# Is Hebrews 10:26-29 hypothetical?



## fralo4truth (Apr 9, 2012)

Everyone here (I hope) assenting to the _perseverance of the saints_, are there any other explanations of this passage besides the argument that it is hypothetical?

_"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"_

Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 9, 2012)

Under Moses' law those who committed high-handed sins had no expiatory ceremonial sacrifice available to them and were to be executed or - possibly - pay a ransom in lieu of execution.

See e.g. Numbers 15:22-41; Numbers 35:31-32; Exodus 21:30.

Is Hebrews 10:26-29 speaking of those, not known to us and not possible for us to identify, who have put themselves beyond God's grace? i.e. the Holy Spirit has stopped striving with them?

Patrick Fairbairn in his book on the _Typology of Scripture_ says this under his section on _The Sin-offering_



> There was undoubtedly a rigour in the Old Testament regarding presumptious sins which is not found in the New. The greater manifestation of grace in the latter called for a difference, though still it is only a difference only in degree: for here also there is a hardened impenitence which is practically beyond the reach of mercy - a phase of sin for which there is no forgiveness, as the following passages show: Matt 12:31; Heb 10:26-29; I Tim 1:20; I John 5:16, etc. Now, however, the range and compass of mercy has become greater.



It's worth also pointing out with respect to the Old Testament that those who had committed high-handed offences, like David and Manasseh, although they would have had no sin-offering or trespass offering, and strictly-speaking were liable to physical cutting-off by execution, yet found that the grace of God in Christ transcended the relative inadequacies of the OT shadows.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 9, 2012)

A point to make here: the phrase "if we sin willfully" (v 26) in the Greek implies a persistent, habitual, and impenitent practice of flagrant sin and gives an impression of not caring about it. I would say on that alone that the person in question was never regenerate to begin with.

But going to the whole context of Hebrews, isn't the book in general directed to Jewish Christians who were being tempted to go back to the Old Testament sacrificial system and in essence deny Christ as Messiah and Savior? I would think that this would be at least in part affecting the thrust of the text.


----------



## moral necessity (Apr 9, 2012)

The passage is about apostacy, in my opinion. From God's perspective, yes. He will lose none of the elect. From our perspective, it appears as if this truly happens sometimes. Not all scripture is a teaching passage about every particular theology. Quite often it is written to motivate and appeal to our understandings from our perspective here below. 


Hear Calvin on the passage:

"He shews how severe a vengeance of God awaits all those who fall away from the grace of Christ; for being without that one true salvation, they are now as it were given up to an inevitable destruction. With this testimony _Novatus_ and his sect formerly armed themselves, in order to take away the hope of pardon from all indiscriminately who had fallen after baptism. They who were not able to refute his calumny chose rather to deny the authority of this Epistle than to subscribe to great an absurdity. But the true meaning of the pasage, unaided by any help from any other part, is quite sufficient of itself to expose the effrontery of _Novatus_. 

Those who sin, mentioned by the Apostle, are not such as offend in any way, but such as forsake the Church, and wholly alienate themselves from Christ. For he speaks not here of this or of that sin, but he condemns by the name those who wilfuly renounced fellowship with the Church. But there is a vast difference between particular fallings and a complete defection of this kind, by which we entirely fall away from the grace of Christ. And as this cannot be the case with any one except he has been already enlightened, he says, _If we sin wilfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth_; as though he had said, 'If we knowingly and willingly renounce the grace which we had obtained.' It is now evident how widely apart is this doctrine from the error of Novatus.

And that the Apostle here refers only to apostates, is clear from the whole passage; for what he treats of is this, that those who had been once received into the Church ought not to forsake it, as some were wont to do. He now declares that there remained for such no sacrifice for sin, because they had wilfully sinned after having received the knowledge of the truth. But as to sinners who fall in any other way, Christ offers himself daily to them, so that they are to seek no other sacrifice for expiating their sins. He denies, then, that any sacrifice remains for them who renounce the death of Christ, which is not one by any offence except by a total renunciation of the faith.

This severity of God is indeed dreadful, but it is set forth for the purpose of inspiring terror. He cannot, however, be accused of cruelty; for as the death of Christ is the only remedy by which we can be delivered from eternal death, are not they who destroy as far as they can its virtue and benefit worthy of being left to despair? God invites to daily reconciliation those who abide in Christ; they are daily washed by the blood of Christ, thier sins are daily expiated by his perpetual sacrifice. As salvation is not to be sought except in him, there is no need to wonder that all those who wilfully forsake him are deprived of every hope of pardon: this is the import of the adverb "_eti_," more. But Christ's sacrifice is efficacious to the godly even to death, though they often sin; nay, it retains ever its efficacy, for this very reason, because they cannot be free from sin as long as they dwell in the flesh. The Apostle then refers to those alone who wickedly forsake Christ, and thus deprive themselves of the benefit of his death. 

The clause, "after having received the knowledge of the truth," was added for the purpose of aggravating their ingratitude; for he who willingly and with deliberate impiety extinguishes the light of God kindled in his heart has nothing to allege as an excuse before God. Let us then learn not only to receive with reverence and prompt docility of min the truth offered to us, but also firmly to persevere in the knowledge of it, so that we may not suffer the terrible punishment of those who despise it."


