Hebrews 10:26 really bothers me !!!

[Polynesian girl]

Hebrews 10, 26 says "for if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no sacrifice for sins" and Hebrews 10,17 also says "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin".

I hope you people will not object to my frequent use of the KJV translation, I know its English sounds odd and I've heard that some of its translations are sometimes not quite correct (is it the case here?), but this is the only English translation I've got here...

What bothers me terribly in these two verses (specially the first, I may have misconstrued the meaning of the second one) is that they seem to imply that there is a limit to God's forgiveness. I've read somewhere that Constantine, the famous emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, refused to be baptized until his last moments on earth. Apparently, he felt that being an emperor he would have to commit some grievous sins. So he waited till the last minute to put on the immaculate robe of the baptized Christian! But he believed in Christ. In fact, he saw Christ before crushing his rivals!

I don't understand why he didn't ask for God's forgiveness the way Christians do it today. We sin ad then we repent and God forgives us till the last minute because his beloved Son died for all our sins on Calvary.

Was Constantine impressed by Hebrews 10:26 or what ? And does such an attitude reflect a common concern in the early Church ?

The Vahinee

[bar Jonah]

First, Constantine is a horrible example of a Christian, as he was clearly motivated by political purpose in his "acceptance" of Christianity. It is highly unlikely he was saved, although anything is possible. Regardless, he's a very poor example.

Second, water baptism is not required for salvation; this is almost universally agreed to and is very clear in the epistles of the New Testament.

Third... and this is where many will disagree with me... You would not apply Leviticus directly to your life today, I would assume. Why? Because while it is for our understanding and edification, it is not TO us. By the same token, the letters of Peter, James, John (including Revelation) and Jude and the epistle to the Hebrews were written... well, to the Hebrews. To the 12 tribes.

Which tribe are you? You're not, are you? We are not Israel. And while these letters in the New Testament are useful for our understanding of what God was working with in the 1st century... as you already saw, not all of the Bible is directly applicable to you, today. You are not a Hebrew. You are not of the 12 tribes. And that letter was not written to you or me. We are of the Body of Christ, which is referred to ONLY by Paul. He is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and preached the Gospel of the Gentiles.

Look to Paul on matters of salvation and eternal life. Paul teaches (contrary to that passage in Hebrews) that you are sealed by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed an inheritance.

Ephesians 1:13-14

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Whereas the Jewish epistles suggest that we will be forgiven IF we forgive others (and do other good works), Paul on the contrary says that because we have been forgiven, so we should forgive others and do other good works. The order is reversed.

Don't apply Israel's covenant to your Gentile self. You're not a Jew.

[Act9_12Out]

Polynesian Lady,

As RI has correctly noted, Hebrews is not addressed to the body of Christ. Hebrews (which I think written by Peter) is a continuation of the circumcision gospel established in Genesis 17. The idea set forth in Hebrews 10 is a continuation of this idea, specifically Numbers 15 concerning the laws for unintentional vs. presumptous sin for Israel.

In Numbers 15:22-30, God lays out His ordinances for sin offering when the children of Israel sinned unintentionally. God required specific sin offerings for those sins to be covered. In Numbers 15:30-31, God explains what will become of those in covenant relationship with Him who sin presumptuously.

Numbers 15
30 But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the LORD, and he shall be cut off from among his people.
31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.

We see "the person who does anything presumptuously has despised the word of the LORD, and has broken His commandment..." What happens to the person who has broken His commandment? That person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.

Notice, they are COMPLETELY cut off. HIS GUILT shall be upon him. If a person sinned presumptuously and had broken God's commandment, he went to hell. God gives an example of a person who sinned presumptuously, broke His commandment, and his guilt was upon him.

Numbers 15
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

This man is numbered among the children of Israel. This man obviously understands God's law. This man defied God and went out to gather sticks on the Sabbath day. What happens to this man who sinned presumptuously and broke God's commandment?

Numbers 15
33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.
34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.
35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."

God passed judgment on this man and commanded the children of Israel to kill him. Why? Because this man sinned presumptuously and broke God's commandment.

Numbers 15
36 So, as the LORD commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

According to the principles God set forth in the preceding verses, this man was cut off completely. This man's guilt was upon him when he died. This man, who was numbered among the children of Israel, died in his sin (breaking God's commandment) and went to hell. Under the law, the penalty for sinning presumptuously and failing to keep God's commandments was very harsh. However, if a person sinned unintentionally, they could offer certain sacrifices to cover the unintentional sins (See Numbers 15:22-29). The author of Hebrews (Peter) shows that the same principle is in effect for circumcision believers under the law.

