(Edited 10/4/24) To download a PDF of this paper, click here.

Introduction

In an undated paper entitled “Sin Sacrifice,” C. M. Hegg presents an explanation of Pronomian theology¹ on the issue of sin sacrifices. He specifically seeks to defend his position that “God’s law hasn’t changed and that one day we will see another temple built with sacrifices reinstated.”² Hegg acknowledges the common objection from orthodox Christianity³ that “even thinking about making a sin sacrifice is like spitting on the work of Christ on the cross.”⁴ Thus, he sets out to methodically explain why he does not believe that the idea of future sin sacrifices should be seen as a challenge to the sacrifice of Jesus, concluding, “The two are not dealing in the same realm or with the same elements.”⁵

This paper will show that the Pronomian position put forward by Hegg and taught by other Torah-keeping teachers strips the cross of Christ of its full atoning power by requiring believers to take further steps to atone for sin that the blood of Jesus did not cover. It is, thus, my sincere hope and prayer that this response will compel such teachers to recognize their error and adjust their theology accordingly. The text of Scripture requires us to recognize that the old covenant law is not incumbent upon Christians in its entirety. As this paper will show, God’s requirement for the repeated sacrifices of animals to atone for sin has come to an end. It was fulfilled once and for all by Jesus on the cross. Acknowledging this biblical fact would allow Pronomian and other Torah-keeping teachers to remain true to the gospel of Jesus.

Summary of the Pronomian Case

To establish his case, C. M. Hegg quotes Tim Hegg,⁶ who maintains a “distinction between temporal and eternal atonement, the former dealing with the earthly Tabernacle or Temple, and the latter having to do with God’s declaration of a sinner as eternally and completely forgiven on the basis of Yeshua’s sacrifice for sin.”⁷ The weight of the argument put forward by C. M. Hegg rests on the distinction between these two types of atonement, which he views as restricted to separate realms. Temporal atonement is for the earthly sanctuary, while eternal atonement is for

a different Holy of Holies in the heavenly realm, which atoned for our sin in a spiritual, eternal, and judicial way . . . Thus, when a temple is re-established and a priest sins in this temporal world, his sin will still affect the temporal space where the glory of God resides. The two are not dealing in the same realm or with the same elements.⁸

Hegg posits that the Torah’s sin sacrifices “provide a temporal and physical atonement, but they do not affect the justification of the believer on an eternal level.”⁹ On that basis, he concludes, “To assume the sacrificial system has been done away with assumes that it had to do with our sin on a spiritual level.”¹⁰ In this way, Hegg harmonizes his Pronomian theology—which holds that the entirety of the old covenant law (including its requirements for sin sacrifices) is still in effect today—with the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. If his premises are valid, his argument could certainly be true. It is to these premises we now turn.

Analysis of the Pronomian Position

We begin with three points of agreement. First, Hegg’s argument begins with the premise that the Torah’s sin sacrifices did not serve a soteriological function. He says the view of the sacrificial system as “God’s method of justifying His people before Yeshua completed his work on the cross . . . should be firmly rejected by believers.”¹¹ Indeed, his general position on salvation largely aligns with orthodox Christianity: “God saves His elect in the same way He always has—salvation comes by the grace of God through faith.”¹²

If the Torah’s sin sacrifices did not provide eternal salvation for the Israelites, what was their purpose? Here, we find a second point of agreement: Hegg holds that the substitutionary animal sacrifices commanded by Yahweh prefigured the work of Christ. He notes,

The sacrificial system was certainly a sign of the work our Lord would accomplish on the cross, but the sacrifices also accomplished something in their own right. In other words, the sacrificial system was not merely symbolic; it actually accomplished what the text of Leviticus tells us it would.¹³

Like many Torah rituals, the sin sacrifices were both symbolic and functional. A third point of agreement is found regarding the function they served. Hegg writes, “Leviticus makes it clear that sacrifices did in fact ‘atone’ for the sacrificer and they would be ‘forgiven’ by God.”¹⁴ By placing the words atone and forgiven in quotes, Hegg seems to imply a particular or limited meaning. Unfortunately, he does not elucidate why those terms are singled out. In light of his full case, his emphasis on the concepts of atonement and forgiveness in the quote above serves as a harbinger of the choppy theological waters he now enters. From this point forward, Hegg’s case becomes problematic.

