The verse reads like this:

“And as certainly it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.”
Heb 9:27 (Slaughterer 2000)

The question is: What exactly does it say? If you read the verse with an open mind, you will notice that something about the sentence is still incomplete. The beginning “as certain as it is …” introduces a comparison that still needs to be completed. More about that in a moment. However, the verse is rarely read in context. Rather, it is simply quoted as it is here above. This is problematic. But everything in turn.

Problems of traditional interpretation

This is the traditional interpretation: By “man” is meant mankind, that is, every human being. That everyone dies is clear. But now – after this dying – the judgment is to follow immediately. That would be in the aforementioned post. Or in other words: Those who die then promptly appear in court. The question now is whether this interpretation is correct.

The verse mentioned is often used to convince people of the “seriousness of the decision” during crusades. It is nothing more here than a threat of judgment justified by pointing to God’s holiness and justice that judgment would demand. Although the passage just quoted is by no means about a belief in Jesus, and even less about addressing unbelievers, there is no hesitation in using the verse without context precisely in this sense. A “threatening message” is fabricated instead of a “good news” being proclaimed. Such a formulation seeks to absolve God of any guilt or reference to His creation. Thus the contradictions pile up, especially on the right understanding of God’s justice.

The fact is that God’s righteousness has already been satisfied (Rom 1:16-17; Rom 3:21-23; Rom 5:18; Jn 19:30), and that is the good news (2 Cor 5:18-21). That now a “judgment after death” could or even must bring about God’s justice is a blatant ignorance of the gospel. To read a threatening message out of Hebrews 9:27 is not only misleading, but lags behind the facts. In essence, the traditional explanation of this verse is nothing more than a denial of the cross, however piously it is packaged.

But there are more inconsistencies. The idea that judgment follows immediately after death is in direct conflict with Scripture. After dying, one is first of all death. In order for the dead to be judged, there must be a resurrection for judgment (John 5:29, cf. Rev. 20:12-15). So it is only after the resurrection that we are judged, and not after we die.

Context in the Letter to the Hebrews

The writer of Hebrews has given a clear context for this verse. This provides information about what is meant by this verse.

“For Christ did not enter the holy places made by hands, which are but counter-images of the true ones, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us. Nor is it for this reason that He often offers Himself, just as the High Priest annually enters the saints of the saints with foreign blood; for otherwise He would often have had to suffer from the prostration of the world. But now He has revealed Himself once (for the rejection of sin for the final period of the eons) through His sacrifice.

And inasmuch as it is reserved for men to die once, but after this a judgment, so also Christ, after He was once offered as a sacrifice to bear up the sins of the many, will appear the second time without sin to those who wait for Him, for salvation through faith.”
Heb 9:24-28

This is a comparison between Christ and the high priest. The high priest entered the temple annually with the foreign blood of an animal until the holy of holies (Heb. 9:7; Ex. 30:10; Deut. 16:15-21). Christ, on the other hand, did not enter into the image of the true sanctuary (Heb. 8:5; Acts 7:44; Ex. 25:9; Ex. 25:40), but into the only true sanctuary, into heaven itself, to appear there before the face of God.

“And inasmuch as it is reserved for men to die once…” draws the comparison between the High Priest and Christ. Man, in the context, is the high priest. When a high priest died, special rules applied. The reference is to Deuteronomy 35, where provisions for manslayers are listed.

Until the death of the high priest

Deuteronomy 35 deals with various ordinances when someone unintentionally kills another person. This manslayer is to be protected from the avenger by his community and is allowed to escape to a city of refuge. There he is safe from the avenger. He must stay in this city until the high priest dies. After that, he is allowed to return to the land of his ownership.

“But if he thrust him unawares, not out of enmity, or threw upon him without malice any implement, or, without seeing it, dropped upon him any stone by which one may die, so that he died-but he was not hostile to him and did not seek his harm-then the congregation shall judge between the brawler and the avenger of blood according to these provisions of the law: And the congregation shall judge the manslayer from the hand of the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall bring him back to his city of refuge to which he fled; and he shall remain in it until the death of the high priest, whom they anointed with the holy oil. […] For the manslayer shall remain in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; and after the death of the high priest the manslayer may return to the land of his possession. And this shall be unto you for a statute of law throughout your generations in all your habitations. […]”
Num 35:22-34

The death of the high priest thus results in an acquittal for manslayers. This is the legal system that should apply in Israel. This is the judgment mentioned in Hebrews 9:27. Or in other words: Where the traditional interpretation reads a condemnation and condemnation into it, the context itself speaks of an acquittal. The message of the text was turned into the opposite. It is thus a vivid example of the damage that can be done when a text is considered detached from its context.

It is now this acquittal for manslayer from which the comparison with Christ emerges. There were two significant situations in which the High Priest stood for acquittal: once on the annual Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), when he entered the Holy of Holies to sprinkle blood on the Ark of the Covenant. If he then appeared before the people again, it was tantamount to an acquittal (Heb 9:11-17). While the high priest ministered in the inner sanctuary, the people waited outside (Heb 9:28). Although the annual recurrence indicated the limit, the acquittal was still given as a prospect for a better solution. (See also the article “Why Jesus?” for why this was possible). The second situation concerned the acquittal of manslayers after the death of the high priest. The writer of Hebrews links both situations from the one perspective of acquittal.

Acquittal and the rejection of sin

Jesus was “a mediator of a new covenant, that by reason of a death made free from transgression under the first covenant, those who were called might receive the promise of the eonian portion” (Heb. 9:15). The reference to the covenants and images of the Old Testament corresponds to the target group and readership. The Letter to the Hebrews states right at the beginning that “God spoke to the fathers through the prophets many times and in many ways from time immemorial”. The writer is addressing a Jewish readership. Likewise, “in the last of these days He speaks to us in the Son” (Heb. 1:1-2), who “accomplished the cleansing from sins” (Heb. 1:3).

This “cleansing from sins” of the past becomes the “rejection of sin” in the future in the 9th chapter. There it says that Christ “revealed himself once by his sacrifice” for the “rejection of sin for the closing period of the eons” (Heb. 9:27). That’s something of an outlook. Sin will be completely dismissed one day. It is still there today, but that will change. The time frame is also given, namely in the “concluding period of the eons”, so to speak in the last section of God’s plan (cf. Eph. 3:11). Significant here, then, is not only the complete and retroactive effect – similar to the Old Testament sacrificial service, but also the anticipatory, conclusive effect of His sacrifice at the end of time.

The word for reject (Gr. athetêtis) occurs otherwise only in Heb 7:18, while the verb “to reject” (Gr. atheteo) is used more often. The one who rejects something rejects it (Mk 7:9; Mk 7:30). But it also has the power to reject something because it is outdated (thus the “rejection of the previous commandment” in Heb 7:18). The rejection of sin is the elimination of sin. Sin is no longer an issue after rejection. It is no longer there. This is the view we get here. It shows that Jesus’ sacrifice is indeed sufficient to remove sin once and for all, not only “de jure” (legally) but also “de facto” (factually).

Dispute

On closer examination, Hebrews 9:27 cannot be used as an argument for or against any of the following:

• It is not an argument against an all atonement, nor an argument for a heaven and hell doctrine.
• It is simply wrong to use this text for evangelism.
• It is misleading to misuse this text as a justification for a so-called eternal damnation.

As soon as one reads the text in context, the contradictions of a traditional interpretation disappear. Very common approaches to healthy Bible study were used here. Biblical arguments for or against a particular view – of whatever kind – must always be measured against the same criteria. Addressing different doctrines is important because arguments like these can be addressed concretely.