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,

Sounds familiar doesn't it? Notice, this is addressing people who sin presumptuously after they receive the knowledge of the truth. If they sinned presumptuously, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. What could these believers who fell away expect?

Hebrews 10
27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

These people could expect loss of salvation. There is no longer a sacrifice for their sins, not even Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 10
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
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, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

In case there was a question whether or not this is referring to those who "possessed eternal life," notice that they were sanctified by the blood of Christ. Even though they had been sanctified by the blood of Christ, if they sinned presumptuously, after receiving the knowledge of the truth, they went to hell. This idea is based in God's example from Numbers 15 which refers to those who despised the word of the Lord and have broken His commandments.

Again, as RI correctly noted, the body of Christ is secure after we believe. We are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption.

Ephesians
1:13,14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

God bless,

Jeremy

[Sheepdog]

while I would note that while RI is correct that some of the later epistles were written to Jews, that argument neglects the fact that they were Christians. No reason to suppose that the Christian message was different for either side; though, i say that with the qualification that the message may have been tailered differently to be better understood by the respective audiences (e.g. compare Peter's sermon at Pentacost with Paul's at Athens).

18 (not 17) shouldn't bug you, as the Hebrews writer goes on to say that because we no longer have to do daily/weekly/yearly sacrifices, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Hebrews 10:19b-22, NASB. 18 is our confidence, not our fear.

26 should bother you, but it is not talking about simply unreprented sin (which most Christians still have to struggle with, whether they want to or not), but a lifestyle of sin. Notice what the writer compares this to later: Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. v. 28.

This isn't simply goofing up and breaking the law, this is setting it aside. The strength of this language cannot be underemphasized: this is someone who has tossed out the law (figuratively speaking) as you would yesterday's newspaper. Likewise, for the one who continues to bear no evidence of repenting and foresaking sin: How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? v. 29. this individual has used the grace of God like yesterday's newspaper and has tossed it out as though it was "unclean." Really, this goes back to Heb. 6, which covers the same ground basically, someone who repented and became a Christian, only to fall away. There remains no sacrifice, because the last sacrifice for sin is now inaccessible to him.

Unfortunately, this means that if you believed in "Once Saved Always Saved," you may wish to change your belief. The Biblical stance is that you can willingly fall away from grace.

By the way, you should go out and pick up an NASB, or at least NIV. thee shall thanketh thyself latereth.

[Sheepdog]

Act9, are Jewish Christians not part of the body of Christ?

[bar Jonah]

They were believers in the New Covenant, yes. That goes without saying. But they were not the Body of Christ, that much is certain. They were very much in a different category, and being taught starkly different doctrines in a number of areas, including soteriology, eschatology, etc. They had different requirements to meet in order to come to a saving relationship with God.

Sheep would agree that these two groups were seperate... one group receiving teaching from the Twelve and the other group being taught by Paul. Heck, Galatians 2:7 talks about that pretty directly. So does Acts 15, at the end of which James insists that the followers of Paul live up to additional requirements of observance of kosher foods when around the followers of the Twelve. Why would James insist this if they were all one big happy family? Because they were two groups.

But if they are two groups that are preaching the exact same set of doctrines, then one must be alarmed at the conspicuous absence in Paul's teachings of this extraordinarily important doctrine of losing one's salvation and there not being any more sacrifice for such a one as this. And likewise, one must be concerned about the complete absense in the Jewish epistles of this doctrine that a believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and guaranteed our inheritance. But no, we don't see that at all.

These two sets of doctrine simply don't match. One is to Israel, the other to the Body of Christ, of which Paul was the first.

[Act9_12Out]

Sheep,

If I sin presumptously, and pick up a stick on Saturday morning, should my church drag me outside and kill me Sunday morning?

--Jeremy

[Magdalenbrother]

There are many people who think that the teachings of the Church have always been the same as today or that the real teachings of the Apostles, after being maliciously distorted by the Roman papacy were re-established in their pristine purity by Herr Luther. Well, nothing could be farther from the truth. Once one begins to ransack church history, one soon realizes that momentous changes have occurred since the heroic times, so much so that I am pretty sure that a convert of Paul’s in the first century CE would probably scratch his head in amazement if he could listen to Pat Robertson or Billy Graham.