The Purpose of the Torah’s Sin Sacrifices

Despite acknowledging that the Torah’s sin sacrifices “did in fact ‘atone’ for the sacrificer and they would be ‘forgiven’ by God,”¹⁵ the concepts of sin and forgiveness are noticeably absent from Hegg’s view of the purposes of those animal sacrifices. He frames them almost exclusively in terms of the physical space of the sanctuary and ritual purity. Hegg begins by making the following distinction: “The sin sacrifice is not about atoning for the soul or the eternal justification of a person, but rather about addressing the sanctity of the space itself.”¹⁶ This statement directly contradicts the words of Yahweh, who said,

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life. (Leviticus 17:11, ESV, emphasis added)

The Torah’s animal sacrifices were indeed given to the Israelites to atone for the sin that defiled their souls. Because of this, sin sacrifices were prescribed for the ritual cleansing of not only the people but of the sacred physical space where they approached God. Hegg quotes the following passage in Leviticus 16 describing the duty of the high priest on the Day of Atonement:

Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel. Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around. (Leviticus 16:16-18)

Note the uncleanness of the people is specifically due to “their transgressions, all their sins” (v. 16). Leviticus 16 directly connects the atonement sacrifices to the cleansing of sin:

For on this day shall atonement be made for you to cleanse you. You shall be clean before the Lord from all your sins . . . And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins. (Leviticus 16:30, 34)

The ritual of חַטָּאת (hăttā, “sin offering”) was not merely a cleansing of the physical space and the body; it was also a cleansing of the soul. Yahweh declared, “I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Lev. 17:11). The Yom Kippur sacrifices were given for the express purpose of forgiving sin. That was the malady the Israelites needed to be cleansed of. Said another way, if the Israelites were utterly sinless, there would be no need for hăttā.

While the Torah’s sin offerings did not bring an eternal, soteriological forgiveness—such forgiveness is only available through the sacrifice of Christ—they were efficacious in addressing sin. Indeed, the Torah says they imparted divine forgiveness and temporary cleansing from sin. The formula “the priest shall make atonement for them and they shall be forgiven” is repeated twelve times in the Torah.¹⁷ The biblical connection between atonement and forgiveness is paramount to rightly understanding the role of the Torah’s sin sacrifices. Scripture reveals an undeniable spiritual aspect to sin sacrifices in which they affect forgiveness and atonement for one’s soul.

Indeed, Hegg acknowledges the efficacy of sin offerings in both the earthly and spiritual realms. He writes, “The Yom Kippur sacrifice . . . atoned for the sins of Israel as a whole. Yet, the fact that the altar and the sanctuary had to be atoned for shows that the sin of the people affected the physical space and objects in a temporal sense.”¹⁸ He rightly notes that the atonement sacrifice was made to “cover” or “wipe away” the presence of unclean sin in holy places. It is in that sense that the Yom Kippur sacrifices can be viewed as “temporal,” by which C. M. Hegg seems to mean “physical and temporary,” as opposed to “spiritual and eternal.” Tim Hegg describes the function of the animal sacrifices as “effecting ritual purity and thus allowing the person or object that had become ritually impure to return to an acceptable status for participation in worship at the Tabernacle or Temple.”¹⁹

Because the Yom Kippur sacrifices (a.) included rituals intended to cleanse the tabernacle/temple of sin, and (b.) were repeated annually, we must acknowledge that they did serve a physical and temporary function. However, while their temporal application cannot be denied, any argument that the efficacy of such sacrifices was constrained to a physical realm not only suffers from a dearth of scriptural support, it contradicts God Himself. C. M. Hegg states, “The sin sacrifices only dealt with the temporal elements that relate to our space and time here.”²⁰ Yet, Yahweh declared that such rituals were given “to make atonement for your souls” (Lev. 17:11). The Torah’s sin sacrifices were more than mere purity rituals for a physical sanctuary. The most significant aspect of those sacrifices—indeed, their ultimate purpose—played out in the spiritual realm where, before Yahweh, sinful souls were atoned for and divine forgiveness was imparted.

