As I have worked through the published 2026 Easter sermons within the Presbyterian Church of Victoria, an overwhelming sense of genuineness by the respective preachers is evident.
No less is true with this sermon, preached by Rev. Kevin Maxwell at the Reservoir Presbyterian Church on Good Friday. Kevin Maxwell also has served as the Theological Education Committee Convener for seven years.
His chosen text was Hebrews 10:1-18, focusing upon v10.
The governing refrain of the sermon was Christ died “once for all time, “once for all people”, and “once for all sins”. The sermon aimed to magnify the finality of Christ’s sacrifice, with the minister affirming that all have sinned, that no one can be saved by personal goodness, that forgiveness is found in Christ alone, and that rejecting him entails judgment.
These are gospel truths, and yet as we have seen throughout this Series, a minister's genuine intentions is no guarantee of a faithful biblical sermon.
The difficulty with this sermon lies in how the sermon explains these gospel truths. It repeatedly announces the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice without attempting to trace the argument in Hebrews that establishes that effectiveness. This weakness extends beyond the exposition of the atonement. By treating the sinner as someone burdened by conscience and called to receive forgiveness, the sermon leaves the necessity of inward renewal (the necessity to be born again) and the Holy Spirit’s work in conversion largely underdeveloped. The result is not the absence of the gospel, but an account of it that is considerably thinner than the passage demands.
Hebrew 10:10 declares: “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” I mention this here because within context, this is the conclusion of an argument, not a self-explanatory slogan.
Just to recap the context of Heb 10:10, the passage begins with the law as “a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities: (Heb 10:1). The old covenant sacrifices were instituted by God. They taught God’s people about guilt, substitution, priestly mediation, and the need for cleansing. Their limitation was not that they were meaningless or improperly commanded, but that they could not “make perfect those who draw near”. The repetition of those sacrifices revealed their inability to remove sin decisively; it did not, by itself, constitute the reason for that inability.
This sermon acknowledges the divine institution of the sacrificial system, but its principal explanation is: “the fact that [the old sacrifices] had to be repeated told us that [the system] was ineffective. But of course Jesus died once and the fact that he died once tells us that his sacrifice is effective”. Well, I am sorry but it does not tell us that his sacrifice was effective and this is an undermining of the argument of Hebrews. The animals died once also: repetition of animal sacrifices has here been conflated with an animal dying multiple times. The real reason Christ’s offering was made once is because it accomplished what they could not. And here we need to step back and understand the significance of the eternal covenant as we answer questions about Christ’s sacrifice.
This essay will not give an account of covenant theology, but we can observe the significance of Christ’s person and his obedience. The passage used for the sermon states “When Christ came into the world”, he declared, “a body you have prepared fr me”, and “Behold, I have come to do your will, O God” (Heb 10:5,7). The eternal Son took on flesh and willingly fulfilled the Father’s saving purpose. He is both priest who offers, and is the sacrifice that is offered. The point is, the effectiveness of his death does not rest merely upon its singularity, but upon the identity and obedience of the one who offered himself. We can sum up this aspect by observing that no animal willingly offered its body in obedience to the Father’s will!
The passage also points to the completion of his priestly work; unlike the OT priests who stood daily offering sacrifices, Christ “sat down at the right hand of God” after offering one sacrifice for sins (10:11-12).His heavenly session signifies the finished character of that offering. The cross fulfills the shadows of the old covenant and secures the promised reality of the new.
This movement, from the shadow to fulfillment, was not a defective design that did not work out as the Father had hoped. True, animal sacrifices were never able to adequately deal with our sin, but they were never intended to do so. They were shadows, designed to prepare his people for Christ’s work. A sermon from this Hebrews passage needs to be able to explain both the shadow and the antitype without substituting a refrain for exposition. Exposition needs to show from the text why the refrain is true.
I understand preaching necessarily makes propositions. “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3) and “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Heb 10:14) are propositional truths to be plainly declared. The problem with this sermon is not propositional preaching, but propositional-ism: the treatment of doctrinal conclusions as detached assertions requiring little more than citation and repetition.
The sermon’s repeated claim that Christ’s sacrifice is effective because it happened once illustrates the danger. Singularity is presented as proof of sufficiency, while sufficiency is then reaffirmed through singularity. But Hebrews supplies the missing theological grounds; the old sacrifices were shadows, the Son came to do the Father’s will, his body was offered, and his priestly work was completed. Faithful exegetical work of the text before preparing the sermon should establish the text’s argument in a minister’s mind. If a sermon does not follow the argument of the text, one is right to conclude that the exegetical work prior to the sermon has broken down.