This thread by Polynesian girl, whom I greet in the Lord and thank from the bottom of my heart for her five (undeserved) pearls, offers me a wonderful opportunity to highlight an aspect of church doctrine that has been by and large overlooked: the doctrine that there is no remission of sins after baptism. This notion, which appears totally unorthodox to Christians today, was defended by the Apostolic Fathers (possibly on the base of the quoted passage in Hebrews).

The Apostolic Fathers are a group of church writers who lived in the first and second century CE (Christian era). Their works are the First and Second Clement (the First Clement is a letter of the church of Rome sent to the church of Corinth in 95 CE), the Shepherd, an apocalyptic work by a Roman Christian of the first century, a letter to the Philippians written by Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, not far from 120 CE, the so-called epistle of Barnabas of uncertain date and a brief manual of instruction entitled Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (or Didache), which belongs perhaps to Syria and to the early part of the second century.

These Christians believed that after baptism no remission of sins was possible.

On this amazing point, let me quote Arthur Mc Giffert’s History of Christian Thought:

“It was the common belief that upon beginning the Christian life the convert was pardoned for all his past sins and was thus enabled to start afresh with a clean record But it seems to have been taken for granted that thereafter he would so live as to need no forgiveness. And some at any rate believed that if he fell again into sin there was no father help for him. The Christian was judged more severely than other men. For them there might be forgiveness but not for him after he had once been baptized. As Hermas puts it: “I have heard, Sir, said I, from some teachers that there is no other repentance save the one when we went down into the water and received remission of our former sins. You have heard rightly, he said to me, for so it is. For he who has received remission of sins ought not to sin again but to abide in holiness.”(Hermas, Mand.IV.3.)

Needless to say, this rigorous teaching led some Christians to despair, to the point that they stopped trying to live Christianity. To these people Hermas promised a second opportunity on the authority of a divine revelation (these people took the continuous revelation of divine truth through the Holy Spirit quite seriously!). If they repented they would be pardoned and allowed another chance, not however to be repeated. “After you have made known to them all these words which the Master commanded that I should reveal to you, all their sins which they have formerly committed shall be forgiven, and they shall be forgiven to all the saints that have sinned up to this day, if they repent with their whole heart and cast out doubl mindedness from their heart. For the Master has sworn to his elect by his own glory that if there still be sin after this day has been fixed they shall have no salvation; for repentance for the righteous has an end.” (Hermas, Vis.II.2.)

Arthur McGiffert adds:

“The notion that in Christianity there is free and full and repeated forgiveness was not the notion of these early Christians. […] Moral rigor, not leniency, was the dominant note in this period.” Amen, amen !

Our author doesn’t explain why these early Christians were so optimistic about the possibilities of human nature but he has some very interesting to say about their conception of sin:

“Nor is there evidence that their conception of sin was more profound or searching [than that of the Jews, Greeks, Babylonians and of other ancient people] They seem to have had no such vivid sense of sin as Paul had, and they certainly did not share the belief in the radical badness of man as man and in his utter inability to be good until made over by God.” Again, amen, amen !

Here some reflections of Oswald Spengler in his profound-and highly controversial-Decline of the West come to mind. Spengler insists on the fact that ancient man, specially the Greeks of the Classical Age, was not given to introspection and had no notion of an inner self. As proof of this, he points out the fact that the holes bored in the pupil of ancient statues, which reveal the presence of personality, appear very late in Antiquity. In fact, the Christians seem to have invented the idea of the soul as something unique and hidden within the body. Before people saw themselves as bodies. Dixit Oswald Spenger.

If this is true, this means that ancient man would not question his motives. For example the vexing question of whether one keeps the commandments out of pure love for God or out of enlightened self-interest would simply not arise, which means that one would be spared endless ethical headaches and useless remorse. Just see the Ten Commandments: they are all about external observances ! And of course when one doesn’t question one’s motives and doesn’t search one’s soul in search of evil, God’s law is quite easy to keep. Hence the embarrassing passage in Luke (embarrassing for some Protestants that is) where he describes Zacharias and his wife Elisabeth as “just” and “blameless”.

Whether Constantine's postponement of his overdue baptism till the very hour of his death is a reflection of the spirituality of the Apostolic Fathers, I am not certain, but his (justified!!!) scruples certainy do him great honor.

Today there are too many Christians who don't take sin and its gravity seriously and seem to think that Jesus is "the minister of sin". But que voulez-vous the permanent possibility of remission of sins not only pleases lazybones and "seekers after smooth things" (Qumran term for people who are ready to compromise on God's holy law), it aso keeps the confessionals and the professionals who run them going. It is therefore not difficult to understand why Hermas' virile, stern and sanguine approach was finally discarded in favor of what I consider a more demagogical one. Reeks too much of Pelagian optimism about human nature. But then Pelagius, the son of beautiful and mystical Ireland, flourished in another age...

