Hebrews 10:10 – Sanctification through Christ’s Obedience

“And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Hebrews 10:10

Context

Hebrews 10:1–18 is a unified section on the relation between the old and the new sacrificial system. Vv.1–4 establish the failure of the Old Testament sacrifices: they can “never make perfect those who draw near” (v.1) — not because their quantum of punishment were too small, but because they are structurally unfit to cleanse a living conscience. Vv.5–10 ground the transition not in a greater penal performance by Christ, but in a greater obedience of will — this is the hermeneutical key of the whole section.

Vv.5–7 cite Ps 40:7–9 LXX: “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired — but a body you have prepared for me; in whole burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said: Behold, I have come to do your will, O God.” The author of Hebrews interprets the citation in vv.8–9 as a programmatic change: “He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.” But the “second” is not a greater sin-offering, but Christ's obedience of will. V.10 draws the consequence: en hôi thelêmati hêgiasménoi esmen — “by that will we have been sanctified.”

The placement of the verse is thus rhetorically marked: it is the concluding sentence and synthesis of an exegetical argument about Ps 40. Whoever reads v.10 in isolation and dogmatically autonomizes it bursts open the author's argumentative structure. The author precisely does not wish to say: “Christ bears the greater quantum of punishment”; he says: “Christ's will takes the place of the old sacrificial cult.” Thelêma displaces thysía — obedience displaces animal sacrifice.

In the wider context v.10 stands in the central cultic-priestly argumentation of Hebrews (Heb 8:1 — 10:18). This argumentation is entirely shaped by the high-priestly Christology: Christ enters not the earthly sanctuary, but the heavenly one (Heb 9:11–12, 24); not with animal blood, but with his own; not every year, but ephápax. Penal substitution theory, however, hangs entirely on the death on the cross as a juridical act — it demotes the high-priestly entry-motif into the holy of holies to an appendix. Hebrews does the opposite.

V.14 underlines the ecclesiological-covenantal frame: “by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” Hagiazómenoi — “those who are being sanctified” — is a durative-medial term: sanctification is here not a one-time forensic act at the cross, but a continual claim of covenantal belonging. Exactly this is what v.10 expresses in the preterite aspect: hêgiasménoi esmen — “we have been sanctified and are sanctified” (perfect: state of having-been-brought-into-the-covenant).

The Socinian core thesis

Socinianly, the “offering of the body of Jesus Christ” is not a paid quantum of punishment, but the whole self-giving life-act of Christ which culminates in his death and is completed in his entry into the heavenly sanctuary. Prosphorá tou sômatos designates the presentation, not the punishment; thelêma is obedience of will, not readiness to bear penal suffering. Sanctification works not through a quantum paid to God, but through the act of self-giving which incorporates those drawing near into the new covenant.

Ephápax designates finality, not having-been-paid. The term appears repeatedly in Hebrews (Heb 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14) and is always embedded in the high-priestly entry motif: Christ enters once into the heavenly sanctuary, because he “remains forever” (eis to diênekés, Heb 10:12, 14) there. The finality lies in the person of the living high priest (Heb 7:25: “he is able to save, because he always lives”), not in a juridically closed penal act. Whoever reads ephápax as “sufficient penal quota paid” overlooks the priestly grammar of the whole section.

Sanctification in v.10 must be read covenant-theologically, not penally. Heb 13:12 says in parallel: “Jesus, in order to sanctify the people through his own blood, suffered outside the gate.” The verb hagiázô in Hebrews designates the incorporation into the covenant-people — analogous to the Old Testament purification act which qualifies the consecrated one for covenant- and sanctuary-access (Ex 29:21; Lev 8:30). Whoever is sanctified belongs to the people who may stand before God — not: whose penal account is balanced.

The penal substitution reading collides with the placement of v.10 in the author's argument, with the word-sense of thelêma, prosphorá and hagiázô, with the high-priestly entry-dramaturgy of the whole half of the letter (Heb 7–10), and with the inner-NT forgiveness language (Lk 15; Mt 18:23–35; Ps 51), which repeatedly thinks of forgiveness without penal performance by a substitute. Sozzini formulates from this the positive thesis: Christ's “true and owed atonement” is not death as payment, but the entry, passing through death, into the heavenly sanctuary, in order there to make intercession.

