Friday, March 9, 2012

Apostasy: Hebrews 10:26-31

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, 'VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY.' And again, 'THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE.' It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
We need to preface our examination of this text with a brief orientation. Verse 26 begins with the conjunction "for." When we see this word, we need to ask ourselves "What is it there for?" When we examine verses 26-31, which describes the path to apostasy, what we find is that this section stands in contrast to verses 19-25, which describes true belief. Note also the parallel between 10:19-25 and 3:1-6, and between 10:19-25 and 3:12-14. What we have in this book is a recurring warning against apostasy.

We are able to discern from this passage six reasons why the people described in this section (vv. 26-31) are apostates. The first reason is given in verse 26 where the text says, "For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." We know from our previous study of 2 Peter 2 that "the knowledge of the truth" refers to an understanding of the gospel (incidentally, this identification is consistent throughout Peter's writings; see 1 Peter 1:22). So here we recognize that we have a person who "sins willfully" (makes a conscious choice of sin over Christ) after receiving the sure knowledge of the gospel (the epignosis). What we must understand is the nature of this state (I say "state" because the word for "sinning" in the original is a present participle and indicates a continuing condition). The word "willful" is hekousios (εκουσιος), which means "voluntary." In other words, the description of a person who has abandoned himself/herself to a state of sin. Obviously, in light of 1 John 3:6-10, this cannot describe a Christian who is merely struggling with sin. This is the description of a person who has voluntarily abandoned himself/herself to sin and does not know Christ—regardless of what he/she might claim. The entire book of 1 John is devoted to this theme.

The second reason why this passage must be describing apostasy is found in verse 26b, which reads, "...there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." The word apoleipo (απολειπω), translated "remains," means "to be left." We could say, "...there is left no sacrifice for sins." The reason why there is no sacrifice for sin is because the person described in this passage has, with full knowledge, rejected the only sufficient sacrifice for sins—which is Christ.

The third reason why this passage must be describing apostasy is found in verse 26. Here, we are told what this person does not have—a sacrifice for sins. In verse 27 we are told what he does have—the prospect of a terrifying future. Note this very important fact given in verse 27: These people are classed as "adversaries" of God. They are adversaries whom God is going to judge with a consuming fire. The NIV reads: "but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God."

The fourth reason why this passage must be describing apostasy is found in verse 29. Here we encounter three parallel statements. They all indicate a rejection of the gospel, but they express it in different words. The first statement says that they have "trampled under foot the Son of God." Katapateo (καταπατεω), which is translated "trample" means "to spurn" (when used figuratively, as here). The idea is an outright rejection of Christ. In other words, the person in view considers the Son of God as "worthless"—like dirt beneath his/her feet. The second statement says that he "regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified." "Unclean" (koinos, κοινος) means "common." The idea is that this person has no appreciation for the sanctity and efficacy of Christ's death—it evokes no positive response from this individual. The third statement says they have "insulted the Spirit of grace." The reference is to the Holy Spirit. Our word "insult" does not carry the depth of force that enubrizo (ενυβριζω) indicates. The idea is an arrogant, insolent, scornful, even blasphemous disregard of the Spirit's work in calling men to salvation. In these three statements, we have three pictures of rejection of the gospel.

The fifth reason why this passage must be describing apostasy is seen in verses 30-31. Ekdikesis (εκδικησις), translated "vengeance," refers to retributive justice. The idea is "punishment" in the strictest sense of the word.

The sixth reason why this passage must be describing apostasy is in verse 39, where the author reflects back on what he has said in verses 19-38. Two words in the first part of this verse are key to understanding who and what is being described here. "Shrink back" (hupostole, υποστολη) means "to turn back;" the idea is equivalent to apostasia ("to fall away"). "Destruction" (apoleia, απωλεια) means "perdition." Perdition is by definition the absence of salvation. Also, note the contrast presented in verse 39b. There can be no doubt that verse 39 identifies the people described in verses 26-31 as apostates.

As before, the question is: Is there anything in the description that would lead us to believe that these individuals were previously saved? Arminianists point out that there are a few reasons for thinking that this is the case. Let us look at those reasons. First, since the writer includes himself in the group he refers to by the pronoun "we" (v. 26), some assume that he must be referring to saved people. The answer to this is that the verse itself defines who is included within the scope of this pronoun—it is everyone who has "received the knowledge of truth," which encompasses both those who have responded positively (unto salvation) and those who have responded negatively (remaining unsaved). There is simply no grammatical or contextual reason for restricting this pronoun to refer only to saved people. The second reason offered is that in verse 26 the subjects are said to have "received the knowledge of the truth." This sounds like something that would describe a saved person. However, as we have noted above, one must receive the knowledge of the truth in order to come to Christ; thus such knowledge precedes salvation and in no way indicates that these people ever possessed saving faith.

Peter, in 2 Peter 2:20, describes people who receive the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour but remain unsaved. We should not confuse "receiving the knowledge of the Lord" with "receiving the Lord." These are two distinct ideas. Receiving the knowledge of the Lord does not imply any decision on the part of the recipient. All that is indicated in this passage is that these individuals came to understand the truth of the gospel; it certainly indicates nothing in the way of positive response. The third reason offered is based on verse 29. The people in question are said to have been "sanctified" by the blood of the covenant, which some take as an indication that the writer is referring to believers. The answer to this objection is somewhat more involved than the others, for this reason: When we hear the word "sanctify" (hagiazo, αγιαζω), we tend to associate it with the sanctification in regard to salvation. However, hagiazo is capable of a much broader application than that. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7:14 it is specifically applied to the unsaved spouses of believers. Hagiazo carries the idea of placing something into a privileged position. It might be a position of grace, or of righteousness, or of consecration, or of opportunity. So, in what sense is it appropriate to refer to a lost person as "sanctified" by the blood of Christ? The answer is that the death of Christ sanctifies every man in the sense that it puts every man in a position of opportunity to be saved. This clause has probably been the greatest sticking-point for many, but it is important to recognize that this is due to reading our very narrow concept of sanctification in which only true believers are "sanctified" (with respect to salvation). There is another sense in which all men, especially those that are exposed to the gospel, are "sanctified."

As we have seen, there is nothing in this passage that indicates these apostates were once saved. Based on the description given, they are simply individuals who, having come to understand the gospel, simply said "No" (or "Maybe," which is the same thing) instead of "Yes." To illustrate, say you had a son and your son saw a neighbour about to be run over by a transport truck. Your son pushes your neighbour out of the way only to be crushed to death himself by the large truck. After all of this, your neighbour never acknowledges the sacrifice your son made. In fact, your neighbour has been downright unthankful and even hostile to you and your family. Get the picture? This passage is telling us that God sent His Son into the world to die for sinners so they would not have to spend eternity in hell, but some, after coming to understand what God did for them (the epignosis), either reject the precious gift outright or think so little of it that they just never get around to acting on it until finally they no longer think about it anymore. According to the writer of Hebrews, such people have only themselves to blame for eventually crossing over the line into hopelessness and the fearful prospect of eternity in hell. The underlying message of this passage is this: Today is the day of salvation—do not put it off. Whatever a person may think, they are without excuse and without remedy if they fail to respond to the gospel (Heb. 3:7-19).

Borrowed and revised from Sam A. Smith's The Biblical Doctrine of Apostasy.