In a little while the coming one will come and will not delay; "but my righteous one shall live by faith," and God has no pleasure in the one who shrinks back. But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:37–39).

Whom does the writer of Hebrews have in mind with "those who shrink back"? As I often emphasize, we must look at the context. Just before this, the writer commands his readers, "Do not throw away your confidence" (Hebrews 10:35). What confidence? Going back further, we read that we have confidence to enter the holy places "by the blood of Jesus," by the new and living way (cf. Hebrews 10:19–20). The confidence is the hope of eternal forgiveness that comes through the New Covenant inaugurated by the blood of Christ and received by faith.

In contrast to this confidence is the Old Covenant Mosaic Law, whose basis of forgiveness was a Levitical system of sacrifices that had to be offered repeatedly by imperfect priests. What is more, I believe this system provided atonement ("covering") primarily for unintentional sins; there was no sacrifice for "high-handed" or defiant sins. This is why the writer of Hebrews says that if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:26–27).

I believe he was not talking about true Christians but about those who trust in the Mosaic Law. The "we" here is rhetorical and does not suggest that the writer himself is at risk of losing his salvation. What is more, judgment would fall on those who trust the Old Covenant, just as anyone who set aside the Law of Moses died without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses (cf. Hebrews 10:28).

Those who trusted in the Old Covenant would not only fail to receive forgiveness for their deliberate sins, but would be doubly condemned, because trusting in the Old Covenant meant rejecting the better New Covenant that came by the blood of the Son of God. Since God had now revealed that the only way to righteousness was through the blood of His Son, those who continued in the old way were disregarding, devaluing, and rejecting God's chosen path of grace. So the writer asks how much worse punishment will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:29).

Now we can understand whom the writer means by those who "shrink back." They are those who fail to trust in Christ alone for their salvation, who still choose to rely on the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant as the basis of their hope. That is why the writer cites the text, "my righteous one shall live by faith." When Paul begins his great thesis on salvation by faith alone, over against salvation by the works of the Law, he writes that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith" (a paraphrase of Romans 1:17). And he writes to the Galatians that all who rely on works of the law are under a curse, for it is written that everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law is cursed; and it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "the righteous shall live by faith" (a paraphrase of Galatians 3:10–11).

Certainly the true Christians to whom Hebrews was written were not among those who shrink back from the Gospel — salvation based solely on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. "We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed" (cf. Hebrews 10:39).

Friends, you and I also are not among those who shrink back, for we have trusted in Christ alone for our salvation and have put no confidence in our ability to obey the Law.

At the same time, I am calling out those preachers and teachers who continue to teach the Old Covenant Mosaic Law as though it were still binding on Christians. I know you would not go so far as to say obedience to the Law is necessary for salvation, but why burden believers with something God declares obsolete (cf. Hebrews 8:13), weak, and useless (cf. Hebrews 7:18–19)? Is the Law obsolete only with regard to salvation? I believe it is obsolete as a rule of life as well. That is why Paul writes that we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (a paraphrase of Romans 7:6).

This is why he reasons: if with Christ they died to the elemental spirits of the world, why do they submit to regulations — "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" — according to human precepts and teachings? These have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, but are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh (a paraphrase of Colossians 2:20–23). In the same context Paul writes even more specifically: let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival, a new moon, or a Sabbath; these are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ (a paraphrase of Colossians 2:16–17).

Paul also rebukes the Galatians for beginning in faith (their justification) but not continuing in faith (their sanctification): "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" Did they receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Having begun by the Spirit, were they now being perfected by the flesh? (a paraphrase of Galatians 3:1–3).

In the past, I believe the teaching that the Old Testament Law continues to apply was found mainly in groups outside the evangelical mainstream, but now it has entered some mainline evangelical churches. It seems to me that it is not so much that denominations have embraced such teaching, but that individual pastors and teachers who are not well versed in the Scriptures are teaching these things.

