No More Sacrifice

At first glance, this is one scary verse of Scripture, Hebrews 10:26 ... “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins ...”

What? If I get a wild hair and go off and willfully commit a sin knowing I shouldn't, and I just let my flesh have it's own way … does that mean … “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” … for me? Does God erase my name from the Book of Life?

This is one of those verses that must never be taken out of context, or lifted off the page to stand on it's own. It must remain in it's setting to properly understand it's meaning.

The writer of Hebrews has been addressing Christian Jews who were being tempted to revert to Judaism or to Judaize the Gospel by filling it with works of the Law.

For the Hebrew Christians, the meaning of this verse is to show that … if … they went back under the Law, under Judaism, and abandon Christianity; when they willfully sin (and most sins are willful) … “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” Why is that?

They would not have any sacrifices accepted by God through the works of the Law. The key is in the word … remaineth. The word remaineth means … “to leave behind.”

I find that, interesting. If they go back to Judaism, they leave Jesus … behind.

No more sacrifice? … of course not. The Levitical sacrifices were abolished with Christ's one sacrifice.

It is Christ's sacrifice or none ... the sacrifice of Christ, will never be repeated ... Christ will die no more. His blood will not be shed again, nor His sacrifice reiterated ... nor will any other sacrifice be offered. There will be no other Savior. There is no salvation in any other, nor any other name whereby we must be saved.

Jesus, being now the only sacrifice which God will accept, cause those who reject Him to have no other sacrifice; therefore their case must be utterly without remedy for their sins.

This verse has been wrongly used to try and prove that those who sin willfully after being born again (or if you prefer, saved by grace) cannot be restored again to fellowship with God upon repentance. This teaching has caused great distress of conscience to those burdened with the guilt of sin, committed after a profession of Christ as Savior.

Why do I say that this verse is wrongly used? There are two reasons …

First … This verse (in context) is speaking of Judaizers who want to believe the old Levitical sacrifices will still cover their sins. It has … nothing … to do with Christians who sin. The sin question has been taken care of. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 8:1 … “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” … period.

Second … But if this verse was speaking to believers, the phrase … “For if we sin wilfully” ... is not to be understood as a single act of sin, or sins through temptation … but rather, a course of sinning, which are done on purpose, resolutely and obstinately.

If you are truly born again and the Spirit of Christ dwells in you, the Apostle John writes in ...

1st John 3:9 ... “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin (habitually); for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”

I like John Gill's short discourse to the meaning of, “doth not commit sin” …

“The born again man does not make sin his trade and business; it is not the constant course of his life; he does not live and walk in sin, or give up himself to it; although he is not without the being of it in him, or free from acts of sin in his life and conversation ... but he does not so commit it as to be the servant of it, a slave unto it, or to continue in it.”

He goes on with further explanation about the second half of this verse, “he cannot sin” …

“Not that it is impossible for such a man to do acts of sin, or that it is possible for him to live without sin; for the words are not to be understood in the sense of perfection in this life; for though the saints have perfection in Christ, yet not in themselves ... they are not free from sin, neither from the being nor actings of it ... sin is in them, lives in them, and dwells in them.”

I am not trying to say that the sins of believers are not sins; for even though they are pardoned by Christ, and we are justified from them ... yet they do not cease to be sins. We should be saved from our sins, not saved in our sins. A Christian cannot sin comfortably; if he tries to continue to live in sin he will be most miserable.

Christians sin. We shouldn't, but we do. This is why in 1st John 1:9 it says ... “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Even if we sin willfully after ... we have received the knowledge of the truth?

Yes, even then.


Comments welcome.

Israel's King

There is nothing that ever surprises God. So knowing the people of Israel would later desire a king, God prophetically announces through Moses a coming event that will occur which changes the history of Israel.

Deuteronomy 17:14-15 … "When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother."

This is not a sanction by God for a king or even a recommendation for one. On the contrary, when the people wanted a change from theocracy rule, by an appointment of a king, God's disapproval was expressed in the most unequivocal terms in 1st Samuel 8:7 when He said, "… they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

The Jews wanted to believe, that by Moses declaring that God would choose the king for them, this was in effect a command to set a king over them ... but in reality it was only God's reluctant permission knowing they would be determined to have a king over them. This permission (if this is the right word) was given with this restriction … to appoint none but whom God should choose.