Peace to all !

Y paz y justicia para Venezuela !

Magdalenbro

[bar Jonah]

We're talking about doctrine, MagBrother. Why are you giving us a bunch of fallible stuff from outside the Bible? Let's stick to the infallible word of God when we're talking about absolute Truth.

[NonTrinitarian]

"there is neither Jew nor Greek,...for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus. Moreover, if you belong to Christ, you are really Abraham's seed, heirs with reference to a promise"- Gal 3:28,29

"There is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all."- Rom 10:12

"For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside...But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumscision is that of the heart by spirit."- Rom 2:29

Reminds us of Jesus' words to the Jews when he told them to not hang their hat on being Abraham's seed because God could raise up from rocks children for Abraham.

There is no special stuff for Jews over gentiles. The promises to Abraham and Israel will be fulfilled and do not hinge on a person being a Jew on the outside.

[Sheepdog]

If I sin presumptously, and pick up a stick on Saturday morning, should my church drag me outside and kill me Sunday morning?

Are we talking about the law? nooo. The Hebrews writer just used the law as a comparison point.

Did Christ die for both Jew and Gentile, or just Gentile?

[Macarthur]

Hebrews 10, 26 says "for if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no sacrifice for sins" and Hebrews 10,17 also says "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin".

I hope you people will not object to my frequent use of the KJV translation, I know its English sounds odd and I've heard that some of its translations are sometimes not quite correct (is it the case here?), but this is the only English translation I've got here...

What bothers me terribly in these two verses (specially the first, I may have misconstrued the meaning of the second one) is that they seem to imply that there is a limit to God's forgiveness. I've read somewhere that Constantine, the famous emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, refused to be baptized until his last moments on earth. Apparently, he felt that being an emperor he would have to commit some grievous sins. So he waited till the last minute to put on the immaculate robe of the baptized Christian! But he believed in Christ. In fact, he saw Christ before crushing his rivals!

I don't understand why he didn't ask for God's forgiveness the way Christians do it today. We sin ad then we repent and God forgives us till the last minute because his beloved Son died for all our sins on Calvary.

Was Constantine impressed by Hebrews 10:26 or what ? And does such an attitude reflect a common concern in the early Church ?

The Vahinee

Keep reading; you'll continue to find more and more "uncomfortable" things in the Bible, especially the OT.

[Act9_12Out]

Are we talking about the law? nooo. The Hebrews writer just used the law as a comparison point.

What? Did you not read your own post? You said,

This isn't simply goofing up and breaking the law, this is setting it aside. The strength of this language cannot be underemphasized: this is someone who has tossed out the law (figuratively speaking) as you would yesterday's newspaper.

Secondly, if you argue that Hebrews 10 is dealing with unrepentant sin, and not the law, then I ask, how do you define sin? Give me an example of a sin that would not be explained under the Mosaic Law. Then you say,

v. 29. this individual has used the grace of God like yesterday's newspaper and has tossed it out as though it was "unclean."

Where does this passage speak of God's grace? This passage is all about sinning against God and breaking His law. If they committed a high handed sin against God, there no longer remained a sacrifice for sin... Not even Jesus Christ. You also failed to respond to Jim's point...

But if they are two groups that are preaching the exact same set of doctrines, then one must be alarmed at the conspicuous absence in Paul's teachings of this extraordinarily important doctrine of losing one's salvation and there not being any more sacrifice for such a one as this. And likewise, one must be concerned about the complete absense in the Jewish epistles of this doctrine that a believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and guaranteed our inheritance. But no, we don't see that at all.

The author of Hebrews (Peter) says if they (Jewish Christians) sinned presumptously, there no longer remained a sacrifice for sin. Paul, to the body of Christ, tells us that all of our sin has been forgiven, and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption, hence Jim's point... Then you ask,

Did Christ die for both Jew and Gentile, or just Gentile?

Gee, I wonder... What does that have to do with our discussion?

Sheep, do you agree or disagree that Hebrews 10:26-29 is in the same genre as Numbers 15?

--Jeremy

[Macarthur]

First, Constantine is a horrible example of a Christian, as he was clearly motivated by political purpose in his "acceptance" of Christianity. It is highly unlikely he was saved, although anything is possible. Regardless, he's a very poor example.