Hegg acknowledges that the Torah’s atonement sacrifices brought forgiveness for sin: “The Yom Kippur sacrifice . . . atoned for the sins of Israel as a whole.”²¹ Yet, contrary to Scripture, he claims “The sin sacrifice is not about atoning for the soul . . . but rather about addressing the sanctity of the space itself.”²² He artificially restricts the efficacy of the Yom Kippur sacrifices to a merely physical realm.

Tim Hegg makes the same error in an undated article:

The atonement affected by the sacrifices in the Tabernacle and Temple was an actual atonement that affected the return of a ‘holy’ or ‘ritually pure’ status to objects and people. This return to such a status was in relationship to the earthly Tabernacle/Temple or to the community itself.²³

While the Hegg’s description of the Torah’s sin sacrifices are not inaccurate, they are dangerously incomplete. C. M. Hegg notes that the author of Hebrews declared, “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb 10:4). Indeed, the Torah’s sin sacrifices did not ἀφαιρέω (aphairein, “take away, remove”) sins, but as we have seen, they did bring forgiveness for them. Indeed, this is the very method Yahweh prescribed to atone for the sins of the Israelites.

Therefore, while we can agree with Hegg’s time-based distinction between “temporary” and “eternal” atonement, his spatial distinction between the physical and spiritual realms must be rejected as artificial and in contradiction with the Torah. Not only does he fail to provide scriptural support for his distinction—indeed, it is offered in his paper as an unsubstantiated claim—we have also seen that the Yom Kippur sacrifices were efficacious in both the physical and spiritual realms. They not only affected the ritual purity of people and objects in sacred places but also the souls of the Israelites, imparting divine forgiveness.  

The Effectiveness of Christ’s Sacrifice

Far more dangerous than the Pronomian view of the Torah’s sin sacrifices is the damage that theology does to the sacrifice of Jesus. It assigns artificial limits to the effectiveness of Christ’s atoning work on the cross and maintains that His sacrifice was insufficient to completely atone for earthly sin. Hegg states,

The altar will continue to need atonement because of sin, and the Sanctuary of God will require atonement due to human sin. Priests will also need atonement on a temporal level, as sin remains present in this world.²⁴

In Hegg’s view, Jesus’s atoning work did not cover all sin. He claims, “Christ’s death on the cross did not atone for spacial uncleanness due to sin in the temporal world.”²⁵ Thus, according to Hegg, New Covenant believers are not wholly covered by Christ’s sacrifice but are instead required to offer the blood of animals to atone for their earthly sins. Indeed, if a temple were operational today, Christians would be required to make such sacrifices at this very moment. The NT says otherwise.

The apostle Paul directly connects the sacrifice of Jesus to the Yom Kippur sacrifices in the Torah via the כַּפֹּ֫רֶת (kăppōrĕt, “mercy seat”).²⁶ The Torah describes the ritual the high priest followed to atone for Israel’s sins. After passing through the curtain to enter the Most Holy Place:

He shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times. Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat. (Leviticus 16:14-15).

Applying the sacrificed animal’s blood to the kăppōrĕt (mercy seat) is how Yahweh commanded atonement be made for sin. The Jewish translators of the Septuagint would later translate kăppōrĕt into Greek as ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). Paul later picked up this word and applied it to Jesus,

whom God put forward as a propitiation (hilastērion) by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Romans 3:25, comment added)

By applying the Greek word hilasterion to the sacrifice of Jesus, Paul points his readers directly back to the Torah and unmistakably links the sacrifice of Jesus to the Yom Kippur sin sacrifices. Christ is the reality to which those Yom Kippur shadows pointed (Heb. 10:1). By the death of His Son, God transferred the locus of atonement from the hilasterion in the Most Holy Place to the cross of Christ. This change was confirmed when, at the moment Jesus died on the cross, God tore apart the very temple curtain that the high priest was required to pass through on Yom Kippur to sprinkle the blood on the hilasterion: “And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split” (Matt. 27:51). That curtain was no longer needed because Torah’s sin sacrifices had come to an end.