If pastors and teachers can get it wrong, what about the average layperson? That is why I encourage everyone to be experts in the Word and not rely simply on the teaching and preaching of their religious leaders. You will not be judged for what they teach but for what you believe and practice.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The comment's observation about "deliberate" sin draws on a real Old Testament distinction. Numbers 15:27–31 provides sacrifices for unintentional sins but says the person who sins "with a high hand" — in open defiance of the Lord — "shall be utterly cut off." At the same time, the Law did provide for some deliberate wrongs: Leviticus 6:1–7 prescribes a guilt offering for someone who lies, steals, or defrauds a neighbor and then confesses and makes restitution. And the Day of Atonement covered "all their iniquities, and all their transgressions, all their sins" (Leviticus 16:21). The "deliberate sin" of Hebrews 10:26 is usually understood in the high-handed sense — a knowing, persistent rejection of Christ's sacrifice after receiving the truth.

Interpreters differ on whom Hebrews 10:26–39 warns, as with Hebrews 6 (see #1953). The comment's reading — that it describes those who return to trust in the old covenant system — fits the letter's context well, since the readers were under pressure to abandon Christ for the Temple. Others read it as a warning to professing believers generally. All readings recognize the same pastoral pattern: the severe warning is immediately followed by encouragement, as the writer reminds his readers of their past endurance and joyful sacrifice (10:32–34) and assures them, "we are not of those who shrink back."

On whether the Old Testament moral law guides believers as a "rule of life," Christians hold different views in good faith; see #1943 and #1947.

Friends, this reading is rather important to understand some significant truths regarding the Christian and the Old Testament.

First, Paul argues that Jesus was not your typical High Priest, for He was neither of the line of Levi, nor of the line of Aaron, both of which were required to serve as high priest in Israel. Jesus was from the tribe of Judah. However, He became a high priest on a different basis, namely, on the basis of God's oath (or decree), that is, the one given in Psalm 110:4, which reads,

The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.

But how is this possible since the Mosaic Law specified the necessity of Levitical, Aaronic lineage for the priesthood? God changed the law:

For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (Hebrews 7:18).

This would begin Paul's extensive argument of the displacement of the Old Covenant with the New through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 8:13; 10:9). The new covenant was a better covenant (Hebrews 7:22), not based on "the law of a fleshly commandment" but based on "the power of an endless life" (Hebrews 7:16). The Old Covenant was weak and unprofitable because it was unable to perfect anyone (Hebrews 7:18–19a; 10:1). But through the New Covenant in Christ people would have a better hope in drawing near to God (Hebrews 7:19b).

As the New Covenant is better and greater than the Old (Hebrews 7:22; 8:7), so Christ's High Priesthood is better and greater than the Levitical, Aaronic Priesthood. The Levitical priests died and so could not continue to intercede beyond their lives, but Christ continues with an unchangeable priesthood so that He always live to intercede for believers (Hebrews 7:23–25). Unlike the Old Covenant priests, who were sinners and had to offer up daily sacrifices for their sins as well as that of the people, Christ was sinless and perfect so that He might offer up Himself once-for-all (Hebrews 7:26–28).

Here, then, is Paul's conclusion regarding the Old Covenant, which we should understand is the whole of what God commanded Moses to tell the Israelites at Sinai and then again in the Plains of Moab. This would include not just what are typically known as the ceremonial and civil commands of God (i.e. the hundreds of commands in the Books of the Law) but also the Ten Commandments (or lit. "the ten words"):

In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13).

God has changed the Law so that Christ Jesus, of the line of Judah and not Levi, could be our High Priest. He also instituted through Christ a better and greater covenant than the one He made with Israel through Moses. Paul's argument is that since God declared this covenant to be "new," he has made the "old" obsolete. And since he writes that "what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away," the Law, having already become obsolete, has in a sense vanished away.

The final nail on the coffin for the Old Covenant was Christ's death on the cross.

For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives (Hebrews 9:16–17).

Therefore, when Christ was crucified, the New Covenant was ratified through His blood (i.e. His death) (Matthew 26:28; Colossians 2:14; Romans 7:1–6), so that now we live "in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6). This new way is predominantly given in the New Testament epistles. These, for all practical practices, have displaced the five books of the Law in the Old Testament.

