This is the fourth warning passage in Hebrews (cf. 2:1-4, drifting; 3:7–4:13, disobedience; 5:11–6:20, degeneration). The warning passage in chapter 10 is very similar in form and in content to chapter 6. This danger or warning is against despising (and seems based off of Numbers 15:30-36). Verse 26 makes it clear that this is willful sin, the same concept as was taught in Numbers 15:30-36 (cf. Lev. 6:1-7 which simply says you can offer sacrifices for intentional sins). The “sinning willfully” (or “sinning deliberately”; will be called the “willful sin” for the remainder) is to be distinguished from intentional sins; the willful sin is apostasy (cf. v. 28; Deut. 13:8; 17:2-6; however, not everyone agrees that this is talking about apostasy[1]). In this case it involved the deliberate rejection of the gospel as verses 28-29 explain. Before the writer explains what they call the willful sin, the author presents the consequences of such a sin in verse 27.
The quotation in verse 30 comes from Deuteronomy 32:35-36, from the song of Moses. Two contrasting ideas are found in this quotation. (1) Judgment is promised against those who do not know the Lord. (2) Yahweh will deliver His people.
26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot 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? 30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” 31 It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (NASB)
KEY TAKEAWAYS:
- As believers, we have assurance that “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins” (1 John 1:9a). The New Testament is quick to offer forgiveness for all types of sins for people who confess and repent.
- Anyone who rejected the sacrifice of Christ for sins would not find any other means of handling sin. We can never repay our debt. It keeps growing. Only Christ, not works, can forgive us and give us life
- Those who reject God and will experience God’s hand in judgment should know that it would be a frightening experience. The anticipation of judgment by the living God should fill sinners with dread.
CLOSER LOOK:
Verses 26–27: The NASB (and ESV and even the KJV) translation here, “if we go on sinning willfully,” is better than the NIV‘s “if we deliberately keep on sinning,” as the words “keep on” overplay the Greek tense.[2] As the context shows (cf. v. 23), the author was concerned here, as throughout the epistle, with the danger of defection from the faith. Most sin is “deliberate,” but the writer was here influenced by the Old Testament’s teaching about sins of presumption (cf. Num. 15:29–31) which lay outside the sacrificial provisions of the Law. Apostasy from the faith would be such a “willful” act and for those who commit it, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (cf. Heb. 10:18). We have already seen how many interpret these passages to refer to apostasy, either on the part of those who were genuinely converted and lost their salvation (the Arminian view), or those who were not genuinely converted and who apostatized in the sense of repudiating Christ and forsaking the Christian community (the Reformed view).[3] If the efficacious sacrifice of Christ should be renounced, there remained no other available sacrifice which could shield an apostate from God’s “judgment” by “the fury of a fire.” A Christian who abandons “the beginning of our commitment” (3:14) puts themself on the side of God’s enemies and, as the writer had already said, is in effect “crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.” (6:6). Such conduct can scarcely be worthy of anything but God’s flaming indignation and retribution. This, however, as stated earlier in 6:8, is not a reference to hell (see 10:29).
The quotation is from Isaiah 26:11. The context of Isaiah 26:11 makes it clear the passage is concerned with the wicked. That is why the warning is about fire consuming adversaries. These are scarcely words to be directed towards Christians. The consequences of the willful sin are tremendous.
Verses 28–29: Verses 28–29 describe the willful sin. Verse 28 looks back to Deuteronomy 13:8 and Deuteronomy 17:2-6. A number of factors make this identification certain. (1) The sin deals with setting aside the Mosaic law. In both quotations from Deuteronomy (in verse 30) the sin involves leaving the law of Moses to worship other gods. The same stem translated “set aside” (atheteo) occurs in Hebrews 7:18 and 9:26. (2) The penalty was death. (3) The reference to two or three witnesses looks back to Deuteronomy 17:6. (4) The “without mercy” refers to Deuteronomy 13:8. Again, the sin referred to in these two passages from Deuteronomy is apostasy, the same peril which concerned the writer of this homily. So it seems clear that the author is looking at the sin of apostasy as seen in Deuteronomy 13 and 17. This is why the author goes on to discuss it as trampling underfoot the Son of God and insulting the Holy Spirit. Tying this together, under the Old Covenant, if an Israelite spurned the Mosaic Law and at least “two or three witnesses” verified their actions, the person was put to death. This being true, the author then argued from the lesser to the greater. If defiance of an inferior covenant could bring such retribution, what about defiance of the New Covenant which, as the author had made clear, is far superior? The answer can only be that the punishment would be substantially greater in such a case.