Exegesis: key terms and word-field

Five Greek key terms philologically decide the exegesis of Heb 10:10:

thelêma — “will” (vv.7, 9, 10)

Thelêma is the reference point of the entire argumentation of the author in vv.5–10. V.7 cites Ps 40:9 LXX: tou poiêsai, ho theós, to thelêmá sou — “to do your will, O God.” V.9 repeats: idou hêkô tou poiêsai to thelêmá sou. V.10 draws the consequence: en hôi thelêmati hêgiasménoi esmen. Three occurrences in four verses mark the term as the middle of the argument.

The “will of God” spoken of here is not: “Christ should bear a quantum of punishment.” It is rather: “Christ should enter the world in obedience and realize God's plan of salvation in perfect self-giving.” The word-sense of thelêma is will / decision / resolve — not a penal decree, but a salvific decree. The emphasis lies on God's initiative and the Son's response.

Theologically decisive: v.10 places sanctification in the thelêma, not in a penal accounting. Sanctification happens en tôi thelêmati — in / through this will. This is the exact reversal of the penal-substitutive basic axis: not a quantum takes the place of a quantum, but an act of obedience takes the place of a cultic act. Sozzini therefore reads v.10 as a consecration- and covenant-verse, not as a penal verse.

prosphorá tou sômatos — “offering of the body”

Prosphorá is a generic sacrificial term. In Old Testament usage (LXX) it includes whole burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings and thank offerings; not every prosphorá is a sin offering. Heb 10:5–6 expressly distinguishes four categories: thysía kai prosphorá, “whole burnt and sin offerings.” The penal-substitutive narrowing of prosphorá to a sin offering is a later pre-decision, not the biblical word-sense.

Sôma — “body” — does not designate here the dead penal body, but the whole incarnate human Christ, who in v.5 (with allusion to Ps 40:7 LXX) is expressly introduced as the “body prepared for you.” The sacrificial language of Hebrews is consecratory, not juridical: the body is the means through which God's will is incorporated and carried out. Christ's prosphorá is not a paid death, but a consecrated self-giving.

Sozzini grasps it this way: the proper “offering” of Christ happens not at the cross, but through the cross, in the entry into the heavenly sanctuary. The dying at the cross is the slaughter; the offering, however, is carried out only through the priestly presentation. In the Old Testament prototype the slaughter took place at the forecourt, the offering at the altar. Exactly this cultic logic carries Heb 10: the “once for all” is the one-time entry into the sanctuary — that is the prosphorá.

ephápax — “once for all”

Ephápax occurs seven times in Hebrews (7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14) and is always oriented to the contrast with the repetitive Old Testament sacrificial cult: not every year, but once; not daily, but finally. The term designates non-repeatability, not a penal quantum. The repeatability of the Old Testament sacrifices was proof of their structural insufficiency (Heb 10:1–4); the non-repeatability of Christ is proof of his salvifically constitutive perfection.

Heb 7:25 unlocks the term theologically: “Therefore he can save for all time those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” The abiding is the one who lives, not a completed penal act. Ephápax therefore means: the self-giving happened once — but the one who gave himself lives and continually intercedes for us. The penal-substitutive reading must make the continual intercession into a mere appendix; the cultic-consecratory reading integrates it organically.

Heb 10:12–14 explains the “once for all” additionally through the session-formula: “he has sat down for all time at the right hand of God.” The session in the heavenly sanctuary is also constitutive for the ephápax. This is the priestly interlocking of self-giving and exaltation, not juridical penal closure. Sozzini reads precisely here the theological core of Hebrews: the proper offering is the heavenly service of the exalted Christ.

hagiázô / hêgiasménoi — “sanctify / be sanctified”

Hagiázô in Hebrews consistently designates cultic-covenantal incorporation into the people of God, not forensic discharge from punishment. Heb 13:12: “Jesus suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.” Heb 9:13: the Old Testament purifying water “sanctifies for the purification of the flesh” — sanctification is here a cultic access-status, not forensic purity. Heb 2:11: “the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one” — sanctification is family- and covenant-belonging.

The Old Testament basic logic (Ex 29; Lev 8) is parallel: Aaron and his sons are consecrated through anointing oil and blood; the consecration qualifies for sanctuary-access. It is not penal discharge, but consecration. Hebrews transfers this logic onto the salvation in Christ: through the self-giving of Christ the believers are “consecrated,” they are now members of the covenant-cult-people with access to the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 10:19–22).

