Heb 10:26-29 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 26. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth . If, after we are converted and become true Christians, we should apostatize, it would be impossible to be recovered again, for there would be no other sacrifice for sin; no way by which we could be saved. This passage, however, like , has given rise to much difference of opinion. But that the above is the correct interpretation seems evident to me from the following considerations: (1.) It is the natural and obvious interpretation, such as would occur probably to ninety nine readers in a hundred, if there were no theory to support, and no fear that it would conflict with some other doctrine. (2.) It accords with the scope of the epistle, which is to keep those whom the apostle addressed from returning again to the Jewish religion, under the trials to which they were subjected. (3.) It is in accordance with the fair meaning of the language--the words, "after that we have received the knowledge of the truth," referring more naturally to true conversion than to any other state of mind. (4.) The sentiment would not be correct if it referred to any but real Christians. It would not be true that one who had been somewhat enlightened, and who then sinned "wilfully," must look on fearfully to the judgment, without a possibility of being saved. There are multitudes of cases where such persons are saved. They willfully resist the Holy Spirit; they strive against him; they for a long time refuse to yield, but they are brought again to reflection, and are led to give their hearts to God. (5.) It is true, and always will be true, that if a sincere Christian should apostatize, he could never be converted again. . The reasons are obvious. He would have tried the only plan of salvation, and it would have failed. He would have embraced the Saviour, and there would not have been efficacy enough in his blood to keep him, and there would be no more powerful Saviour, and no more efficacious blood of atonement. He would have renounced the Holy Spirit, and would have shown that his influences were not effectual to keep him, and there would be no other agent of greater power to renew and save him after he had apostatized. For these reasons it seems clear to me that this passage refers to true Christians, and that the doctrine here taught is, that if such an one should apostatize, he must look forward only to the terrors of the judgment, and to final condemnation. Whether this, in fact , ever occurs, is quite another question. In regard to that inquiry, see , and following. If this view be correct, we may add, that the passage should not be regarded as applying to what is commonly known as the "sin against the Holy Ghost," or "the unpardonable sin." The word rendered "wilfully"--εκουσιως -- occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in , where it is rendered willingly --" taking the oversight thereof [of the church] not by constraint, but willingly ". It properly means, willingly , voluntarily, of our own accord , and applies to cases where no constraint is used. It is not to be construed here strictly , or metaphysically , for all sin is voluntary, or is committed willingly, but must refer to a deliberate act , where a man MEANS to abandon his religion, and to turn away from God. If it were to be taken with metaphysical exactness, it would demonstrate that every Christian who ever does anything wrong, no matter how small, would be lost. But this cannot, from the nature of the case, be the meaning. The apostle well knew that Christians do commit such sins, (see ) and following and his object here is not to set forth the danger of such sins, but to guard Christians against apostasy from their religion. In the Jewish law, as is indeed the case everywhere, a distinction is made between sins of oversight, inadvertence, or ignorance , ( . Comp. ,) and sins of presumption ; sins that are deliberately and intentionally committed. See . The apostle here has reference, evidently, to such a distinction, and means to speak of a decided and deliberate purpose to break away from the restraints and obligations of the Christian religion. There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins . Should a man do this, there is no sacrifice for sins which could save him. He would have rejected deliberately the only atonement made for sin, and there will be no other made. It is as if a man should reject the only medicine that could heal him, or push away the only boat that could save him when shipwrecked. See . The sacrifice made for sin by the Redeemer is never to be repeated, and if that is deliberately rejected, the soul must be lost. (a) "if we sin willfully"

Hebrews 10:26-29

Verse 26. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth. If, after we are converted and become true Christians, we should apostatize, it would be impossible to be recovered again, for there would be no other sacrifice for sin; no way by which we could be saved. This passage, however, like Heb 6:4-6, has given rise to much difference of opinion. But that the above is the correct interpretation seems evident to me from the following considerations:

(1.) It is the natural and obvious interpretation, such as would occur probably to ninety nine readers in a hundred, if there were no theory to support, and no fear that it would conflict with some other doctrine.

(2.) It accords with the scope of the epistle, which is to keep those whom the apostle addressed from returning again to the Jewish religion, under the trials to which they were subjected.

(3.) It is in accordance with the fair meaning of the language--the words, "after that we have received the knowledge of the truth," referring more naturally to true conversion than to any other state of mind.

(4.) The sentiment would not be correct if it referred to any but real Christians. It would not be true that one who had been somewhat enlightened, and who then sinned "wilfully," must look on fearfully to the judgment, without a possibility of being saved. There are multitudes of cases where such persons are saved. They willfully resist the Holy Spirit; they strive against him; they for a long time refuse to yield, but they are brought again to reflection, and are led to give their hearts to God.