Paul says God, “in his divine forbearance…had passed over former sins” (Rom 3:25). The author of Hebrews says, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins” (Heb. 10:4). The Torah’s sin sacrifices were always intended as a temporary measure for dealing with sin—Jesus was always God’s ultimate plan: “He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26).

Hegg seems to conflate the presence of sin with the forgiveness of sin, saying, “Although sin will ultimately be eradicated and God’s people will live without its impact in a future world, this has not yet happened.”²⁷ According to Hegg, unforgiven sin still exists in the Body of Christ (the Church, believers in Jesus), and the way to deal with such unatoned sin is through animal sacrifice. Scripture says otherwise.

The prophet Isaiah, looking forward to the work of Christ, wrote, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool” (Isa. 1:18). This language speaks to absolute purity and the complete forgiveness of sin. The apostle John declared that “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7, emphasis added). The apostle Paul applies the words of King David in Psalm 32 to Christians today: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin” (Rom. 4:7–8). The Lord does not count our sin against us if we are in Christ. The NT elsewhere declares believers “have been set free from sin” (Rom. 6:7, 18, 22; 8:2) and that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21, NIV). The perfect righteousness of God is credited to believers. Those in Christ no longer possess any unforgiven sin in any realm of reality. This doesn’t mean Christians don’t commit sin, of course. It means all of our sins have already been dealt with and forgiven in Christ. Because of His work on the cross, God considers believers white as snow.

Indeed, John wrote, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9, ESV). Under the new covenant, forgiveness and purification come by confession, not the shedding of an animal’s blood. This raises a challenging question for Pronomian theology. If a future temple is built and a formal priesthood restored, why would we expect God’s priests—who are in Christ and set free from sin—to look to the blood of animals for purification rather than relying on confession and the blood of Christ?

Hegg states, “Yeshua’s death on the cross was taken into a different Holy of Holies in the heavenly realm, which atoned for our sin in a spiritual, eternal, and judicial way.”²⁸ While this is true, there is no biblical warrant or basis on which the efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross can be seen as restricted to a heavenly realm. Indeed, Hegg offers no scriptural evidence and does not attempt to substantiate this position.

The NT says Christ’s ministry, sacrifice, and resurrection occurred in and affected the physical realm.

Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5–8)

This raises another question for Pronomian theology. If God’s requirement for the spiritual forgiveness of sin was a sacrifice in the heavenly Holy of Holies, why was the incarnation necessary? Yet Scripture says, “When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4:4). Jesus took on human flesh so He could represent humanity before God, and He was born under the law so he could represent Israel.

He had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. (Hebrews 2:17–18)

Jesus is the high priest of human beings. His ministry is decidedly effective in the earthly realm. Like the animals sacrificed in the Torah, the death that Jesus died was a physical death. Two thousand years ago, the “precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet. 1:19) soaked the dirt under a crude cross outside the earthly city of Jerusalem. At the moment of His death, God tore the physical veil of the earthly sanctuary (Matt. 27:51). This is an unmistakable statement of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice in the physical realm, including the earthly sanctuary. The atonement and subsequent forgiveness that Jesus obtained on the cross is effectual in every square inch of His earth, including any future physical temple that might be built.

Indeed, the Bible unmistakably teaches that such atonement and forgiveness are not hidden away in the heavens. Just days before His crucifixion, Jesus declared, “Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (John 12:31-32). Jesus’s defeat of sin was neither restricted to a heavenly sanctuary nor reserved for a future age. The consistent witness of the NT is that Christ’s victory over sin was won on the cross:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1–2)

You, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. (Colossians 2:13–15)

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. (Romans 6:22)

If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. (Romans 6:11)

Those in Christ are under God’s new covenant, about which He declared, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:34).²⁹ Jesus is how God forgave our iniquity and why He remembers our sin no more. Given such an act of divine grace and mercy, it seems remarkably offensive to suggest that God does remember our sin and, further, that even after the bloody death of His Son, animal sacrifices will one day be reinstated as His mechanism of atonement and forgiveness. Such a notion is contra-biblical.