Nor is the complaint here about the use of repetition. Repetition can strengthen emphasis, but it cannot replace explanation. A preacher should show the congregation how Scripture arrives at its conclusions, especially where those conclusions concern the basis of redemption. Otherwise hearers may know what they are urged to believe, without understanding why the text warrants that belief.
The sermon’s threefold refrain also introduces an exegetical difficulty that was not resolved. “Once for all time” reflects the finality of Christ’s offering: “once for all sins” gestures toward the complete forgiveness promised in the new covenant, but “Once for all people” does not arise from Hebrews 10 with the same clarity or qualification.
The sermon appeals to the inclusive character of the passage’s pronouns. Yet Hebrews speaks specifically of those sanctified by Christ’s offering, those perfected by it, and those who belong to the new covenant (Heb 10:10, 14-17). The passage does not establish an undifferentiated type of universalism where every person is being saved. Again, the text supplies the limit of the work of Christ: Christ, “by one offering, has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified”, Heb 10:14.
Such a distinction, apart from a faithful exposition of the text, need not narrow the public gospel invitation. Christ is to be proclaimed to all people; sinners without distinction are commanded to repent and believe, and no one who comes to Jesus will be cast out. This universalism should not be confused with the particular efficacy of the sacrifice discussed in Hebrews. The text presents Christ’s offering as accomplishing the salvation of many, not merely creating a possibility that human choice must complete in order for it to be efficacious.
As far as it goes, this sermon speaks seriously about sin and its consequences. It rejects self-righteousness, names concrete acts of wrongdoing, and warns of judgment and hell. It also rightly identifies the troubled conscience as a real dimension of human guilt. The preacher addresses hearers burdened by things that “weigh upon your mind” and “disturb you because you know they are wrong”.
The problem lies in the conscience becoming the primary lens through which the human condition is explained. The sermon argues that all people are sinners because all people have experienced a guilty conscience. Now such an appeal, on some occasions, may be pastorally useful, but it is insufficient as the bedrock evidence for the need for a savior. Remorse is not repentance, shame is not faith, and the desire to escape consequences (a guilty conscience) is not necessarily a desire for reconciliation with God. A person may also sin gravely while scarcely feeling guilt at all through a seared conscience and remain under the wrath of God without a guilty conscience.
Indeed, the sermon acknowledges that this can be the case, that “many of our sins never prick our conscience”. However, when, we may ask, did a conscience ever feel the guilt of not loving God and enjoying Him before a conversion? And this points to sin’s presence in our life beyond the mere act of doing naughty things, “of breaking God’s law”. For the sinner’s problem also includes a darkened understanding and a disordered heart. Fallen people need not only a pardon for the sins they recognize, but they also need spiritual renewal that enables them to recognize sin truly as God does and then receive Christ in faith.
I would argue that somewhere in the exposition of Hebrews 10:1–18, particularly when explaining the new covenant promise in verses 15–18, the necessity of the new birth ought to have entered this Good Friday proclamation. The sacrifice of Christ is not merely an external provision for sin. The new covenant also promises God's inward work upon the hearts of His people. A proclamation that explains the sacrifice without addressing the sinner's need for this inward work leaves an important dimension of salvation unexplained. Saving faith is not simply a decision to obtain forgiveness or quieten the conscience: it is the Spirit-wrought work of receiving and resting in Christ. The gospel commands sinners to repent and believe, but that summons should be accompanied by an explanation of their dependence upon divine grace.
The sermon’s invitation to “Come to him, believe in him, receive his salvation” and “put your trust in him” are all proper biblical commands. The weakness in this sermon is not that the preacher issues them, but that he does not adequately explain either the necessity for doing so beyond a the relief of a guilty conscience, nor does he uncover the underlying misdirected heart of all people outside of Christ.
Hebrews 10 itself provides a bridge between the finished sacrifice and the transformation of the sinner. In verses 15-17 the Holy Spirit bears witness to the new covenant promise: “I will put my laws on their hearts and write them on their minds,” followed by “I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more”. Forgiveness and inward renewal are joined within one covenantal promise.