The penal-substitutive reading must press hagiázô as forensic purity. This is linguistically untenable: the author does not use dikaióô (“justify”) anywhere in the whole letter as a technical term for the penal discharge of the believers. Hagiázô is his consistent term, and it stands in the consecratory word-field. Whoever does not follow this overwrites Hebrews with a Pauline-forensic conceptual grid that is not its own.

eis to diênekés — “for all time” (vv.12, 14)

This expression appears in vv.12, 14 four times immediately after v.10 and qualifies the ephápax durationally: the one-time offering works eis to diênekés, “continuously without interruption.” A paid quantum of punishment does not work in this way; it is closed. But a priestly consecration does work in this way: the consecrated one remains consecrated, the covenant remains in force, the heavenly sanctuary remains open.

This too fits the high-priestly Christology: Heb 7:3 says of Christ that he remains priest eis to diênekés. The expression connects the one-time-ness of the event with the duration of the effect. This is sacramental logic, not juridical. From this logic follows the ecclesiological profile of Hebrews: the believers have through Jesus' blood “boldness to enter the sanctuary” (Heb 10:19) — a cult-theological, not a forensic, statement.

Comparison of readings

Reference to Fausto Sozzini

Fausto Sozzini treats Heb 10:10 in “On Jesus Christ the Saviour (De Iesu Christo Servatore)” in the framework of his engagement with the high-priestly Christology of Hebrews. His central argument: the true atonement happens not at the cross, but through the cross, in the entry into the heavenly sanctuary.

The true and owed atonement through the body of Christ, which is set in Hebrews over against the sacrifices of the law, is not Christ's death itself, but the entry into heaven accomplished through death, that he there might intercede for us with God. For if Christ's offering were primarily the dying at the cross, then the Old Testament animals would have had to be a type of this through their dying — but the Old Testament key event is not the killing of the animal, but the bearing of its blood into the holy of holies by the high priest.

Fausto Sozzini, Part Two · Self-offering of Christ / High Priest: Atonement

Sozzini here makes a fundamental typological observation: in the Old Testament sacrificial cult the slaughter was at the forecourt, but the proper cultic action was the high priest's entry into the holy of holies with the blood (Lev 16:14–15). Transferred to Christ: the dying at the cross is the slaughter, but the real “presentation” (prosphorá) happens in Christ's entry into the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:11–12, 24). This overturns the penal-substitutive narrowing of Heb 10:10 to the death on the cross as a penal performance.

From this follows Sozzini's positive reading: en hôi thelêmati hêgiasménoi esmen designates the sanctification of the believers through the holistic obedience-path of Christ, which consists in incarnation, earthly ministry, death, resurrection and entrance into the sanctuary. Sanctification is incorporation into the new covenant, not forensic discharge from punishment. The doctrine of penal substitution narrows this rich cultic-consecrating process to death as a juridical act and thereby loses from view the main concern of Hebrews.

Sozzini emphasizes at the same time the christological consequence: because Christ “always lives” (Heb 7:25), the ephápax is not a paid closing payment, but a permanently effective completion. Christ works continually as the heavenly intercessor; the believers follow in his track through the “new and living way” (Heb 10:20) toward God. From the penal model this continual cultic vitality precisely does not follow; from the consecration model it follows necessarily.

Overview of Sozzini's writings

Logical arguments

From Heb 10:10 the following logical-philological arguments against the penal-substitutive reading arise:

