how people could be coming to these conclusions. Some of my own lessons made me cringe when I could see how someone could end up thinking this about me.

But I know that my friend is totally unaware of the struggle that I'm facing, trying to know how and what to teach. I know that he doesn't know why I quote the early church, and he doesn't know what my motives are.

And reflecting on my teachings, I've realized that overall, I have made some very poor assumptions, and I have done a very poor job of communicating some very critical things about my lines of logic and about my motives. So I asked my friends and anyone else who I've ever maybe rubbed the wrong way that you will please just allow me these few minutes to share these thoughts with you. So hopefully, you can see that there is a method to my madness, and that I'm not just in that there's no weird saint worship going on. Also, to keep the conversation open, to maybe show me or help me see where my thought process may be flawed. If this is the case, I need to know.

I'm open to ideas to help see where I am in error. So here we go. This is the timeline from when Christ died all the way to today. Well, the timeline actually stops around 1995, but it's close enough.

Like I said, a few years ago, I started to study the early church history, and I realized that the majority of the theological framework with which I operated in originated right here around the Reformation.

Way over here, about 33 AD, Christ passes the torch to the apostles. Then somewhere around here in 70 AD, in the book of Jude, we have this written, "I found it necessary to write to you, exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." So by this time right here, we have the faith once for all delivered to the saints around 70 AD.

Question, who's he referring to? Who are these saints that the faith was delivered to? Now, I do not think that it's possible to come up with a complete comprehensive list of all who these saints were, but we can do our best to look at the record of the saints in history. Let's zoom into the timeline here.

This shows a timeline from 0 AD to 250 AD, and this represents roughly the first 230 years of Christianity, and this chart here highlights all of the church leaders, well-known church leaders outside of the apostles. I'm sure there were more saints than what is listed on this timeline, but these are the well-known documented historical records of these saints. The two earliest saints that we have are Ignatius and Clement of Rome. As seen in the timeline, these men were infants and toddlers at the time that Jesus was crucified. Ignatius was born somewhere estimated around 35 AD.

And then here in 68 AD, yeah, 68 AD, he's around 38 years old, and he becomes the bishop of Antioch. Clement of Rome becomes the leader of the Roman church somewhere here around 88 AD. Now, at this time, notice that at least John the Apostle is still alive. There may be other apostles who are alive. And he dies somewhere around here in 100.

Now, let me draw your attention to Polycarp, who was born in 69. And he goes on to become the bishop of Samaria. Again, notice that at this time, when Polycarp was the bishop, some of the apostles were still alive. In fact, Polycarp was the disciple of the apostle John. His teacher was the apostle John. In the same way that you're sitting there learning something from me, it was similar, but it was a little bit different. Polycarp was sitting out there, but the apostle John was standing up here. So that was the position that Polycarp had. And you can see right here that Polycarp died around 155. But if you look down here, in 115, Irenaeus is born.

Now, notice that Irenaeus's life and Polycarp's life, they overlap for about 50 years. Irenaeus, during this time, he ends up being the disciple of Polycarp. So Polycarp is the disciple of John the Apostle, and Irenaeus is the disciple of Polycarp.

And then we have the remaining 230 years of Christian leaders. We have Titian, Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and a whole bunch of other ones that I won't name because I would butcher their names. In Jude, we have the faith that's once and all handed down.

Some of these men that we're talking about here were some of those saints. And some of these other men that we're talking about were the disciples of those saints that the faith was handed down to. These are the men that you see on this timeline. These are the men that are referred to as the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers. When you hear us use this term, these are the men that we're talking about.

Now, let's look at the next 250 years of Christianity. The red line there, it represents is year 325, and this represents when the Council of Nicaea took place. And this puts an end to the Anti-Nicene Fathers. The four green arrows that you see there are pointing to four other church fathers that fall into the category of pre-Nicene, like Dantus, Eusebius, Hilary, and one more that I won't try to pronounce.

Then we have the Nicene Fathers follow them. So these are the church fathers and leaders that were between the year 325 and 395, only about 60, 70 years or so. This includes John Chrysostom, Theodore, Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.

In 380 BC, the Emperor of Thessalonia issues an edict which makes Christianity, specifically Nicene Christianity, the official religion of the Roman Empire. And at that time, most of the other Christian sects were deemed heretical, and their properties were confiscated by the Roman state. This is when the state and the church officially merged, if I'm understanding correctly. Now, let's zoom out and then zoom back in to the 1500s.