The book of Hebrews expressly states what Jesus’s sacrifice accomplished. The author uses a fortiori argumentation to establish the superiority of Christ over the old covenant sacrificial system:

If the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (Hebrews 9:13–14)

If the sacrifice of animals under the old covenant law brought a level of forgiveness and purification, how much more does the sacrifice of Jesus purify believers? Thus, why would we expect God to return to the inferior blood of goats and bulls as a means of atonement? The author of Hebrews further argues that the sacrifice of Jesus was not repeated annually like the old covenant sin sacrifices. If it were,  

he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (Hebrews 9:26, emphasis added)

The Greek word translated “once for all” is ἅπαξ (hapax),which means “a single occurrence and decisively unique, once and for all.”³⁰ Donald Hagner notes,

One of the most striking affirmations in Hebrews is the stress upon the “once for all” character of Christ’s sacrifice in contrast to the necessity of the repeated sacrifices of the Levitical priesthood. This points to the weakness and provisional character of the Levitical priesthood and to the sufficiency and finality of Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross. Two words, almost exactly the same in form (hapax and ephapax), and with exactly the same meaning, are used.³¹

Indeed, the author of Hebrews repeatedly uses this term of finality to categorize the sacrifice of Jesus as once and for all (Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10). The apostle Paul uses the same word in the same way: “For the death he died he died to sin, once for all (ephapax), but the life he lives he lives to God” (Rom. 6:10, comment added). What Jesus did once and for all was “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26). The same declaration is repeated a few verses later: “When Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12, emphasis added). The English phrase “for all time” translates the Greek word διηνεκής (diēnekēs), which pertains to “being continuous, without interruption, always.”³² Christ’s single sacrifice was made for all sin for all time. After Jesus made His ephapax sacrifice, “he sat down at the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). This is the biblical language of completion and fulfillment. Jesus sat down because His atoning work was finished. Therefore, the author of Hebrews can unambiguously declare, “There is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18).

The atonement system Yahweh prescribed for Yom Kippur was merciful, righteous, and holy, but it was never intended as His final plan. The old covenant animal sacrifices were a foreshadow that anticipated the reality of Jesus. The author of Hebrews explains,

Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. (Hebrews 10:1).

Like so many other elements of the Torah, the sin sacrifices prefigured Christ, whose work on the cross secured eternal atonement and ultimate forgiveness for sin.

Mutual Exclusivity

While there are significant differences between the old and new covenant sin sacrifices (see Table 1), the author of Hebrews teaches that God gave both temporary and eternal atonement to attain the same end: the forgiveness of sin. Therefore, these are mutually exclusive methods of atonement. One brought forgiveness temporarily and, therefore, had to be repeated. The other eternally brings forgiveness (Isa 1:18, Heb. 10:17), negating the need for further sin sacrifices (Heb. 10:18). Once sins have been permanently forgiven, there is no further need for temporary forgiveness.

Table 1: Differences Between Old and New Covenant Sin Atonement

The Torah’s Sin Sacrifices	Christ’s Atoning Sacrifice
Based on the blood of animals Brought temporary forgiveness Continually repeated A reminder of sin Atoned for the sins of the Israelites	Based on the blood of Christ Brought eternal forgiveness A single sacrifice for all sin Took away sin Atoned for the sins of all who believe

The author of Hebrews declares,

Just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. (Hebrews 9:27–28)

When Jesus returns, it will not be to deal with sin. He has already done away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself once and for all—a single sacrifice for all sin for all time (Heb. 10:12).

Were the Sin Sacrifices “Forever”?

