In regards to forgiveness, is there a difference between willful sin and ignorant sin?

There was no forgiveness for sins done with a high hand under the law. It is said distinctly, "if a soul shall sin through ignorance." Paul says mercy was shewn him "because I did it ignorantly in unbelief." So of old, if a man sinned haughtily, as in blasphemy, he was stoned. There is forgiveness for such sins now; but not if done after full knowledge of Christ so as to give Him up. "If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins."

*Besides, for Israel under law wilful sin was without resource. The law admitted of none. Whoever committed it should be put away from amidst the people. Remark, amongst others, the case of Achan, a wilful sinner who had to be cut off, whilst Israel, on the same occasion, having sinned through ignorance, could be restored. Under grace there is a perfect resource for all sins — "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin." There is only one wilful sin which is now without resource, it is apostasy from Christianity; that is to say, the abandonment of Christ and His sacrifice. "If we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins." (Heb. 10:26.)

A Warning. — Hence follows the solemn warning: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and has done despite to the Spirit of grace? For we know Him that has said, Vengeance belongs to Me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (10:26-31). We quote the passage in full. Solemn words indeed they are, foretelling Divine judgment, with no hope of escape, if the condition here described becomes true of an individual. For it should be remarked that, whilst referring to some professed believers (25) who were not assembling themselves with the Christian community, the writer does not style them apostates. They might yet be recovered, though to all appearance they were in great danger of apostatising. God is patient. He desires not the perdition of the sinner, and would recover any such if possible (2 Tim. 2:25-26; Jude 22-23; Rev. 3:14-21). But if the course was a persistent one — sinning wilfully, the term implying the habit, not a temporary relapse, after the individual had received the knowledge of the truth (and by knowledge is here meant clear apprehension of the truth) — there was no sacrifice available. The truth — and by this Christian revelation is here described — had been before the individual, who had professed to accept it, and who now wilfully, persistently, and finally surrendered it by a relapse to Judaism. There was no sacrifice for sins for such a one. The only real one he had wilfully turned from, and had gone back to that which, by his profession of Christianity, he had once declared, and rightly, could never meet his case; for the blood of bulls and of goats could never take away sins. If Judaism could not meet his need, and if the sacrifice of Christ he had repudiated, where and how was he to get forgiveness of his sins? A sacrifice for sins was required. Those in Judaism owned that. Where could it be found if that of Christ on the cross was wilfully spurned? Again are we reminded that it is a question for the guilty creature of the perfect sacrifice of Christ or nothing.

David was well qualified to write on this important subject. He does not say, "Blessed is he who keeps the ten commandments," for this would allow no blessing for anyone. But when he was faced with his own sin, he finally broke down in confession, and was assured by God through the prophet Nathan that his sin was forgiven (v. 1). Indeed, his sin was also transgression, the breaking of a known law, so that he had no semblance of excuse. It was no sin of ignorance: in fact, it was more serious than transgression: it was iniquity. Sin is positive, transgression is comparative, but iniquity is superlative; and David's guilt was absolute wickedness. Our greatest difficulties do not come from sins of ignorance, but from deliberately doing what we know is sin. yet one of the most difficult matters for us is to candidly confess our guilt.

After all, where God was thus before the soul, and there was entire honest- heartedness, not only an individual but the whole congregation might err, and error would need atonement. Where God's Word is perfect, and able to furnish thoroughly to every good work, failure must be, no matter what the point, our own sin. If ignorant, yet why were we ignorant? Ignorance means negligence in some way: stupidity, want of ability to take in the truth, is not excused as if it were the fault of the mind only: God giveth wisdom to the simple. The "fool" is, in Scripture, he for whom God is not. (Ps. 14:1.) If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, and it shall be given him. (James 1:5.) This, then, being true, the plea of ignorance only avails in one way, — to distinguish from presumptuous sin. Thus of the sin of his unconverted state the apostle could say, "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief:" (1 Tim. 1:13.) And so he says to professing Christians, If we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking-for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:26-27.)

There are doubtless sins also which come between sins of ignorance and such as in fact are the "willful" sins of those who, with "knowledge of the truth," show themselves "adversaries. Peter in the high-priest's palace is a clear example of this. When he denied with oaths and curses that he knew the Man, certainly it was not ignorance that spoke in him; and yet he was not an "adversary." He had got, through self-confidence, into a place where circumstances were too much for him, and the fear of man wrung from him words base in their cowardice, and to be bitterly repented of. But an adversary he was not; and the grace of the Lord acts in its own blessed way toward the transgressor. This class of sins is not considered in the passage before us.