1100 to 1200 years later, by the time the 1500s rolled around, the church state had lost much of its resemblance to the early church. It was no longer representing the faith that was once and all handed down to the saints.

In response to this corruption of the state church, reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Henry VIII, they challenged the papal authority to questioning the Catholic Church's ability to define Christian practices. During this Reformation, the reformers wanted to undo what the state church did, and they wanted to go back. They wanted to undo the corruption that the state church had brought into the picture. But here's the deal.

They didn't go back to the beginning. They did undo some of the stuff that the Catholic Church had done, but they did not go back to the historic faith that was once for all handed down. Well, how do we know that they didn't go back? Because we have the writings of the reformers, and we have the writings of the pre-Nicene and Nicene Church Fathers.

All of that time, the Catholic Church had preserved the writings of these early church fathers. And when you look at these writings and compare them to the writings of the reformers, they're not teaching the same Christianity. That's how we know they didn't go back.

Now, I'm not making this stuff up. Everything that I'm saying here is public domain. It is all verifiable. The one final very important thing before I wrap up this history lesson and look at our text, if we fast forward to today, we have over 20,000 denominations in the church.

Listen to Paul's pleading with the Corinthians about this very thing. "Now I plead with you, brethren, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, in the same judgment." 20,000 denominations in the church today means we're clearly not pulling this off. But contrast this to the Anti-Nicene Church, where they had one denomination. Well, technically, it wasn't even a denomination. It was one unified church. This is very important. This next thing I'm going to say, does this mean that they were 100% unified about 100% of their beliefs? No.

But where they did differ, they were not dogmatic to the point that they would ever consider splitting. So when you read their writings where there's differences, it was that they did not consider those differences as core things of Christianity. You didn't stop becoming a Christian because you believed that way.

And so that wraps up the history lesson. Let's get back to our talk. "For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation, which will devour the adversaries."

So it is important that I teach this right. And I don't have the confidence to stand up here like those 19 other teachers and present to you that I have officially arrived on this passage, that I have figured out for certain that my position is right and theirs are wrong. And here's another thing.

Everybody always quotes everybody.

Most people just don't state their source. They just teach it like it was their own thought. There is a reason why 14 of those 19 videos make the exact same argument in just about the exact same way. These teachings, they go around. It's normal. It's okay that it's like that. Everyone is just quoting everyone, but almost nobody can tell you where the sources of their information. They just re-say what they've heard.

Now, to their defense, they have heard this parroted so many times that they may not even be able to point to a source. They've probably heard it so much that to them, it is their own thoughts. To them, they're probably telling you their own thoughts. My guess is that many of them are under the impression that they got this idea straight from the Bible, that there was no extra-biblical text or no extra-biblical conversation involved.

But nowhere in the Bible do you ever read anything like this. If you really want to understand the meaning of this passage, you must first understand the historical context. When you hear a phrase like this, you can just about guarantee that what the teacher is about to say is something they did not figure out on their own.

They heard it from somewhere. That's not 100% true all the time, but very likely.

What makes this even harder to find the truth is this. Now, many times, the teachings will begin with a tagline like this. They'll say, "Today, we're going to be looking at this passage from a biblical perspective." The next guy will say, "Today, we're going to look at this passage from a biblical perspective." And then he will go on to teach the exact opposite thing as the first person.

I'm not making this stuff up. And this is the reason. This is the reason why I'm always quoting the early church fathers, because there was a faith that was once for all handed down. And James 3:1 tells me that these things matter and that it matters that I teach when I teach that I'm teaching the right stuff. So when I put up a quote from one of these early saints, it's not that I worship them. I'm not trying to say that their ideas should be treated as scripture. I am just trying to be transparent with you that these thoughts that I'm sharing with you, they're not my own.

I am expressing to you whose thought it was so that the listener has the ability to look into these things for themselves so that they can know what authority they come by. The highest authority is scripture itself. But knowing that Polycarp was a student of John, and John is someone who wrote some of the scripture, when I read Polycarp, I know it's possible he misunderstood John. Absolutely possible. That's what makes what he wrote not scripture.

But it is also possible that he said, "Hey, John, can you explain what you mean by that?" He had that privilege. An authority comes with having that privilege when your life overlaps and you're a student of an apostle.