Second, water baptism is not required for salvation; this is almost universally agreed to and is very clear in the epistles of the New Testament.

Third... and this is where many will disagree with me... You would not apply Leviticus directly to your life today, I would assume. Why? Because while it is for our understanding and edification, it is not TO us. By the same token, the letters of Peter, James, John (including Revelation) and Jude and the epistle to the Hebrews were written... well, to the Hebrews. To the 12 tribes.

Which tribe are you? You're not, are you? We are not Israel. And while these letters in the New Testament are useful for our understanding of what God was working with in the 1st century... as you already saw, not all of the Bible is directly applicable to you, today. You are not a Hebrew. You are not of the 12 tribes. And that letter was not written to you or me. We are of the Body of Christ, which is referred to ONLY by Paul. He is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and preached the Gospel of the Gentiles.

Look to Paul on matters of salvation and eternal life. Paul teaches (contrary to that passage in Hebrews) that you are sealed by the Holy Spirit and guaranteed an inheritance.

Ephesians 1:13-14

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Whereas the Jewish epistles suggest that we will be forgiven IF we forgive others (and do other good works), Paul on the contrary says that because we have been forgiven, so we should forgive others and do other good works. The order is reversed.

Don't apply Israel's covenant to your Gentile self. You're not a Jew.

You are one of the few Christians that I have seen on this board that has had a realistic view of Constantine. Why do you think many Christians are not willing to admit that his making Chrisitianity the official religion of Rome was much more political than "conversion". And if you accept that Constantine was politically motivated, then does that call into question anything regarding the Nicean "meetings" and the pressure that those church leaders were under to "create" a Bible.

[Sheepdog]

What? Did you not read your own post? You said,

uh yeah.... i was using the Law as a comparison point, as the Hebrews writer did. It's an analogy. Actually, it more accurate to say he is arguing from the lesser to the greater.

Secondly, if you argue that Hebrews 10 is dealing with unrepentant sin, and not the law, then I ask, how do you define sin? Give me an example of a sin that would not be explained under the Mosaic Law.

moot. the writer already outlined what he is talking about: How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? v.29. Shall we dig up the writer himself for you to debate this with

Where does this passage speak of God's grace?

it's implied throughout the book. specifically, note the verse i quoted above. sure he doesn't explicitely use the word, but wasn't that what the New covenant, the blood of that covenant, and the Spirit of grace is about? (err... i guess it does literally use the word, but you know what i mean). some, including myself, have noticed that the writer seems to have been influenced by Paul (I used to believe it was Paul himself, but that view turns out to be problematic).

This passage is all about sinning against God and breaking His law. If they committed a high handed sin against God, there no longer remained a sacrifice for sin... Not even Jesus Christ.

then isn't the case the same for us? because above you tried to make me link sin with breaking of the Law. when was the last time you sinned?

You also failed to respond to Jim's point...

But if they are two groups that are preaching the exact same set of doctrines, then one must be alarmed at the conspicuous absence in Paul's teachings of this extraordinarily important doctrine of losing one's salvation and there not being any more sacrifice for such a one as this. And likewise, one must be concerned about the complete absense in the Jewish epistles of this doctrine that a believer is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise and guaranteed our inheritance. But no, we don't see that at all.

Paul is not, indeed, absent of the doctrine of conditional security. 1Tim. 4:1, which no Calvinist i've seen has even approached to refute, stands as an example. the "sealing of the Spirit," however, i suspect has been interpreted too liberally. i'd have to look at the specific passage in context sometime when i got the time.

The author of Hebrews (Peter) says if they (Jewish Christians) sinned presumptously, there no longer remained a sacrifice for sin. Paul, to the body of Christ, tells us that all of our sin has been forgiven, and we are sealed by the Holy Spirit for the day of redemption, hence Jim's point...

Jesus also said that all of a man's sin will be forgiven, except the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. shall we play connect the dots?

Gee, I wonder... What does that have to do with our discussion?

it seems odd that God would arbitrarily have different rules for two sets of people, covered by the same grace and in the same Covenant. why not "seal with the Spirit" the Jews? why not leave the Gentile to die in his sin if he tramples underfoot the sacrifice of Christ? then again, Acts [number] Dispensationalism in general seems arbitrary to me.

Sheep, do you agree or disagree that Hebrews 10:26-29 is in the same genre as Numbers 15?

moot, even if it is. Num. 15 speaks to a people under the Old Covenant, while Heb. is addressed to a people under the New. What has been said about new wine in old wineskins, a new patch on old fabric?