In order to show that this is so, the writer then placed defection from the faith in the harshest possible light. The tragedy of such an awesome sin is given a threefold description in verse 29. First, this sin means a person “has trampled underfoot the Son of God.” The verb “trampled” (katapateo), the same as is used in Matthew 7:6. It parallels crucifying the Son of God mentioned in Hebrews 6:6. An apostate from the New Covenant “has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant (cf. “blood of the eternal covenant,” 13:20) by which he was sanctified.” Second, such a person “has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant.” This means more than to treat outwardly; it describes an inner attitude and viewpoint. The word “regarded” is from a verb (hegeomai) that means “to think” or “to consider.”
A problem revolves around the clause, “the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” Many interpretations have been posited for this difficult clause. [please note: because the text uses the word “he,” I will do so for this discussion as well.] (1) The Arminian viewpoint states “he” was saved and then lost. Another way to say it is those who were genuinely converted and lost their salvation. For non-Arminians, the doctrine of election makes this an impossible interpretation. (2) Some believe this describes an arrogant Christian who will be disciplined. However, the sin described in Deuteronomy is apostasy and the rebellion described here is so strong, it can hardly be a believer that is described here. (3) The third view says this describes provisional sanctification. That is, these are apostates for whom Christ has made atonement and therefore sanctification is a provision made for them. The problem is “provisional sanctification” is not found elsewhere in the Bible. (4) It may mean they were sanctified by association with others, a doctrine taught elsewhere in the Scriptures (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:14), the problem was the opposite here. The sinners involved here were abandoning fellowship with believers (cf. 10:25)! (5) A fifth position asserts the believer is sanctified and only hypothetically can commit these sins. But why have a hypothetical warning? (6) Still another interpretation affirms it simply means “by which Christians are sanctified.” (7) Some believe the antecedent is Christ, so that it means “by which Christ was sanctified.” Many believe this is possible. Those not agreeing with the other positions, suggest that Christ is the One referred to here as “sanctified” or that the person only claims to be sanctified.[4] Position (6) would counter by saying these efforts are foreign to the writer’s thought and are so forced that they carry their own refutation. The author’s whole point lies in the seriousness of the act. (8) Without being dogmatic it seems best to say it refers to the covenant and so would mean “by which the covenant was sanctified”. The nearest antecedent of the construction is covenant. Furthermore, this fits with the thought of Hebrews 9:18. This is another case where you can go look at 10 different commentaries and find nine different arguments.
The third sin in verse 29 is committed when one “has insulted the Spirit of grace.” The verb “insult” (enubrizo is very strong and means to mock or insult). One can hardly find a better description of the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). A blasphemous spirit would be insulting the Holy Spirit. Hubris was the awful sin of insolence. This is the only occurrence of this verb in the N.T. (“insult” (enubrizo)) and it is found only in Leviticus 24:11 in the LXX. Significantly, in Leviticus 24:11 it describes blasphemy of God’s name. To treat “the blood of the covenant” (which actually sanctifies believers) as though it were an “unclean” (koinon, “common”)[5] thing and to renounce its efficacy, is to commit a sin so heinous as to overshadow the fatal infractions of the Old Covenant. To this, an apostate adds the offense of insulting “the Spirit of grace” who originally encouraged them to faith in Christ. This kind of spiritual rebellion clearly calls for a much worse punishment than the capital penalty that was inflicted under the Mosaic setup.