So what I'm teaching now, 2000 years later, there is a 100% possibility that I never asked John anything. Nothing that I will ever teach should ever be looked at as having the same or more authority than what Polycarp taught or wrote. And what Polycarp wrote will never have the authority to what John wrote himself. Do you see how that works?

Now, remember the hypothetical example that I made about how men born 2000 years removed from the apostles, how none of them can just develop an authority on their own. It is different for the pre-Nicene writings. The first generations of the church in which they were able to maintain a unified church for 325 years, there is an authority that comes with those writings because they tell us how the church that immediately preceded the apostles, how they interpreted scripture. That's the authority that comes with them.

And this is why I choose to teach this way, always quoting the saints of the past, because ideas have consequences. And I do not personally feel that it is safe for me to be teaching things that are verifiably contrary to the historic faith.

It makes no sense to me that the church was immediately corrupt, and then the state church merged and then double-corrupted it, and then somehow the reformers, 1500 years, finally figured out what the Bible meant. It makes no sense to me at all.

And so I hope that I was able to articulate myself, help explain the lines of logic which lead me to always be quoting these early church fathers. So let's look back at today's text, Hebrews 10:26-30.

With all of that being said, what I want to do with the rest of the time today is look at this passage, chapter 10, verses 26 through 31. And this is going to give you a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about.

This group here, hands down, represents the popular view of today. Of these 14 videos, I have chosen this one right here to represent this group for a couple of reasons. Number one, it's a good length. Number two, he goes through the passages pretty systematically. And number three, he's a fairly public person. He has his own radio show. He has all sorts of ministries and YouTube videos out there. So he's put himself out there to be in the public arena. What we're going to be doing is we're going to look at this passage. We're going to look at his explanation, and we're going to break it up into clips. And then when he's going to explain the passage, and then we're going to look at how Chrysostom explains it.

And we're going to see how different interpretations can exist. For if we sin willfully, if we sin willfully, let's begin by looking at this.

"If you repeat the same sins willfully, God will not forgive you." Now, this is the one that kind of makes me chuckle every now and then because this is the one where people will call up the radio program, and they will say, "Now I know that Jesus died for my sins, and I know that he took away my sins, and I know that he remembers my sins no more. So I know that I'm totally forgiven. But what if I sin willfully?" And they bring this word in like it's ta-da, a surprise.

When do you not sin willfully? Isn't your will always involved? Or do you tell God, "I don't know what happened, Lord. My will had nothing to do with it. Now, I admit there were some other sins, but my will was not engaged."

Do you not see that every sin that we commit is willful, that we choose, that our will is involved?

For if we sin willfully, Andrew's position is that if we sin willfully, that all sin is willful sin. Now, let's look at what Chrysostom says about this. About this phrase, "If we sin willfully," see how God is willing to give pardon. He says, "If we sin willfully, this shows that there is pardon for those who sin not willfully." So out of the gate, they do not agree with each other on this passage. Andrew says, "All sin is willful sin." And Chrysostom says, "Not all sin is willful sin." Next part of the passage. "For if we sin willfully after having received the knowledge of the truth." What does this mean? After having received the knowledge of the truth, Pastor Anderson.

And let me say this. In contrast to Galatians and Ephesians and Corinthians and Thessalonians and all of those, in contrast to all those Gentile epistles, Hebrews has one kind of sin mentioned, only one kind of sin mentioned for 10 straight chapters. And it's the sin of unbelief.

In context, what is the only sinning, the only willful choice that is mentioned for 10 straight chapters is Jesus, no thank you. Jesus, I'll pass. Jesus, forget it. He is saying that if we, after receiving what? Knowledge of what? Truth about what? The gospel. After receiving the knowledge of the truth about the gospel message, if you willingly say, "No way, no thanks, I'll pass," and not believe it, then guess what? There's no other sacrifice for sins.

Jesus, no thank you. Jesus, I'll pass. Jesus, forget about it. According to Andrew's interpretation, this is referring to receiving the knowledge of the truth of the gospel message. It's limited to that. Let's look at Chrysostom. After receiving the knowledge of the truth, in saying this, Paul either means the knowledge of the truth of Christ. So here, Andrew and Chrysostom, they might be in agreeance. I'm not sure when Chrysostom says the knowledge of the truth of Christ, if he is saying the same thing as when Andrew says the knowledge of the truth of the gospel message. But they could be very similar there. But Chrysostom continues with another interpretation. Or it could mean the knowledge of the truth of all doctrine.