Now these texts are read at the beginning of the sermon, but the sermon itself concentrates almost entirely on the second promise: the removal of guilt and forgiveness of past, present, and future sins. That emphasis is understandable in a Good Friday sermon. Nevertheless, the first promise should shape the explanation of salvation too. Christ’s offering establishes a covenant in which God not only pardons his people but also writes his law within them.
At one point the sermon says that Christ’s sacrifice “transformed the human heart”. But without qualification, this wording blurs the distinction between redemption accomplished by Christ and its application to individuals by the Holy Spirit. Christ’s death secures the saving benefits of the covenant; it does not mean that every heart was automatically regenerated at the moment of his death. Now I am not accusing the preacher here of preaching a universal regeneration of humanity at the death of Christ. He after all, refers to a gulf between heaven and hell. However he has blurred distinctions and failed to clarify that it is the Holy Spirit’s ministry to apply Christ’s finished work by bringing sinners to new life, repentance, and faith. The call for a personal response overshadows the Spirit’s ministry due to this lack of exposition.
The omission of the Spirit’s ministry also affects the account of Christian obedience. The sermon rightly says that believers should not with to continue in sin and should be stirred to love and to good deeds. But is this a description of new life in Christ? Hardly. The new covenant gives a richer explanation of why the new life in Christ. The new heart thirsts after obedience out of love for the Savor, not from a wish to avoid further sins that mar the conscience.
God does not pardon by overlooking evil, for sin is rebellion against the holy and righteous God. Humanity was created to bear God’s image and to reflect his holiness in loving obedience, yet fallen humanity fails to render that obedience. Christ came as the perfect image of God and the faithful human image-bearer. In his holy obedience to the Father’s will, he offers what sinful humanity and the repeated animal sacrifices could never offer: the once-for-all sacrifice that truly deals with sin. Romans 3:23–26 expresses this in terms of God’s righteousness: he is “just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Hebrews unfolds the same saving accomplishment through priesthood, sacrifice, covenant, and the obedient self-offering of Christ.
These are not dry doctrines for professors and academics. They govern both warning and assurance. The preacher plainly warns that those who refuse Christ face judgment and hell. The concern is not that the sermon lacks warning, but that the warning is only loosely connected to Hebrews’ own argument. The sermon emphasizes Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice, its efficacy, and forgiveness; it does not develop or present Christ as Hebrews does in the Epistle’s opening verses, or connect his obedient self-offering to the Father’s righteousness in this way. Yet this provides the objective answer to the guilty conscience discussed above: the conscience is not finally cleansed by reassurance alone, but because sin has been dealt with in the sacrifice God has appointed and accepted. To reject Christ, then, is not merely to decline one religious option among others; it is to reject the only sufficient sacrifice for sins; the sacrifice appointed by the Father and offered by the Son as the final ground of forgiveness. Hebrews 10:26–31 makes the corresponding warning explicit: where this sacrifice is rejected, no other sacrifice for sins remains, but only judgment.
Other sermons considered in the New Birth in Exile series have contained far more
substantial doctrinal errors than this sermon. It is reasonable though, to expect a sermon preached
by the Convener of a Theological Education Committee to offer more than doctrinally correct but
vague assertions. It rightly affirms the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, the forgiveness of sins,
the exclusivity of salvation in him, and the reality of final judgment.
Yet the sermon lacks the explanatory exposition needed to bring Hebrews’ argument fully to bear
upon both mind and heart. Its repeated appeal to the fact that Christ died “once” establishes the
finality of his sacrifice, but does not sufficiently explain why that sacrifice alone is necessary
and effective. Hebrews directs attention to the obedient self-offering of Christ, the incarnate
Son, who came to do the Father’s will and whose sacrifice fulfills what the old covenant sacrifices
could only anticipate. Without this fuller account, the sermon’s proclamation of Christ’s unique
sacrifice remains true, but comparatively thin.
Further, by concentrating upon the burden of conscience and the hearer’s response, the sermon gives
insufficient attention to the new-covenant promise that Hebrews itself cites: God will write his
law upon the hearts and minds of his people or indeed, why this is absolutely necessary. The sermon
briefly speaks of a transformed heart, but it does not develop this promise as the inward renewal
necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God. The result is a sermon that offers the hope of
genuine evangelical assurance and warning, yet does not expound the realities that make that
assurance and warning intelligible.