Some would say that we potentially have another lesser-to-greater argument here in verses 28 and 29. In talking of the “severer punishment,” we see this in the phrases “trampled underfoot the Son of God…regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant…insulted the Spirit…” If it is true that under the Old Covenant that someone dies as they set aside the Law of Moses, how much truer it would be in the New covenant because we have a better thing. In some sense, we could compare the Son of God to Moses, which is done in 3:1-6, where we saw Jesus as superior to Moses. The covenant, which is seen as being trampled (really strong language), it probably ties back to the Law in the previous verse as a point of comparison. In verse 28 there is the phrase with the “testimony of two or three witnesses.” In verse 29 when we get to insulting the Spirit of grace, there is potentially another comparison here, but in all honesty, it may be making too much or seeing something into the text that is not there. But when it talks about the testimony of two or three witnesses in verse 28, you have the witness of the blood and the Spirit and could include the Son. There is your two or three depending on if you include the Son. There is a possibility to think of this as a comparison and we can take it or leave it.
Verses 30–31: No one should regard such a warning as an idle threat. God Himself has claimed the right to take vengeance and to “judge His people.” There is a line there and you don’t want to cross it because God executes judgment. This is how you summarize this: You don’t mess with God. In saying this, the author quoted twice from Deuteronomy (32:35–36), a chapter which most vividly evokes the picture of God’s people suffering His retributive judgments (cf. esp. Deut. 32:19–27). Those familiar with this text, as well as other descriptions of God’s wrath against “His people,” agree: It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Let’s talk about how to summarize this section: Regarding the willful sin and trampling underfoot the Son of God can be taken as a rejection of the person of Christ. “Regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant,” is probably a rejection of the sacrificial death of Christ. And then thirdly, “Insulting the Spirit of grace,” is the rejection of the word of the Holy Spirit in salvation. The result of all of these things is the expectation of a terrifying judgment.
This leads to a very important question, “Does Hebrews 10:26-31 describe a sin committed by a saved or lost person?” One side will say, the words “he was sanctified” refer to true Christians. Already the writer to the Hebrews has described them as “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time” (10:10) and as “perfected for all time” through this sanctifying work (v. 14). But the text may not be saying what this viewpoint is arguing for. They say the writer was not thinking of hell. Many forms of divine retribution can fall on a human life which are worse than immediate death. In fact, Jeremiah made just such a complaint about the punishment inflicted on Jerusalem (Lam. 4:6, 9). One might think also of King Saul, whose last days were burdened with such mental and emotional turmoil that death itself was a kind of release.
Many say it must be a lost person for a number of reasons. (1) No provision is made for forgiveness of this sin. It should be noted the writer is not discussing the O.T. law here but the N.T. fulfillment (cf.Heb. 10:18). (2) This individual will be the object of the fury of fire which will consume adversaries (10:27). (3) The O.T. context of Deuteronomy 13:6-11 and 17:2-6 is the abandonment of the worship of Jehovah for idols. (4) The sins of verse 29 certainly describe the attitudes and actions of the lost. (5) The thought of verses 30-31 is judgmental in a retributive sense. (6) The judgment of verse 29 must be more severe than physical death (cf. Deut. 17:2-6). (7) The argument of chapters 5-10 argues for this. These chapters say the O.T. priesthood, covenant, and sacrifices could not bring genuine salvation and sanctification. They were fulfilled in Christ. Therefore, to deny Christ Jesus is to damn one’s own soul.
[1] David L. Allen, “Hebrews,” in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, eds E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 35 (Nashville: B&H, 2010), n.p.
[2] Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 805.
[3] David L. Allen, “Hebrews,” in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, eds E. Ray Clendenen and David S. Dockery, vol. 35 (Nashville: B&H, 2010), n.p.
[4] Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1985), 806.
[5] BDAG – “to being of little value because of being common, common, ordinary, profane” Could also relate to ceremonial impurity