Andrew says, "This is referring to receiving the knowledge of the truth of the gospel message." And Chrysostom says, "This could also mean coming to the knowledge of the truth of the totality of Christian doctrine." Notice the great difference there. Andrew says that this is a person who has been given the gospel message, and then he says, "Jesus, no thank you. Jesus, I'll pass. Jesus, forget about it."

This is referring to someone who has never become a Christian at all. In contrast, Chrysostom says that this might be referring to someone who has received the truth about all Christian doctrine. This would be someone who has been thoroughly seeking and has come to a knowledge of the truth that goes way beyond the basic doctrine of who Christ was. Quite a difference.

Now, let's look at this. After we receive the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. What does this mean?

After receiving the knowledge of the truth about the gospel message, if you willingly say, "No way, no thanks, I'll pass," and not believe it, then guess what? There's no other sacrifice for sins. Where are you going to look? "Oh, I'll look over in the temple. Oh, I'll go with great-grandpa and we'll be" No.

There's no hope there. There's no sacrifice there for your sins. Those things were a shadow and a symbol. The reality has already come, and you're going to willfully reject that? Well, there's no hope anywhere else.

So the sacrifice being referred to has nothing to do with Jesus. It is not referring to the sacrifice of Jesus. Instead, it is referring to the animal sacrifice under the old covenant. Next, Chrysostom speaks on this passage, but he does not start off by telling us what the passage means. He starts off by telling us what the passage does not mean. He says, "Paul tells us that God is not the enemy of our salvation, that he has not taken away repentance. He has not removed the propitiation that satisfies him through repentance. He does not thrust away and cast down with despair those who fall. This is in no way to indicate that those who have fallen have been cast down by God."

Well, if this is the case, then what does it mean? He tells us he means he takes away the second baptism. For he did not say, "No more is there repentance," nor did he say, "No more is there remission." He said, "No more is there a sacrifice." What does this mean? That is to say that there is no more a second cross. For that is what he means by sacrifice. For by one sacrifice, he says, "He had perfected forever them who are being sanctified." And we talked about this in great deal last week, that in baptism, we participate in Christ's crucifixion, his death, his burial, his resurrection, that we are crucified with him, that he is crucified in us.

If you're online and this part is confusing to you, you can go back to last week's lesson and watch that. This passage, the passage, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin. Andrew interprets this by saying that the sacrifice being referred to has everything to do with the old covenant sacrifice. And Chrysostom says the sacrifice being referred to has nothing to do with the Old Testament sacrifice. Andrew says that the sacrifice being referred to has nothing to do with Jesus. And Chrysostom says the sacrifice has everything to do with Jesus. That after your baptism, if you so choose to restrain yourself with sin, that there is no more sacrifice. There is no more second baptism.

For you, there are now only two options: repent or go to hell. And this brings us to the next part of the passage. But a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation. What does this mean? Fiery indignation.

Andrew says, "This is hell." Chrysostom says, "Yep, definitely hell." So this is one of the few places where they actually overlap in their interpretations. Next question, who is the hell for? But a certain fearful expectation and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. So who is this? Who are the adversaries? Let's see what Pastor Anderson says.

What do you get instead? A terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume whom? The enemies, the adversaries, not the children of God. This is about enemies of God who say no to Jesus Christ.

This is referring to the enemies of God, the adversaries, not the children of God. This is only referring to, by saying adversaries, is he only means unbelievers.

Chrysostom says, "By adversaries, he does not only mean the unbelievers. He means those who are believers, but who do what is against virtue." He says that when Paul says the adversaries, he's referring to believers who choose to live in unrepented sin, believers who choose to do what is against virtue. Next, Chrysostom offers a second possible interpretation for this. Or he could also mean that the same fire that will receive the adversaries, God's enemies, will also be the same fire that receives the believers who live against virtue. He says it can mean that God's enemies and the believers who live against virtue will be cast into the same fire.

So the adversaries are not the believers. Chrysostom says the adversaries are the believers who live against virtue. Now, where does Chrysostom get this idea? There are many passages. We'll just read one. For if after they have escaped the pollution of this world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end will be worse for them than in the beginning. For it would have been better for them to have never known righteousness than to have known it and then to turn away from the holy commandments delivered to them. Back to our passage.