For if we willfully
persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no
longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a
fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law
of Moses dies without mercy "on the testimony of two or three
witnesses." How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by
those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by
which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29
NRSV)
Commenting on this pericope, and in particular,
how v. 29 (in bold above) teaches that a truly justified Christian (not a false
believer) can fall from their salvation, B.J. Oropeza wrote:
Regarding the first
description (Heb 10:29a), καταπατεω is used of trampling something underfoot
(cf. Matt 5:13; Luke 8:5; 12:1). In Matt 7:6 the “pigs” that trample on pearls
probably identify apostates and false teaches as unclean persons who reject the
gospel message, perhaps violently (cf. 2 Pet 2:22). At its most basic level the
notion of trampling in Hebrews refers to the apostate rejecting the Son of God.
More specifically the thought may connote breaking an oath (cf. Homer, Iliad
4.157), or it conveys a “cosmic reversal of fortune” when compared with Christ
placing his enemies under his feet (Heb 1:13; 10:13). Another alternative
relates the trampling to πατεω, which is associated with the profanation
of that which is holy, such as Jerusalem or its temple being trampled
underfoot. If so, then to trample on the Son of God conveys for our author a profanation
similar to the enemies of God defiling God’s holy places. In any case the
author’s use of the term “Son of God” implies repudiation of Jesus as the Son
of God and eschatological ruler of the cosmos (Heb 1), a reversal of the
Christian confession that was considered a brash challenge to Caesar
according to Roman opponents and blasphemy according to Jewish opponents.
Regarding the second
description (10:29b), the thought of reckoning unclean the blood of the
covenant refers to a repudiation of the new covenant work of Christ involving
his sacrificial death that provides the forgiveness of sin (cf. Heb 9:12, 13-14,
20; 10:19; Acts 21:28; Rev 21:17). Here the atoning death of Christ related to
the new covenant is being denied, Johnson astutely writes, “The apostasy, in
effect, reverses the effect of God’s priestly work” (Johnson, Hebrews,
265). Also significant in 10:29b is that the apostate was at one time “sanctified”
(εν ω ηγασθη) through Christ’ sacrifice. There is no doubt that the author considers
the apostate as being once a genuine Christ-follower thoroughly converted and
cleansed from sin before his repudiation of the new covenant.
The third description
(10:29c) asserts that the apostate outrages or insults (ενυβριζω) the Spirit of
grace, implying insolence of the arrogant sort. Some interpreters associate the
thought with blaspheming the Holy Spirit. This is certainly possible, but the
author probably intends to convey something more than this. The “Spirit of
grace” relates to the arrival of the eschatological era and may echo Zech
12:10, a passage that our author would probably interpret as Christ’s death on
the cross (cf. John 19:34-37; Rev 1:7). The idea, then, may refer to a repudiation
of the baptism and outpouring of the Spirit during the end times, which was
considered a gift (i.e., “grace”) associated with miraculous signs, conversion,
and the believers’ new life in Christ (cf. Heb 2:4; 6:4; Acts 2:4, 38-39;
11:15-18; 1 Cor 12:13; Rom 8:9; John 3:5).
The person in Heb
10:26-29 commits the sign of apostasy: he repudiates the confession of Jesus as
Son of God, reverses his atoning death, and arrogantly rejects the gift of God’s
Spirit. This apostate seems antagonistic towards his former faith. There is no
longer remains a sacrifice that could bring this person back to right standing
with God. Since Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice is considered unrepeatable, and
this person has rejected this sacrifice, he cannot be renewed, nor can he turn
to the old covenant priestly sacrifices that were offered yearly to cover sins,
because according to our author such things were rendered obsolete by Christ’s sacrificial
death (cf. 10:9, 18). In essence 10:26, similar to 6:4-6, teaches that it is
impossible for the apostate to be restored (Lane, Hebrews, 2.291
adds some interesting parallels between 6:4-6 and 10:26-29, including past
experiences [6:4-5; 10:26], the apostasy [6:6; 10:29], impossibility of renewal
[6:4, 6; 10:26], and covenantal curse due to the apostasy [6:8; 10:27]. The
main distinction for Lane is the cultic formulation of the last passage), and
in 10:29, similar to 6:4-6, teaches that the apostate was once an authentic
believer. (B.J. Oropoeza, Churches Under Siege of Persecution and
Assimilation: The General Epistles and Revelation [Apostasy in the New Testament
Communities 3; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2012], 50-52, italics in original)
In a footnote for the above, Oropeza,
responding to another commentator on the phrase “ by which they were sanctified,”
noted:
Contrast Guthrie, Hebrews,
230, who translates the phrase εν ω ηγασθη as impersonal: “by which one is
sanctified.” However, all the other singular verbs in 10:29 refer to the
apostate (i.e., αξιωθησται, καταπατησας, ηγησαμενος, ενυβρισας). Also, if the author wanted to express that he was not referring to
the apostate, he could have easily used a first or second person plural instead
of a third person singular for αγιαζω in order to clarify this, similar to what
he does by using οιδαμεν in 10:30 and δοκειτε in 10:29. More on target is Lane, Hebrews,
2.294, who writes: “This phrase [“by means of which he was consecrated”] in v.
29 corroborates that 10:26-31 is descriptive of the Christian who has experienced
the action of Christ upon his life. (Ibid., 51 n. 218)
There is absolutely no exegetical “wiggle
room”: eternal security/perseverance of the saints is explicitly refuted by
this pericope.
Further Reading
Hebrews 6:4-9: Only Hypothetical?