The footnote by the editor is important also: "According to this verse the case of the persecuted is not here contemplated, for they are under constraint; but such are spoken of here as renounced the faith willingly, freely, by their own free choice; so that 'wilfully' is not what is meant, but spontaneously, without any outward constraining force or influence."

Blessings!


----------



## louis_jp (Apr 9, 2012)

I think the warnings in Hebrews are addressed to the entire covenant community, some of whom, like many in Israel, will in fact fall away. Note Heb. 3:16- 4:2, for example, as also 1 Cor. 10:6-12. The writer is not presuming to distinguish 'true' believers from only apparent believers. However, the warnings are also a means of persevering true believers.


----------



## Hilasmos (Apr 9, 2012)

louis_jp said:


> Note Heb. 3:16- 4:2, for example, as also 1 Cor. 10:6-12. The writer is not presuming to distinguish 'true' believers from only apparent believers.



Also, it is intereseting to compare Heb. 3:19 with Hebrews 11:29



> Hebrews 3:16 (ESV) — 16 For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?
> Hebrews 3:19 (ESV) — 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.





> Hebrews 11:29 (ESV) — 29 By faith the people crossed the Red Sea as on dry land, but the Egyptians, when they attempted to do the same, were drowned.



The whole notion that "they weren't really believers to begin with" doesn't seem to work in Hebrews 3 unless Hebrews 11:29 is talking about a false faith -- which is contrary to the purpose of the passage.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 9, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> The whole notion that "they weren't really believers to begin with" doesn't seem to work in Hebrews 3 unless Hebrews 11:29 is talking about a false faith -- which is contrary to the purpose of the passage.


Just remember that if you go that route, you open the door for believing one can lose salvation, and that almost always is a step in the direction of works-righteousness salvation theology.


----------



## Hilasmos (Apr 9, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Just remember that if you go that route, you open the door for believing one can lose salvation, and that almost always is a step in the direction of works-righteousness salvation theology.



I am not really trying to go any route, just noting the need to be consistent.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 9, 2012)

Hilasmos said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember that if you go that route, you open the door for believing one can lose salvation, and that almost always is a step in the direction of works-righteousness salvation theology.
> ...


Maybe the Lutherans are right about criticizing us for our lack of accepting paradoxes and mysteries


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 9, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> A point to make here: the phrase "if we sin willfully" (v 26) in the Greek implies a persistent, habitual, and impenitent practice of flagrant sin and gives an impression of not caring about it. I would say on that alone that the person in question was never regenerate to begin with.
> 
> But going to the whole context of Hebrews, isn't the book in general directed to Jewish Christians who were being tempted to go back to the Old Testament sacrificial system and in essence deny Christ as Messiah and Savior? I would think that this would be at least in part affecting the thrust of the text.



ἁμαρτανόντων Present active participle. Might not “if we are sinning” be a preferable rendering. The NAS “if we go on sinning” is close but gives a forward only perspective.

Thus “if we are sinning” willfully, after having received the truth, then that warns us of the true state of our soul.


> "If we sin willfully, after that we have received the knowledge of the truth; as though he had said, 'If we knowingly and willingly renounce the grace which we had obtained.'"-_Calvin_


 That will still require interpreting and defining this sinning in its context.

BTW to the point of the OP, I do not believe the writer is speaking hypothetically.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 9, 2012)

Hebrews doesn't attempt to preach to different "groupings" in different ways. The congregation is treated as a body, but it warns the individual members of that body of the perils of not continuing in the body.

Obviously, in Heb.3:16, "all" is a relativized term. Those who "heard and yet rebelled" were not _every single one of the Israelites without exception_. There was a generation that fell in the wilderness; but besides Moses (a believer, who nonetheless was not allowed to enter the Land) there were undoubtedly others, besides Joshua, Caleb, and Eleazar (who entered the land). Moreover, there were rebellious people of the generation that *did *enter the Land--Achan comes to mind.

The writer to Hebrews describes a "characteristic" of a whole generation of people. And what is predicated of the whole, is not necessarily predicable of each part. The earlier generation was an "unbelieving" generation, and the latter generation was a "believing" generation.

The quality of a particular example of faith certainly has to be taken into account, when we ask why some (apparent) faith fails. The fact is, that if our salvation depends on the quality of the faith at any point, it will fail. MY faith doesn't have security enough for me to rest in it. What makes my faith secure to salvation is the OBJECT of my faith. Jesus strengthens my faith. Jesus never fails.

In what Object did the (majority of the) Exodus generation hope? If they had hoped in the God of their salvation really, they would not have been cursed; their faith could not have failed. They were cursed, ergo, their faith (such as it was) failed them.

But, as seen in Heb.11:29, sometimes the faithful act--which is, the true faith of a minority (even of one, Moses)--is reckoned to the whole, since all or a majority participate in some sense in the significant act.

"Covenant" is an important category (along with a sober typology), that helps us work with the material we're given. Apostasy is a category we are forced to deal with by experience. How can we reconcile it with the promises of God? A covenant-relationship that has both external and internal, formal and spiritual engagements, is helpful.


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 9, 2012)

I guess the other obvious question would be whether or not we have considered the previous verses in the text as well. What is the whole of Chapter 10 talking about?


----------