(5.) It is true, and always will be true, that if a sincere Christian should apostatize, he could never be converted again. Heb 6:4-6. The reasons are obvious. He would have tried the only plan of salvation, and it would have failed. He would have embraced the Saviour, and there would not have been efficacy enough in his blood to keep him, and there would be no more powerful Saviour, and no more efficacious blood of atonement. He would have renounced the Holy Spirit, and would have shown that his influences were not effectual to keep him, and there would be no other agent of greater power to renew and save him after he had apostatized. For these reasons it seems clear to me that this passage refers to true Christians, and that the doctrine here taught is, that if such an one should apostatize, he must look forward only to the terrors of the judgment, and to final condemnation. Whether this, in fact, ever occurs, is quite another question. In regard to that inquiry, see Heb 6:4, and following. If this view be correct, we may add, that the passage should not be regarded as applying to what is commonly known as the "sin against the Holy Ghost," or "the unpardonable sin." The word rendered "wilfully"--εκουσιως -- occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, except in 1Pet 5:2, where it is rendered willingly--" taking the oversight thereof [of the church] not by constraint, but willingly". It properly means, willingly, voluntarily, of our own accord, and applies to cases where no constraint is used. It is not to be construed here strictly, or metaphysically, for all sin is voluntary, or is committed willingly, but must refer to a deliberate act, where a man MEANS to abandon his religion, and to turn away from God. If it were to be taken with metaphysical exactness, it would demonstrate that every Christian who ever does anything wrong, no matter how small, would be lost. But this cannot, from the nature of the case, be the meaning. The apostle well knew that Christians do commit such sins, (see Rom 7:1) and following and his object here is not to set forth the danger of such sins, but to guard Christians against apostasy from their religion. In the Jewish law, as is indeed the case everywhere, a distinction is made between sins of oversight, inadvertence, or ignorance, (Lev 4:2,13,22,27, 5:15; Nu 15:24,27-29. Comp. Acts 3:17, 17:30,) and sins of presumption; sins that are deliberately and intentionally committed. See Ex 21:14, Nu 15:30, De 17:12, Ps 19:13. The apostle here has reference, evidently, to such a distinction, and means to speak of a decided and deliberate purpose to break away from the restraints and obligations of the Christian religion.

There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. Should a man do this, there is no sacrifice for sins which could save him. He would have rejected deliberately the only atonement made for sin, and there will be no other made. It is as if a man should reject the only medicine that could heal him, or push away the only boat that could save him when shipwrecked. See Heb 6:6. The sacrifice made for sin by the Redeemer is never to be repeated, and if that is deliberately rejected, the soul must be lost.

(a) "if we sin willfully" Nu 15:30, Heb 6:4 Verse 27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment. The word "certain" here does not mean fixed, sure, inevitable, as our translation would seem to imply. The Greek is the same as "a τις fearful expectation," etc. So it is rendered by Tindall. The idea is, that if there was voluntary apostasy after having embraced the Christian religion, there could be nothing but an expectation of the judgment to come. There could be no other hope but that through the gospel, and as this would have been renounced, it would follow that the soul must perish. The "fearful apprehension" or expectation here does not refer so much to what would be in the mind itself, or what would be experienced, as to what must follow. It might be that the person referred to would have no realizing sense of all this, and still his situation be that of one who had nothing to expect but the terrors of the judgment to come.

And fiery indignation. Fire is often used in the Scriptures as an emblem of fierce punishment. The idea is, that the person referred to could expect nothing but the wrath of God.

Which shall devour the adversaries. All who become the adversaries or enemies of the Lord. Fire is often said to devour, or consume, and the meaning here is, that those who should thus become the enemies of the Lord must perish.

(b) "fiery indignation" Zeph 1:18, 3:18 Verse 28. He that despised Moses' law. That is, the apostate from the religion of Moses. It does not mean that in all cases the offender against the law of Moses died without mercy, but only where offences were punishable with death, and probably the apostle had in his eye particularly the case of apostasy from the Jewish religion. The subject of apostasy from the Christian religion is particularly under discussion here and it was natural to illustrate this by a reference to a similar case under the law of Moses. The law in regard to apostates from the Jewish religion was positive. There was no reprieve, De 13:6-10.

Died without mercy. That is, there was no provision for pardon.

Under two or three witnesses. It was the settled law among the Hebrews, that in all cases involving capital punishment, two or three witnesses should be necessary. That is, no one was to be executed unless two persons certainly bore testimony, and it was regarded as important, if possible, that three witnesses should concur in the statement. The object was the security of the accused person if innocent. The principle in the law was, that it was to be presumed that two or three persons would be much less likely to conspire to render a false testimony than one would be, and that two or three would not be likely to be deceived in regard to a fact which they had observed.