1. Argument from the word-sense thelêma. Vv.7–10 sets “God's will” three times against the Old Testament offering. The will of God is not a penal decree against Christ, but the salvific decree fulfilled through Christ's obedience. The word thelêma means in the NT consistently will / decision / wish — not penal matter. Sanctification “by this will” is sanctification in Christ's act of obedience, not in a penal settlement.
2. Argument from the sacrificial term prosphorá. Prosphorá in LXX usage embraces all kinds of offerings, including whole burnt offerings, grain offerings, peace offerings, thank offerings (Heb 13:15: “sacrifice of praise” thysian ainéseôs). Heb 10:5–6 even expressly distinguishes four different categories. A binding identification with sin offering is linguistically not to be justified; it is a theological pre-decision.
3. Argument from the high-priestly entry dramaturgy. Heb 7–10 stages Christ's salvific act as a high-priestly entry into the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:11–12, 24), not as a penal execution at the cross. The cross is the “forecourt,” the true offering is carried out in the “holy of holies.” Heb 10:10 must be read in this typological frame; the penal-substitutive reading bursts it open.
4. Argument from ephápax + eis to diênekés. The “once for all” is in Hebrews coupled with “for all time” (Heb 10:12, 14) and with Heb 7:25 (“because he always lives”). Finality comes from the one who lives, not from a closed penal act. A paid penal quota is concluded; a priestly consecration works enduringly.
5. Argument from the usage of hagiázô. In Hebrews hagiázô stands consistently in the consecratory-covenantal word-field (Heb 2:11; 9:13; 10:10, 14, 29; 13:12). It designates incorporation into the people of God with access authority to the heavenly sanctuary, not forensic discharge from punishment. The author does not use dikaióô in a technically forensic sense.
6. Argument from the typological reference to Lev 16. Heb 9:7, 12, 25; 10:3 expressly refer to the annual Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). There the key event is not the slaughter, but the bearing of the blood into the holy of holies (Lev 16:14–15). Christ's prosphorá in Heb 10:10 is typologically exactly that — not a penal performance at the cross.
7. Argument from Ps 40 LXX (vv.5–7). The author interprets Ps 40 such that the obedience of will replaces the offering. If Heb 10:10 then meant a penal substitution, the logic of the citation would be destroyed: out of “will instead of offering” would become “a greater offering (= penal quota).” The author argues, however, exactly the other way around — will displaces cult, obedience displaces animal sacrifice.
8. Argument from the covenantal context (vv.16–17). Heb 10:16–17 cites Jer 31:33–34 LXX: “I will write my law on their hearts … and I will remember their sins no more.” Forgiveness is here expressed in the covenantal speech-form “I remember no more” — not in the juridical speech-form “because another has paid.” Sanctification in v.10 must be read in this covenantal line, not in a penal one.
9. Argument from the intercession motif (vv.19–25 and Heb 7:25). Christ's salvation-bearing efficacy is not concluded with the cross; it is continued in the heavenly intercession service. Heb 10:21–22 names Christ “the great priest over the house of God,” before whom the believers draw near. A penal quota would make this continual priestly dynamic superfluous; the consecratory reading necessarily integrates it.
10. Argument from the inner-NT forgiveness analogy (Mt 18:23–35; Lk 15). The inner-NT picture of forgiveness knows explicitly the release of debt without penal performance by a third party: the royal creditor releases, the father of the prodigal son embraces. This forgiveness grammar also carries Heb 10:17–18. Whoever reads a penal substitution into v.10 bursts the unified NT forgiveness language.

Biblical cross-references

The following passages are essential for the correct understanding of Heb 10:10:

Psalm 40:7–9 LXX — will instead of offering

The Psalm is the immediate template for Heb 10:5–7. Already in Ps 40 God's will is profiled against the Old Testament offering: “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired … I come to do your will.” Hebrews picks up this line: sanctification comes from the obedience of will, not from a greater quantum of cultic payment.

Hebrews 7:25 — “because he always lives”

Heb 7:25 unlocks the ephápax theologically: Christ's salvation-bearing efficacy rests on his ongoing life as heavenly intercessor. The abiding is the one who lives, not a concluded penal act. Ephápax in Heb 10:10 must be read from this Christology.

Hebrews 9:11–12 — entry into the heavenly sanctuary

Christ enters “once for all” into the holy of holies, “not with the blood of animals, but with his own blood,” and obtains “eternal redemption.” The place of the offering is here the heavenly sanctuary, not the cross-beam. Heb 10:10 must be read in this cultic-heavenly entry typology. Cf. the entry on Hebrews 9:11–14.

Hebrews 9:22 — purification, not penal execution

The verse speaks of purification through blood, not of penal performance. The “almost everything” (schedon) additionally breaks the universal juridical reading. Hebrews thinks purification theology, not penal-law logic. Cf. Hebrews 9:22.

Hebrews 13:12 — sanctifying the people through his own blood

“Jesus suffered outside the gate, in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.” This formulation specifies the sense of hagiázô in Heb 10:10: sanctification is incorporation of the people through Christ's blood — covenantal, not forensic.

Jeremiah 31:33–34 LXX — new covenant, forgetting of sin

Cited in Heb 10:16–17 itself: “I will write my law on their hearts … and I will remember their sins no more.” Forgiveness is here expressed in the covenantal speech-form “no-more-remembering” — not as a paid penal quota. Sanctification in v.10 must be read in this covenantal line.