Accordingly we find, when they expressed their desire as prophesied to have a king (in the time of Samuel) it was granted ... though not without God's command for Samuel to protest the fact. The Lord chose their first king for them, Saul, and after him, David, and even Solomon, David's son.

Later, Israel appointed kings without consulting God for approval ...
Hosea 8:4 … "They have set up kings, but not by me ..."

1st Samuel 8:4-22 (edited) … "All the elders of Israel came to Samuel and said ... make us a king to judge us like all the nations. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me … they have forsaken me … yet protest solemnly unto them … Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel … And the LORD said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king."

The people of Israel, stubborn and as hard headed as we are sometimes; wanting to be just like the other nations around them ... although fully informed of God's Will for them, still desired and were determined to have a political king rather than a spiritual king in the form of a priest, prophet or judge. Even after Samuel informed them of the consequences of their actions, they still wanted a king to reign over them.

After reading these scriptures in God's Word, I cannot see how anyone could still believe that it was God's Will for Israel to have a king rule over them. The scripture states very plainly that the people willingly … "rejected" … God and His form of government, a "theocracy" for one they chose … an earthly king.

There are those who would say that God intended for Israel to have a king to rule over them and actually moved them to ask for a king. This type of reasoning is the same as the people of Israel used … "Since God had Moses to give the requirements that a future king should possess, this proves that God wanted a king for them and sanctioned it."

That makes about as much sense as saying … "Since God gave the requirements and the directions in the law concerning how to cleanse and purify the people from sin, this proves that God wanted them to sin."

This could never happen as it goes against the very nature and heart of God and all He is.

And then lastly … I have heard it stated this way. God's perfect will was for Israel to have a priest, prophet or judge to rule over them. By allowing them to have a king … God's perfect will was set aside and it then became God's ... permissive will.

I have a problem with that. God's will is perfect … period.

By saying God has a permissive will … which is not His perfect will … it by necessity becomes an imperfect will … and that cannot be.

God does not have anything that is not perfect.

By having a king, Israel was not in His permissive will … they were just simply out of His Will … period. And they paid the price.

That should give us pause … are we in His will?



Comments welcome.

Paul's Thorn in the Flesh

There has been a debate for years over just what is meant by the term "a thorn in the flesh" that the Apostle Paul said was given to him.

Some people use Galatians 6:11 where Paul writes ... "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand" … trying to say it must have been a physical problem with his eyes. I don't believe Paul was saying that he had to write large individual letters as he formed his words so that he could see them.

When you look at the four words, "how large a letter" in the Greek, you find they mean … "how much of a writing, note or letter" … the length of it or the number of pages, not a large print version.

Let's look at what Paul is speaking about in the context of it's setting.

2nd Corinthians 12:1-6 … (edited) … my short translation ...

"I knew a man fourteen years ago that was caught up to Heaven. This man seemed so real that I couldn't tell whether he was in or out of his body. While caught up he heard things that is not lawful to speak about. That man was me. For though in my flesh I would desire to boast, I will not, except concerning the weaknesses of my flesh."

And then we come to the key statement from Paul ...

2nd Corinthians 12:7 … "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure."

According to verse 7, Paul's "thorn in the flesh" was allowed by God, to keep him from being "exalted above measure" by others, because of the … "abundance of revelations."

So what was this thorn? Was it something spiritual or physical? Look at the two words, "thorn" and "flesh." If we say "flesh" is used literally, shouldn't we also say "thorn" should be used literally as well? So, if we use them both literally … did he have a sticker or a burr of some kind in his body? No, I don't think so.

Paul said this "thorn" was a messenger of Satan to "buffet" him. How did this messenger buffet him? The Greek meaning for buffet is … to rap with the fist, to strike, to chastise or punish.

Now here we need a short "time line" study to help explain. Paul said, 14 years before he wrote this letter, he was caught up to heaven where he received these revelations. In writing about it, Paul didn't know if he went in his physical body, or only in his spiritual body commonly thought of as his "soul." Either way … to him he was there.