What is the profound significance of this? It means that everything associated with the Old Covenant Mosaic Law has no more direct application for the Christian. You are no longer bound to follow the Ten Commandments or any of the other ordinances of the Law. You are free from the curses associated with violating the Law; and likewise, you are restricted from claiming any of the blessings associated with obeying it. So, the next time you read any promise in the Old Testament associated with the Law, you should not be so quick to claim it or apply it to yourself. Furthermore, you need not be guilted into obeying any of the Old Covenant commands. Granted, a number of them are repeated in the New Covenant, but this does not validate the Old Covenant. It may just point to the timelessness of certain moral principles.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Hebrews 7 argues from a difficulty within the Mosaic arrangement: Jesus belongs to Judah, not the priestly tribe of Levi. Psalm 110 supplies the scriptural basis for a different priesthood established by God's oath. The change is not presented as an irregular exception that leaves the old system wholly intact. A change of priesthood entails a change of law, and Hebrews 8 identifies the promised new covenant through Jeremiah 31. The original correctly follows the argument beyond an isolated rule about priestly ancestry. Read Hebrews 7:11–28 and 8:6–13.

The new covenant's superiority lies in what Christ accomplishes: effective cleansing, access to God, and a priesthood that death cannot terminate. The old covenant's obsolescence should therefore be explained through the achievement of the Son, not through a suggestion that God's earlier revelation was mistaken. Hebrews treats the old institutions as significant witnesses whose limitations point beyond themselves.

The original draws a strong conclusion that every Mosaic command, including the Decalogue, loses direct covenantal authority over Christians. That is a recognizable interpretation, but Christians differ over how moral continuity should be described. Some emphasize the law of Christ and the reappearance of particular commands in apostolic teaching; others distinguish moral obligations from Israel's ceremonial and civil arrangements. Hebrews clearly teaches the inadequacy and replacement of the former priestly covenant. Settling the precise continuing function of each command requires attention to the rest of the New Testament as well.

The practical distinction is between covenantal administration and moral indifference. Freedom from the Mosaic covenant cannot mean freedom from truthfulness, fidelity, generosity, or love. Hebrews itself follows its doctrinal argument with demanding ethical instruction. A reader can therefore recognize the decisive covenantal change while continuing to learn from the Old Testament, asking how its commands reveal God's purposes and how those purposes are fulfilled and taught under Christ.

Friends, today's passage shows how Jesus is the superior high priest, even though He wasn't born into Aaron's line, the patriarch of the priesthood under the Law of Moses. Since Jesus is the greater high priest, the New Covenant inaugurated in His blood is a better covenant than the Old, which was inaugurated by the blood of animals. As I've mentioned before, Hebrews 8:13 teaches that the Old Covenant — the Mosaic Law in every respect, moral, civil, and ceremonial — is "obsolete." But the covenant of grace, made effective through Christ's blood, gives us confidence to boldly approach God — something the Old Covenant only permitted the high priest to do, and only once a year, on the Day of Atonement.

Since we now have confidence to enter the holy place by Jesus's blood, through the new and living way He opened through the veil of His own flesh, and since we have a great priest over God's house, we're urged to draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, hearts sprinkled clean from a guilty conscience and bodies washed with pure water; to hold fast our confession of hope without wavering, since the One who promised is faithful; and to consider how to spur one another toward love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as some have made a habit of doing, but encouraging each other, all the more as we see the day drawing near (a paraphrase of Hebrews 10:19–25).

Notice the writer uses "let us" three times. First, "let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith" — approaching God by faith, enabled to do so through Christ's sacrifice for our sins. Second, "let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering" — trusting that He who began the good work of salvation in us will be faithful to complete it (cf. Philippians 1:6). Finally, "let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds" — ministering to each other so that every believer is inspired toward obedience.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Worth noting how the writer sequences these three exhortations rather than listing them at random — inward faith toward God comes first, then steady hope maintained over time, then outward attention to fellow believers. That ordering suggests the third exhortation (spurring one another on) isn't meant to substitute for the first two, but to flow out of them — a community capable of genuinely encouraging each other in "love and good deeds" is presented here as the natural byproduct of individuals who've already drawn near to God in faith and taken hold of hope, not as a separate program layered on top of personal devotion.