For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:14)
According to Sangster, “The author is concerned to stress the completeness of Christ’s sacrifice and its utter efficacy for the faithful in all generations. Nor can the closest scrutiny of the text sustain the meaning Wesley had most in mind.”((Sangster, The Path to Perfection, 45.))
William Burt Pope believed this verse refers to the objective perfection of the atoning provision and anticipates the eternal future.((Pope, Compendium, 3:57.)) In other words, the atonement of Christ was perfect. Wesley commented that Christ “has done all that was needful in order to their full reconciliation with God.”((Wesley, Notes, 584.))
Certainly, that much is not controversial. R. Newton Flew added that this verse “does not give us our point that perfection on earth is a promised goal. It is rather an assertion of the never-failing efficacy of the supreme deed of Christ.”((Flew, The Idea of Perfection, 74.))
But those who are being sanctified are the direct object of Christ’s atonement. And the following verses cite Jeremiah 31:33–34 which promises a new covenant with mankind. Therefore, the interpretative question is to determine the extent of atonement benefits in this life. Again, it is not a point of controversy to declare a progressive sanctification.
The scholars cited are not our enemies if they are attempting to faithfully interpret the scriptural text. And John Wesley is not infallible, although he is also a careful scholar. The doctrine of entire sanctification cannot be dismissed, even if this text does not substantiate it. However, we should take the time to see how Wesley utilized this text. It occurs only once in A Plain Account of Christian Perfection.((Wesley, BE Works, 13:100; in the answer to Q 11 under Further Thoughts upon Christian Perfection.)) In context, Wesley was defending the necessity of Christ’s atonement. Wesley declared that he would rather give up the doctrine of Christian perfection than the doctrine of the atonement. “But we need not give up either one or the other.” Wesley quoted Hebrews 10:14, along with the phrase from Hebrews 7:25, that Christ “ever liveth to make intercession for them,” to emphasize the atonement. Therefore, it is my conclusion that Sangster misinterpreted Wesley’s statement utilizing Hebrews 10:14 as a primary text for entire sanctification.
Gareth Cockrill explained that this verse emphasizes our need for continual participation in the benefits made available through the atonement. Cockrill quoted William Lane, “The writer locates the decisive purging of believers in the past with respect to its accomplishment and in the present with respect to its enjoyment.”((Cockrill, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, 452–453.))
Sermon Suggestions
Rather than offer a holiness sermon outline, I would suggest that our holiness preaching should be based on the atoning work of Christ.
Wesley wrote, “Nothing in the Christian system is of greater consequence than the doctrine of Atonement. It is properly the distinguishing point between Deism and Christianity.”((Wesley, Letter to Mary Bishop, 7 Feb 1778.)) Richard Watson, the first Methodist systematic theologian, was the first ever to assign a separate chapter to entire sanctification, treating it as a further benefit of redemption.((Watson, Theological Institutes, 2:450-467.)) Dale Dunlap wrote of the early Methodists, “The Atonement was the heart of their theology; it was the theme of their preaching; and it was the practical ground of their Christian living and hope of glory.”((Dunlap, “Methodist Theology in Great Britain,” 100.))