2nd Corinthians was written about A.D. 60. Paul wrote about the persecutions, and afflictions at Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra in 2nd Timothy 3:11 … "Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me."

In Acts 14:19-20, Luke tells the story in detail. Certain Jews following Paul, had him "stoned to death" at Lystra, and then dragged his dead body out of the city, after which Paul's followers prayed over him, and he came back to life.

This all happened around A.D. 45, or as Paul said in this letter ... 14 years ago. I believe it was between the time Paul died and the time he came back to life, that his spirit and soul was "caught up" into heaven where he received these visions and revelations.

Paul's buffeting was also mentioned to this church in his first letter to them in 1st Corinthians 4:11 … "Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted ..." so it had been going on for years. He also tells what some of the buffetings were in 2nd Corinthians 11:23-27 ...

"… I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters ... of robbers ... by mine own countrymen ... by the heathen ... in the city ... in the wilderness ... in the sea ... among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness."

I don't know why God thought it was necessary for Paul to be buffeted. This reminds me of what Augustine once said … "God had one son on earth without sin, but never one without suffering."

What was the thorn? The messenger of Satan. But even so … "it wasn't God" … doing the buffeting. Someone once said … "God afflicts not willingly, so in certain situations, God says, 'if it must be done, let Satan do it.' "

My personal doctrine is still … "If God so chooses, who am I to ask Him, why?"



Comments welcome.

The Word … If

I have noticed in many scriptures the conditional word … if … is included in many promises Jesus made as well as some statements the Apostles made. By being there, that one small word … if … adds a new dimension that can control whether we receive the answer or blessing needed in that promise.

In the English language, the word … if … subordinates an action, event, or happening to another condition, and makes it dependent on another event. The word if is a conjunction which connects two words or phrases together and usually points to a second event.

Normally the word if can be replaced or interchanged with the word "whenever" without changing the contextual meaning. But in dealing with scripture translated from the Greek, the word if doesn't always have the same root meaning. Most of the time, "whenever" would probably work … but not always.

So, I have chosen nine scriptures to look at containing this conditional word … if.

1.) Matthew 21:21 … "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done."

The first if in this scripture is the Greek word "ean" and means … something is conditional; in case, or provided … and is often used to denote uncertainty. In the above verse, "provided" would be the proper translation ... provided ye have faith. The second if used in this verse is "kan" and means … even if, also if … which is the proper meaning as translated.

2.) Mark 9:23 … "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth."

Here in Mark, we have a third Greek word translated if. It's "ei" and means … conditionally if, whether or not. So, is Jesus saying all things are possible depending on whether or not you believe? It sounds like it to me.

3.) John 8:31, Jesus said … "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples …"
4.) John 15:7 … "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."
5.) Romans 10:9 … "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

The word if in 3, 4 and 5 is the conditional word "ean" again … provided … you do these things.

6.) Galatians 6:9 … "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not."

In this verse, the three words translated if we faint is the singular Greek word "ekluo" which means to … relax … or as used here, (if we relax not).

7.) Colossians 1:21-23 … "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreprovable in his sight: If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard …"

So here in this verse, we have yet another if with a different meaning … the word "eige" … if indeed, seeing that.

8.) Hebrews 3:14 … "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end …"
9.) Hebrews 6:3 … "And this will we do, if God permit."

The word if used in these last two verses is slightly different, in that it has the Greek word "per" co-joined with the word "ean" (still meaning provided) but now it places a stronger emphasis on the word if. It's now a great big … "IF" or "PROVIDED."

Most of us understand what the word if intimates in English. The word if often denotes uncertainty. But the uncertainty concerning God and His word, will He or won't He answer, give, heal or provide, etc., is all on our side of the … if … not God's.

God isn't the problem. By looking at the above nine scriptures and the emphasis on the word if in them … the conditional provision is very simple … will we or won't we do what each of them requires us to do in order for God to fulfill them.

If … means we must have faith, believe, continue, abide, confess and faint not in all of these things; which honestly are uncertain future choices we will have to make, if we want God's best for our lives.

If … leaves it up to us, doesn't it.

Does this help explain why many times nothing happens when we pray?


Comments welcome.