Hegg holds that because the Hebrew Bible states that the laws regarding the sacrificial system are a statute forever, “The suggestion that these commands and the sacrificial system are now done away [with] directly contradicts the commands found in the Torah.”³³ Indeed, there are a number of passages in the Torah that appear to indicate that the old covenant laws will continue forever. Most germane to the discussion at hand is Yahweh’s final word on the Day of Atonement:

“And this shall be a statute forever for you, that atonement may be made for the people of Israel once in the year because of all their sins.” And Aaron did as the Lord commanded Moses. (Leviticus 16:34)³⁴

Thus, Hegg concludes, “To argue that this system has been abolished ignores numerous passages that explicitly state that the sacrifices will not cease.”³⁵ However, even Hegg acknowledges that the Torah’s sin sacrifices will one day cease. He sees a time when they will no longer be needed: “Although sin will ultimately be eradicated and God’s people will live without its impact in a future world, this has not yet happened.”³⁶

Both Pronomian and orthodox Christianity acknowledge that the sin sacrifices were never intended to last “forever” in a literal sense.³⁷ Thus, the debate is ultimately about when the sin sacrifices will end. Mainstream Christianity holds that they ended at the cross when Christ fulfilled them. Hegg maintains they will cease “in a future world” when sin is ultimately eliminated. This statement serves as further evidence that Hegg believes the sacrifice of Christ only partially addressed sin and, therefore, future sacrificial rituals will be required by believers to eradicate sin in its entirety.   

The Apostles Affirmed the Sacrificial System

Hegg offers a further defense of the Pronomian position:

Many want to say that the sacrificial system, and especially sin sacrifice, has been done away with. Paul and the Apostles certainly did not think this, as they continued to go to the temple and even offered sacrifices. Paul offered sacrifices at the temple even after he wrote the book of Romans and Galatians (Acts 21:26).³⁸

While the NT records the apostles attending temple services, there is no overt mention of their participation in sin sacrifices (including Yom Kippur) after the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, the partaking of post-resurrection sin sacrifices by Christ’s disciples does rise above the level of assumption, albeit not an unreasonable one. Even Acts 21, which Hegg cited, does not say Paul offered sin sacrifices. James said to Paul:

“We have four men who are under a vow; take these men and purify yourself along with them and pay their expenses, so that they may shave their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in observance of the law” . . . Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them. (Acts 21:23–24, 26)

Note that James only asked Paul to purify himself along with the men and pay their expenses. He did not ask Paul to participate in the vow. So, Paul purified himself along with the four men so that they could enter the temple, and then gave notice when their days of purification would be fulfilled and an offering would be presented for them. A common inference from the text is that the men took a Nazirite vow which required a sin sacrifice following a period of purification (Num 6:14). Pronomians often further assume that Paul was not merely sponsoring the four men but was participating in the Nazirite vow along with them. Although neither assumption is confirmed in the text, they are not unreasonable.

However, even if that were the case, the next verse reveals that Paul was seized at the temple before the period of purification was complete and the offerings made (Acts 21:27). Therefore, if Paul was participating in a Nazirite vow along with the four men, he never actually made the sin sacrifice. (Note the number of unconfirmed assumptions required for Pronomians to suggest one apostle made one sin sacrifice.) Even if we grant the premise that Paul would have made a sin sacrifice for himself in that scenario, it does not show that the apostles affirmed the old covenant sacrificial system as required or efficacious. Paul openly stated his position on participating in such rituals:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law . . . I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. (1 Corinthians 9:20, 23)

The approximately forty years between Christ’s earthly ministry and the destruction of the temple were a unique period in the history of God’s people. The old covenant’s final days intersected with the new covenant’s first days in ways that Scripture does not reveal in great detail. Because much of the NT epistolary text is aimed at guiding the nascent church, correcting errors, and elucidating the theological impact of Christ, it is clear this liminal period was marked by theological confusion. Thus, if one were to grant the assumption that some of Jesus’ Jewish followers participated in sin sacrifices in the years following His resurrection (Gentile followers would not have been allowed to offer sacrifices at the temple), such action is most reasonably categorized as a misguided observance of centuries-old Jewish tradition rather than a knowing, theological endorsement of the Torah’s sin sacrifices. Especially in light of the fact that Christians did not run the Jerusalem temple; it was operated by Jewish religious leaders.