Leviticus 16:14–15 — Yom Kippur as typological model

On the Day of Atonement the high priest slaughtered the animals at the forecourt, but the actual cultic event was the entry with the blood into the holy of holies. Heb 9–10 builds on this: Christ's death on the cross corresponds to the slaughter, his entry into the heavenly sanctuary corresponds to the actual prosphorá.

Luke 15:20–24 — forgiveness without penal substitution

The father of the prodigal son forgives through embrace, not through the execution of a third party. The NT forgiveness language knows explicitly the model of free divine release — without penal-substitutive payment. Heb 10:10 demands no exception; it joins this line.

Objections and Socinian answers

Objection 1: “Offering” necessarily implies a penal character

The Old Testament concept of offering (thysía, prosphorá) is broad: whole burnt offering, grain offering, peace offering, sin offering, guilt offering, thank offering — not all are sin offerings. Heb 10:5–6 even expressly distinguishes four different offering types. An identification with sin offering is linguistically unfounded.

Heb 13:15 speaks of a “sacrifice of praise” (thysian ainéseôs), which the believers are to bring God through Christ. This passage shows that the author precisely does not understand the offering term in a juridically narrowed sense. Prosphorá is self-giving, presentation, consecration — not necessarily penal performance.

Heb 10 places Christ's offering antitypically above all Old Testament offerings — this does not necessarily make it a sin offering. Rather, it is the true and final consecration offering, which leads those drawing near into the new covenant (Heb 10:19–22). The author himself nowhere says that Christ bore the punishment; he says that Christ sanctified the people.

The Old Testament prototype too (Ex 29; Lev 8) is consecratory: Aaron and his sons are consecrated, not vicariously punished. The consecration through blood and anointing oil was qualification for sanctuary service, not a penal receipt. This typology is what Hebrews bears.

Objection 2: “Sanctified” means forensic discharge from punishment

Hagiázô in Hebrews consistently designates cultic-covenantal incorporation. Heb 13:12: “sanctify the people through his own blood.” Heb 2:11: “the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one.” Heb 9:13: Old Testament purifying water “sanctifies for the purification of the flesh.” The word-field is cultic access-status, not forensic receipt.

The author does not use dikaióô (“justify”) as a technical term for penal discharge. If he wished to think forensically, this word would stand. It does not stand; instead hagiázô stands throughout. The forensic narrowing is a Pauline-smuggled conceptual grid that is not proper to Hebrews.

Old Testament the sense is clear: in Ex 29 and Lev 8 Aaron and his sons are “sanctified” through blood (hagiázein LXX) — that means consecration to priestly service, not penal discharge. Hebrews transfers this logic. The believers are “sanctified” in the sense of their covenantal belonging and their access authority to the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 10:19–22).

Heb 10:17–18 closes the section with Jer 31: “I will remember their sins no more.” Forgiveness is expressed in the covenantal speech-form of no-more-remembering, not in the speech-form “because another has paid.” The penal-substitutive reading projects into the text a speech-form which the text does not use.

Objection 3: Ephápax presupposes the payment of the full penal quantum

Ephápax designates in Hebrews the non-repeatability in contrast to the repetitive Old Testament sacrificial language (Heb 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28; 10:10, 12, 14). The point is the structural insufficiency of the Old Testament offerings (Heb 10:1–4: because they must be repeated yearly). Ephápax is finality, not quantum.

Heb 7:25 unlocks this: Christ “can save for all time, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” The abiding is the one who lives, not a paid quantum. The finality comes from the person of the heavenly high priest, not from a closed penal account. Exactly this is doubly underlined by eis to diênekés (Heb 10:12, 14).

A paid penal quota would be closed and would need no ongoing service. The continual intercession office of the exalted Christ (Heb 7:25; 9:24) would be superfluous. The cultic-consecrating reading, however, necessarily integrates the intercession office: the one-time entry founds the abiding priestly efficacy. Sozzini formulates it so: the true “atonement” happens not at the cross, but through the cross, in the abiding heavenly service.

Linguistically too, hapax / ephápax is not juridically connoted in the NT (cf. Jude 3: “the faith once delivered”; 1 Pet 3:18: “once for all”). The juridical loading through the Anselmian reading is not laid down in the word itself.