Between sins of ignorance and presumptuous sins there is, of course, an immense difference. While all sin is, as already said, sin, and the want of knowledge can never justify us, with God's word in our hand, and Himself so accessible for our enlightenment, yet a sin committed in real ignorance does not shut out God as a sin against conscience does. If it were so, communion would be impossible to any, short of practical perfection. But He is tender and merciful, and of infinite compassion. It would not be this to pass over that which argues a spirit of "revolt," which trifles with His known will. Here, too, we must take care; for we may trifle with His will by refusing to seek the light, as well as by refusing to walk by it when we have it. And this, one must fear, is the cause of many blighted lives among the children of God. They do not know, indeed, the evil paths they are in, but they have, nevertheless, as it were instinctively, turned from and refused the knowledge. Not willing to be disturbed, or to abide the cost of truth, they give up seeking it, — at least, in the dreaded line. But they cannot so escape from the consequences, terrible as some day they will find them, of real disobedience.

We should distinguish between the forgiveness we receive when we first come to the Lord Jesus, and the forgiveness we receive from God when, as His redeemed children, we have sinned against Him through our carelessness, and foolishness, and perhaps our wilfulness. In the former case, we come as sinners, and receive from Him full and free forgiveness of all our sins; in the latter, we come as His children, not only to be forgiven, but to be restored to communion with Him, which we had lost through our sins. He is ever ready to forgive us our sins, when we confess them to Him, for He longs to have us near to Himself, in communion with Him, to enjoy all the fulness of His love.

I might say here that it was only for sins of ignorance that a sacrifice could be offered. There was no sacrifice provided under the law for willful, presumptuous sins. The Holy Spirit, in Hebrews 10:26, no doubt refers to this. "If we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins" — no more sin offering. Some here might like to know the meaning of that scripture. To explain it, however, would occupy too much time now, but I may just say that sinning willfully is not spoken of in reference to a true child of God getting away from the Lord and falling into sin. It refers to one who gave up Christianity altogether, to an apostate from the faith, one who denies the value of the precious blood; it does not refer to a backsliding Christian at all.

The apostle here puts diligent faithfulness in contrast to apostasy. For verse 26 is the willful rejection of the Christ who was once acknowledged. "For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite into the Spirit of grace?"

This is no case of a weak believer giving way to sinful conduct, for in such a case there is a restoring remedy. Compare James 5:19, 20; Galatians 6:1; 1 John 2:1. But here there is no remedy. The greatness of the Person of Christ and the perfection of His sacrifices have been here discussed in wonderful fulness. The willful sin of verse 26 is therefore the cold, deliberate rejection of this marvelous revelation of God, in the very face of having been intellectually enlightened. Notice, it is after receiving the knowledge of the truth, - not receiving the truth itself, or "the love of the truth." as is expressed in 2 Thessalonians 2. Some Jews who had professed Christianity were already revolting against it. In acknowledging it, they were admitting the necessity for a sacrifice to take away sins. Now in refusing it, they were choosing a position where there was no sacrifice for sins whatever. How dreadfully hopeless! Positive, certain judgment was the only alternative, fiery indignation, which should devour the adversaries. For in such a stand they became the callous adversaries of the God of Israel.

Because of our sinful nature there are sins we commit without realizing at the time that such things are sin. Certainly the Lord does not allow the foolish present-day notion that so long as we think a thing is alright, then it is not sin. Sin is sin, no matter what we think about it. Yet if it is done through inadvertence, this is much different than when it is boldly committed in the face of knowing it to be wrong.

For the unintentional sin therefore the Lord provided a sacrifice. The whole congregation of Israel might be guilty of such sin, and when afterward it was brought to their attention as being sin, they were to offer one young bull as a burnt offering, together with its grain offering and drink offering, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering (v.24). The burnt offering speaks of God's glory being the first consideration in this matter, and with it the reminder that the perfect Man, Christ Jesus (the grain offering) is the one standard of sinlessness, who is therefore the only acceptable burnt offering. The drink offering was to symbolize Israel's joy in being so blessed by the offering. The sin offering was essential too as that which fully atones for sin, so that Israel could be forgiven (vs.25-26).