(c) "that despised" De 17:2-13 Verse 29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy. That is, he who renounces Christianity ought to be regarded as deserving a much severer punishment than the man who apostatized from the Jewish religion, and if he ought to be so regarded he will be--for God will treat every man as he ought to be treated. This must refer to future punishment, for the severest punishment was inflicted on the apostate from the Jewish religion which can be in this world--death; and yet the apostle here says that a severer punishment than that would be deserved by him who should apostatize from the Christian faith. The reasons why so much severer punishment would be deserved are such as these: The Author of the Christian system was far more exalted than Moses, the founder of the Jewish system; he had revealed more important truths; he had increased and confirmed the motives to holiness; he had furnished more means for leading a holy life; he had given himself as a sacrifice to redeem the soul from death; and he had revealed with far greater clearness the truth that there is a heaven of glory and of holiness. He who should apostatize from the Christian faith, the apostle goes on to say, would also be guilty of the most aggravated crime of which man could be guilty --the crime of trampling under foot the Son of God, of showing contempt for his holy blood, and despising the Spirit of grace.

Who hath trodden under foot the Son of God. This language is taken either from the custom of ancient conquerors who were accustomed to tread on the necks of their enemies in token of their being subdued, or from the fact that men tread on that which they despise and contemn. The idea is, that he who should apostatize from the Christian faith would act as if he should indignantly and contemptuously trample on God's only Son. What crime could be more aggravated than this?

And hath counted the blood of the covenant. The blood of Jesus by which the new covenant between God and man was ratified. Mt 9:16-20. Comp. Mt 26:28.

Wherewith he was sanctified. Made holy, or set apart to the service of God. The word sanctify is used in both these senses. Prof. Stuart renders it, "by which expiation is made;" and many others, in accordance with this view, have supposed that it refers to the Lord Jesus. But it seems to me that it refers to the person who is here supposed to renounce the Christian religion, or to apostatize from it. The reasons for this are such as these.

(1.) It is the natural and proper meaning of the word here rendered sanctified. This word is commonly applied to Christians in the sense that they are made holy. See Acts 20:32, 26:18, 1Cor 1:2, Jude 1:1. Comp. Jn 10:36, 17:17.

(2.) It is unusual to apply this word to the Saviour. It is true, indeed, that he says, (Jn 17:19,) "for their sakes I sanctify myself," but there is no instance in which he says that he was sanctified by his own blood. And where is there an instance in which the word is used as meaning "to make expiation?"

(3.) The supposition that it refers to one who is here spoken of as in danger of apostasy, and not of the Lord Jesus, agrees with the scope of the argument. The apostle is showing the great guilt, and the certain destruction, of one who should apostatize from the Christian religion. In doing this, it was natural to speak of the dishonour which would thus be done to the means which had been used for his sanctification--the blood of the Redeemer. It would be treating it as if it were a common thing, or as if it might be disregarded, like anything else which was of no value.

An unholy thing. Gr. common; often used in the sense of unholy. The word is so used because that which was holy was separated from a common to a sacred use. What was not thus consecrated was free to all, or was for common use, and hence also the word is used to denote that which is unholy.

And hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace. The Holy Spirit, called the "Spirit of grace," because he confers favour or grace on men. The meaning of the phrase "done despite unto"-- ενυβρισας --is, "having reproached, or treated with malignity or contempt?" The idea is, that if they were thus to apostatize, they would by such an act treat the Spirit of God with disdain and contempt. It was by him that they had been renewed; by him that they had been brought to embrace the Saviour, and to love God; by him that they had any holy feelings or pure desires; and if they now apostatized from religion, such an act would be, in fact, treating the Holy Spirit with the highest indignity. It would be saying that all his influences were valueless, and that they needed no help from him. From such considerations, the apostle shows that if a true Christian were to apostatize nothing would remain for him but the terrific prospect of eternal condemnation. He would have rejected the only Saviour; he would have, in fact, treated him with the highest indignity; he would have considered his sacred blood, shed to sanctify men, as a common thing, and would have shown the highest disregard for the only agent who can save the soul--the Spirit of God. How could such an one afterwards be saved? The apostle does not indeed say that any one ever would thus apostatize from the true religion, nor is there any reason to believe that such a case ever has occurred; but if it should occur the doom would be inevitable. How dangerous, then, is every step which would lead to such a precipice! And how strange and unscriptural the opinion held by so many that sincere Christians may "fall away," and be renewed again and again!

(a) "Of how much" Heb 2:3 (b) "Spirit of Grace" Mt 12:31,32