Objection 4: “If Christ is not substitutionally punished, his death has no sufficient ground”

This reduction is false. Christ's death has in the Socinian reading several connected functions: it is the final confirmation of the obedience of will (Heb 5:8–9; 10:7–9); it forms the necessary passage to entry into the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 9:12); it seals the new covenant (Mt 26:28; Heb 9:15–17); it conquers the power of death (Heb 2:14–15); it reveals God's love (Rom 5:8); it consecrates the believers into the new covenant (Heb 10:10; 13:12); it calls into discipleship (1 Pet 2:21).

None of these aspects requires a penal performance rendered to God. All together they yield a full salvation-event — rich, many-dimensional, theologically coherent. The penal-substitutive narrowing fades this manifold in favour of a juridical model that is not linguistically demonstrable in Hebrews.

Hebrews itself names centrally the high-priestly entry as the meaning of the dying (Heb 9:11–12, 24; 10:19–22). The death is the entrance to the holy of holies, the way through which Christ enters. This is not an empty demonstration act — it is the central salvific action of the consecration of the covenant-people.

Sozzini argues: the “mere example” objection is a polemical caricature. The Socinian doctrine of salvation knows a rich, many-dimensional soteriology. What it does not know is the juridical mechanism of penal substitution — because this is not linguistically demonstrable in the NT.

Objection 5: “But Heb 9:22: without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”

Heb 9:22 says schedon “almost everything is purified in blood” — the “almost” breaks the universal validity. Hebrews itself knows exceptions (cf. Lev 5:11–13: grain offering in case of poverty). An exceptionless penal-substitutive maxim is not borne by the verse.

Heb 9:22 is moreover a cultic-priestly verse on the Old Testament purification system — not a universal teaching on the conditions of forgiveness. Its object is the Old Testament purification practice, not the condition of salvation per se. Cf. the entry on Hebrews 9:22.

Forgiveness in the OT happens often without blood: Ps 51 (David forgiven through repentance and mercy); 2 Chron 33:12–13 (Manasseh through humility); Lk 15 (father of the prodigal son); Mt 18:23–35 (royal creditor releases debt) — each without penal-substitutive payment to a third party. This broad biblical forgiveness language is not abolished by Heb 9:22.

In Heb 10:17–18 itself forgiveness is expressed in dependence on Jer 31:33–34: “I will remember their sins no more.” This is covenant theology, not penal-law doctrine. Whoever makes Heb 9:22 the key to Heb 10:10 overwrites the statements of the author with a later juridical conceptual grid.

Theological consequences

Related verses

The following passages support, deepen or contrast the exegesis presented here:

• Hebrews 9:11–14 — entry into the heavenly sanctuary — place of the true offering; key to the ephápax.
• Hebrews 9:22 — purification theology instead of penal-law logic; schedon breaks the universal reading.
• 1 Peter 2:21–24 — Anaphérein as “bearing away” instead of penal suffering; parallel argumentation.
• Mark 10:45 — Lýtron as a liberation-metaphor without payment-recipient; parallel soteriological grammar.
• Romans 3:25–26 — Hilastêrion as place of encounter with grace — not penal site.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21 — “Made sin for us” covenantally instead of forensically.

Summary

Hebrews 10:10 explains sanctification through Christ's obedience (thelêma) in the frame of the high-priestly entry dramaturgy of Hebrews (Heb 7–10). The “offering of the body of Jesus Christ” is not a penal quota paid to God, but the holistic act of self-giving which culminates in the entry into the heavenly sanctuary. Prosphorá is presentation in the consecratory sense; hagiázô is covenantal incorporation; ephápax is finality of the deed, because the doer lives eternally (Heb 7:25).

The penal-substitutive reading collides with the author's argumentation in vv.5–10 (will displaces offering), with the high-priestly entry dramaturgy (Heb 9:11–12, 24), with the covenantal forgiveness language (Heb 10:16–17 / Jer 31:33–34), with the continual intercession office of the exalted Christ (Heb 7:25; 9:24) and with the Old Testament consecration model (Ex 29; Lev 8, 16). It narrows the rich cultic-priestly process to a juridical act that is not demonstrable in the text.

Understood Socinianly, Heb 10:10 is a key text of the covenantal and consecration-theological soteriology: Christ consecrates the believers through his obedience into the new covenant and leads them, as heavenly high priest, continually to God. Sanctification is lived covenantal belonging with real access to the heavenly sanctuary — not forensic discharge from punishment. The “once for all” is finality of the deed in the eternally living Christ.