What is the holiness referred to?

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews states in Hebrews 10:10 that by that will of God, we have been sanctified. What does it mean to be sanctified? There are different glosses for the verb ἁγιάζω, but the one that suits our context best has to do with setting something apart as holy.⁵ God is holy, which means that things that are dedicated to God must be set apart (consecrated) as holy. We find examples of the verb ἁγιάζω used in the sense of setting something apart as holy for God’s use. In Exodus 13:12, God commands Moses to set apart for God all the firstborn males of Israel, both man and beast. We find the verb used in a similar manner in Exodus 28:41, where God commands that Aaron’s sons are to be set apart as priests. The notion is that, although everything belongs to God as the creator, because of sin and defilement, the things that God will interact with need to be specifically consecrated.

Now the author of Hebrews explains that through Jesus’ sacrifice, believers have been set apart, or consecrated, once and for all. Hebrews 10:10 is the culmination of his argument that the blood of goats and the rituals of the priests were unable to cleanse the people (Hebrews 9:6–10). He has explained that in the old covenant, the blood was sprinkled in order to consecrate persons who were defiled (Hebrews 9:13). It was also sprinkled on the tent and the vessels to purify them, but these rituals were ineffective (Hebrews 9:22–23). The substance of these rituals is the offering of Jesus’ body. Since Jesus was perfect, God accepts his sacrifice for our sin.⁶ Jesus’ body was not only offered as a sacrifice, but through his sacrifice he carried the punishment that our sins deserve. This means that through Christ’s blood believers are consecrated, and since we are consecrated, we now have access to God.

Counterargument:

There are different glosses of the term ἁγιάζω. For example, we might take it in the sense of to purify or to eliminate that which is incompatible with holiness.⁷ If we take the verb in the sense of eliminating that which is incompatible with holiness, this fits well with the context of Hebrews 10:10. We know from Hebrews 10:4 that the same sacrifices being offered in the old covenant, year after year, are not able to take away sins. That’s why Jesus’ sacrifice is superior. He is able to take away sins and by so doing, he has eliminated that which is incompatible with holiness. The implication is that not only are believers set apart, but they are made pure through Jesus’ sacrifice.⁸

Response to counterargument:

It is hard to see what it means that believers are made pure, except in the symbolic sense that believers are set apart as though they are pure, because of Christ’s sacrifice. To be literally pure is to have as one’s essential nature the characteristic of purity. If one had the essential characteristic of impurity, it would follow that one is unable to perform any sin, because essentially pure beings cannot sin. Of course, believers continue to sin, even though we might struggle against sin fiercely. This implies that when Christ sanctified us, he set us apart as holy for God by taking the punishment that our sins deserve. God accepts Christ’s offer to pay for our sins because Christ obeyed God perfectly. Therefore, God allows believers access to his throne room because Christ has set us apart once and for all, but still, we struggle against sin in this life.

Explanation:

Since ἁγιάζω (to set apart) is in the perfect passive participle form, we do well to consider the perfect tense. In its simplest terms, the perfect tense describes an event that was completed in the past but has results existing in the present.⁹ We can draw out what this means through an example. Johnny closed his car door yesterday. The action of closing the car door happened in the past, but there is no result existing in the present. When the door closed, the action ended. On the other hand, if someone has a heart attack, a pacemaker might save his life. The pacemaker saved his life when it was first surgically installed on the heart, but if the pacemaker stops operating, the patient will die. This means that the installation of the pacemaker saved his life in the past and continues to save his life as long as it operates.

So when we come to the verb ἁγιάζω and we notice that it is in the perfect tense, the sense is that when Jesus died on the cross, his sacrifice set us apart once and for all. Like the pacemaker, Jesus’ sacrifice accomplished its purpose in the past, and his accomplishment has continued effect. Of course, unlike the pacemaker, Christ’s sacrifice will never fail, so as long as we believe in Jesus, the ongoing effects of his sacrifice apply.

Now how does all of this help us with the gloss of ἁγιάζω? It is important to note that the perfect tense is normally used to emphasize either the past event or the ongoing effect of the past event in the present.¹⁰ The broader context of Hebrews 10:10 suggests that the author is highlighting the past event of Jesus' sacrifice, which is effective as a sacrifice once and for all. Hebrews 8:1–13 and Hebrews 9:1–28 have explained that Christ’s ministry ushered in a new covenant because, unlike the old sacrificial system, his sacrifice was effective (Hebrews 8:13). The old covenant involved sacrifices that could never alleviate the sins of the people (Hebrews 10:4), while Jesus’ sacrifice is accomplished once, and complete (Hebrews 10:10).