Sin Sacrifices in the Millenium

The OT prophetic passages that appear to indicate the future restoration of sin sacrifices are a primary factor in the Pronomian position on this issue. Hegg takes a cautious approach to these passages, acknowledging that “we cannot base our theology solely on prophetic texts.”³⁹ Indeed, many “Torah-keeping Christians”⁴⁰ base their beliefs about future sin sacrifices almost solely on prophetic texts, which quickly becomes challenging considering the enigmatic and symbolic nature of prophetic language.

Hegg maintains,

The altar will continue to need atonement because of sin, and the Sanctuary of God will require atonement due to human sin. Priests will also need atonement on a temporal level, as sin remains present in this world. Therefore, it should not surprise us when sin sacrifices are mentioned in relation to a future temple (Ezek. 40:39, 42:13, 43:19, 21, 44:27, 45:17, etc.).⁴¹

Here again, we see Hegg’s view that the sacrifice of Christ was only partially effective. He believes Jesus’s work on the cross did not address the sin that “remains present in this world.” Therefore, according to Hegg, believers will be required to participate in future sacrificial rituals involving the blood of animals to help put away sin once and for all. Such a position is an affront to the gospel and the sufficiency of Christ and thus serves as the primary objection to the Pronomian position. Indeed, the theological implications of restoring the inferior animal sacrifices for sin atonement even after the “once for all” (Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 9:12, 26: 10:10) sacrifice of Christ renders the Pronomian view untenable.

Sound hermeneutic principles and biblical theology both require that the clear language of Hebrews take priority over enigmatic prophetic passages about a future age. If the literal blood of animals is once again required to atone for sin, it would mean the blood of Christ was insufficient and not truly “once for all.” Yet, the Book of Hebrews says Jesus “appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb. 9:26) and that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all,” and therefore, “There is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18). The text is unambiguous. Thus, any interpretation of prophetic texts regarding sin sacrifices in a future age must be brought into alignment with these clear passages about the “once for all” sacrifice of Jesus. To reverse that hermeneutical priority is to set Scripture against itself and devalue the gospel.

We Cannot Sacrifice Today

Hegg briefly addresses the objection that “God would not have destroyed the temple and removed the sacrifices, preventing their observance, if they were still commanded.”⁴² His response is logical and biblical:

The same thing happened to God’s faithful servants when Israel was punished for idolatry and taken into exile by the Babylonians . . . No one looks at Daniel and the others who were God’s faithful servants at the time and believes the sacrificial system was done away with because these believers could not keep it.⁴³

Hegg makes a valid point that reveals why an objection to sin sacrifices based on the destruction of the temple is not convincing. God’s faithful servants in the OT were under the old covenant law and its sacrificial system, which required a temple. In certain situations, Yahweh, in His great mercy, accepted alternatives until the sacrificial system could be restored. In stark contrast, Christians are under the new covenant and its “once for all” sacrificial system championed by Christ, which does not require a temple, a formal priesthood, or sin sacrifices. Thus, comparisons between the state of Israel during the exile and the state of post-70 ad Christianity vis-a-vis the temple are irrelevant.

Conclusion

Hegg maintains that the idea of future sin sacrifices “does not encroach on the work of Christ on the cross, since these affect two separate things in two separate realms.”⁴⁴ Indeed, he believes “The two are not dealing in the same realm or with the same elements.”⁴⁵ However, the NT teaches that Yahweh gave both methods of atonement—the Torah’s temporary, repeated atonement and the eternal atonement of Christ—to achieve the same end: the forgiveness of sin. Therefore, these are mutually exclusive methods of atonement. Once sins have been permanently forgiven, there is no further need for repeated, temporary forgiveness.

