Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 7
The teacher argues “hirosylo” should be read as “commit sacrilege” rather than “rob temples,” and then quotes early voices saying denying Christ and misusing money for the poor are sacrilege; how does redefining sacrilege this way challenge what you fear most about “serious sin,” and what concrete areas of your life might fall under this accusation?
Another way to ask: If “sacrilege” means denying Christ or misusing money meant for the poor, how does that change what you think of as “serious sin”? What specific parts of your life might be included in that charge?

Direct Answer Based on the transcript, “sacrilege” is not mainly about dramatic crimes like breaking into temples; it can mean spiritually violating what is holy—especially by denying Christ (to whom the Law points) or mishandling resources meant for the poor. That challenges a mindset that only scandalous, outward sins count as “serious,” since sacrilege can hide under respectable religion.

Support from Transcript:

  • The Greek term is explained: though etymology suggests “rob a temple,” by Paul’s time it meant “to commit sacrilege,” shown by “how the early Christians used the word.”
  • Translation history is cited: ancient Latin used “sacrilegos,” and older English Bibles (Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV) translated it as “commit sacrilege.”
  • The teacher argues “robbed temples” is unlikely because Jews “would not even enter Gentile houses,” so entering pagan temples would be “strange.”
  • Ambrosiaster: “You are sacrilegious when you deny Christ, to whom the law and the prophets point.”
  • Origen: “you violate the true temple of God, which is Jesus Christ,” and he adds sacrilege includes taking “money given to the poor” for “personal gain.”
Discussion Follow-ups What would it mean to examine “respectable” sins—like doctrinal denial or financial self-interest—with the same seriousness we reserve for public scandals?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10
Back Questions Next