Our glosses for ἁγιάζω might include 1) to set something apart for God, 2) to treat as holy, as in reverence, or 3) to eliminate that which is incompatible with holiness. Since the author is emphasizing what Jesus accomplished through his sacrifice, it is likely that he has to set apart for God in mind because that is what Jesus’ sacrifice accomplished. He set believers apart for God by carrying the punishment their sins deserved.

Counterargument:

When we reach Hebrews 10:14 we read that Christ’s sacrifice perfected for all time τους ἁγιαζομένους (those who are sanctified). Here we have the same verb ἁγιάζω as a substantive participle referring to the believers of Hebrews 10:10 who have been sanctified by Christ’s sacrifice. In this case, the participle is in the present tense, which carries the sense of ongoing action in the present. In other words, the emphasis is on the status of the believers in the present. Jesus has eliminated that which is incompatible with holiness, and this has perfected the ones who are sanctified for all time.

Response to counterargument:

The gloss that Jesus has eliminated that which is incompatible with holiness is true in the sense that God is perfectly holy and just. This means that in order for humans to be in a relationship with God, justice needs to be satisfied, which entails the punishment for our sins. Since our sins made us incompatible with holiness, and God’s perfect justice meant that our sins had to be punished, once Jesus carried the punishment for our sins, he eliminated that which was incompatible with holiness, that is unpunished sin. Still, we are not perfect and continue to sin (argument 1, response to counterargument). This means that we should take the present tense of ἁγιάζω in the sense of ongoing effects. Jesus’ sacrifice set us apart because, although he only had to make one sacrifice, that sacrifice has a continual effect for believers.

So, Jesus’ sacrifice eliminates what stood between us and God’s holiness, and believers continually share in the effect of Christ’s one sacrifice. Still, we continue to sin in this life, even though we struggle against it and are not yet essentially pure. Therefore, the gloss set apart captures the nuance of Hebrews 10:10 better than eliminate that which is incompatible with holiness.

Possible weaknesses:

The one weakness of this view is that consecration, or setting apart, might not do justice to Christ’s perfect offering. We know that in the old covenant, objects and people were set apart for God through certain rituals. We also know from Hebrews that these rituals were inadequate to produce any significant change. Christ’s sacrifice on the other hand is perfect and adequate. Therefore, one might argue that the term ἁγιάζω should be understood in a deeper sense than set apart when it is used in the context of Christ’s sacrifice.

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews indicates that through Christ’s sacrifice, believers have been made holy. This means that we were alienated from God, and in a moment, someone acted on our behalf so that we became pure.¹⁴ In other words, from God’s perspective we are objectively holy.¹⁵

The construction of the Greek offers two clues for thinking that believers are objectively holy through Christ’s sacrifice. For one, the perfect tense of the verb ἁγιάζω (to sanctify) carries the sense of an action that was completed in the past with ongoing effect. This means that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross sanctified in the moment that it occurred, and that work of sanctification has an ongoing effect. Further, the author ends the clause with the adverb ἐφάπαξ (once for all). The implication is that Jesus’ sacrifice only had to be offered once in order for believers’ sanctification to be accomplished.¹⁶

Counterargument:

It is hard to see how people are objectively sanctified before God through Christ’s sacrifice when people continue to sin (see Interpretation 1, argument a) response to counterargument). If in an instant Christ made believers pure, believers would no longer have sinful desires or habits, but clearly this is not the case. For this reason, it is better to consider Christ’s sacrifice as setting believers apart for God, even though we are still sinful.

Response to counterargument:

Objective sanctification means that our status before God has changed, not that essential human nature has changed. There is a difference between objective and subjective sanctification.¹⁷ Objective sanctification is the notion that in an instant, believers’ status before God shifted from unclean to clean due to Christ’s sacrifice. Still, there is also a subjective element, which entails that believers deny themselves and be renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The objective element is complete, but the subjective element will not be fully accomplished in this life.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that it encroaches on a logical contradiction. The claim is that believers are objectively holy through Christ’s sacrifice.¹⁸ At the same time, believers are not objectively holy.¹⁹ Such claims are confusing unless they are articulated very carefully. For example, it is better to say that believers’ status is holy, but believers themselves are not. Of course, when one takes such an approach, one has essentially conceded to Interpretation 1, which argues that Christ’s sacrifice sets believers apart as holy. In other words, God welcomes believers into his presence, as though they are holy, for the sake of Christ. The claim is not that believers are actually holy but consecrated as such. One might call this objective sanctification, but the Old Testament language of consecration might be clearer.