Because Jesus “entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12), and therefore “there is no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18), it is a grave error to teach a return to the Torah’s inferior, temporary means of atonement. Particularly since God Himself tore down the temple curtain through which the human high priest was required to pass in order to make that temporary atonement (Matt. 27:51). Why would God destroy the temple veil if it was still needed? Are we to imagine He will one day restore the physical curtain that He tore apart at the death of His Son? Such an action would be decremental in light of the new and living way opened by Christ’s sacrifice:

We have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh. (Hebrews 10:19–20)

Hegg makes a statement that turns out to be accurate, though perhaps not in the way he intended: “To assume the sacrificial system has been done away with assumes that it had to do with our sin on a spiritual level.”⁴⁶ Indeed, the Torah’s sacrificial system did concern sin on a spiritual level and therefore it has come to end. Scripture bears witness to the fact that the Torah’s sin sacrifices provided atonement for souls (Lev. 17:11) and imparted divine forgiveness (Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; 19:22; Num. 15:25, 28).

For that reason, Hegg’s Pronomian position on sin sacrifice must be rejected as contra-biblical and an affront to Christ’s eternal “once for all” sacrifice. Such a position undermines the power and efficacy of His work on the cross and the eternal forgiveness it secured.

---

Footnotes

¹ The term “pro-nomian” (meaning “in favor or support of” the law) refers to the theology more commonly known as Torahism or Hebrew Roots. It is the belief that the old covenant law is binding in its entirety on followers of Jesus.

² C. M. Hegg, “Sin Sacrifices,” (Date unknown), 2. https://tr-pdf.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/articles/sin-sacrifice.pdf Accessed 9/19/24.

³ The term “orthodox” is used in the generic sense of “conforming to established religious doctrine.” It refers broadly to mainstream Christian beliefs, not those of the Orthodox Christian Church.

⁴ C. M. Hegg, 2.

⁵ Ibid., 14.

⁶ Tim Hegg is C. M Hegg’s father.

⁷ Tim Hegg, Ten Persistent Questions (TorahResource, 2009), 41.

⁸ C. M. Hegg, 14.

⁹ Ibid., 8–9.

¹⁰ Ibid., 13.

¹¹ Ibid., 3. 

¹² Ibid.

¹³ Ibid., 6.

¹⁴ Ibid., 6–7.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Ibid., 7.

¹⁷ See Leviticus 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:10, 13, 16, 18; 6:7; 19:22 and Numbers 15:25, 28.

¹⁸ Ibid., 8.

¹⁹ Tim Hegg, Ten Persistent Questions, 41.

²⁰ C. M. Hegg, 13-14.

²¹ Ibid., 8.

²² C. M. Hegg, 7.

²³ Tim Hegg, “The Meaning of כפר Kafar” (Date unknown), 5. https://torahresource.com/ar­ticle/meaning-of-kafar-atonement/ Accessed 9/19/24.

²⁴ C. M. Hegg, 12.

²⁵ Ibid., 14.

²⁶ The “mercy seat” (some translations say “atonement cover”) is the name the Torah uses for the ornate lid on top of the ark of the covenant, which was stored inside the Most Holy Place in the temple.

²⁷ Ibid., 14.

²⁸ Ibid., 14.

²⁹ See also Hebrews 8:12.

³⁰ William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 97.

³¹ Donald A. Hagner, Encountering the Book of Hebrews: An Exposition, ed. Walter A. Elwell, Encountering Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 105.

³² Arndt et al., 245.

³³ C. M. Hegg, 10.

³⁴ Hegg also lists Leviticus 3:17; 6:18, 22; 10:9, 15; 16:29; 17:7.

³⁵ C. M. Hegg., 14.

³⁶ Ibid., 14.

³⁷ Both interpret the Hebrew word עוֹלָם (olam) in Leviticus 16:34 as meaning “for a long unknown duration,” rather than literally “forever.”

³⁸ C. M. Hegg, 13.

³⁹ Ibid., 11.

⁴⁰ Pronomian Christians are a subset of the theology known as Torahism. This theology holds that the old covenant laws in their entirety are still in effect and binding on Christians. A number of groups hold this position, referring to themselves by various monikers including Hebrew Roots, Torah Keepers, Torah-Observant Christians, or Messianics.

⁴¹ C. M. Hegg, 12.

⁴² Ibid., 12.

⁴³ Ibid., 12-13.

⁴⁴ Ibid., 11.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 14.

⁴⁶ Ibid., 13.