The warning passages in the book of Hebrews, particularly the sections of 6:1-8 and 10:26-29 have proved to be notoriously controversial as well as difficult to interpret for both academic and lay-person alike. Many have seen in such passages the implication that ‘once-saved, always-saved’ cannot be maintained as accurate description of the Christian doctrine of assurance. On an academic level, where conclusions are at least grounded on the basis of due exegetical consideration, Ellingworth’s exegesis seems to lend credence to such a sentiment in the summary statement of his comments on 6:4-6: “those who have experienced the rich gifts which accompany faith in Christ, and then commit apostasy, inflict such harm on Christ and on themselves that their restoration is impossible” (Emphasis mine).[1]
While Ellingworth, and other academics who have drawn similar conclusions believe such passages refer to the sin of ‘apostasy’ in general, others, both ancient and modern, believe these passages teach that commission of any ‘mortal sin’ results in eternal judgment.[2] In both cases, the possibility is open for a person who is truly regenerate to lapse back into the state of ‘unregeneracy’.
Complicating matters worse is the fact that even those within the same ‘camp’ do not agree on what these passages mean.[3] Others agree that these passages do in fact refer to the sin of apostasy but add that that question of ‘once saved-always-saved’ is not even in view in these passages and to find it there is to eisegete (ie. 'read in') modern debates into the text.[4] Still other academics are convinced that in 10:26-29 the issue of eternal life is not even in view, rather the writer is addressing the issue of rewards analogous to Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 3:13-14 or Colossians 3:25.[5]
On a more popular ‘lay-level these verses are often marshaled in debates between ‘Arminians’ and ‘Calvinists’. Unfortunately on this level of the ‘debate’, the controlling theological presuppositions on either side often make any serious exegetical study of these passages secondary at best, and virtually impossible at worst. While it is neither possible nor desirable to completely lay aside such presuppositions, the question must constantly be asked if such presuppositions are being tested by a conscious exegesis of the individual passages upon which such presuppositions ought to be founded. Further, the interpretive frameworks of dispensationalism and covenant theology often further distance lay and academic interpreters from a focus on the texts themselves. Below, the present writer will attempt to substantiate his pre-commitments, as far as is possible, by exegetical considerations from the text.
With reference to 10:26-29 in particular, verse 29 bluntly asserts that for ‘one who has trampled’ (katapath/saß) the Son of God and has 'considered as common' (koino\n hJghsa¿menoß) “the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified” (e˙n wˆ— hJgia¿sqh), there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins (cf. v 26). Some insist that such a description could only refer to someone who is actually regenerate but subsequently ‘falls away’ from that state of regeneration.[6] 1 Corinthians 6:11 is often referenced as a Pauline counterpart to strengthen the argument, pointing out that the aorist passive hJgia¿sqhte ('you have been sanctified') refers to sanctification, as in Hebrews 10:29, as a past event that is true of believers. Thus, it should be clear that it is incumbent to determine the precise meaning of ‘to\ ai–ma thvß diaqh/khß koino\n hJghsa¿menoß, e˙n wˆ— hJgia¿sqh’ ('the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified') in 10:29 before drawing any conclusions regarding this passage.
Having sketched a general portrait of the ‘debate’, next time we will move to the passages themselves. In particular we will look at 3:1-4:13, which as we will see, is foundational for understanding the more difficult 'warning passages' in the letter. Stay tuned!
[1] Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 317. See esp. 317-25. He lists 10:26-28 as the closest parallel warning passage to 6: 1-8 ; Gregory Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP academic, 2001), 108. For a less conservative but related view.
[2] Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 606; Hugh Montefiore, A commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 214-15.
[3] Herbert W. Bateman,ed. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007); For divergent interpretations within both Reformed and Arminian traditions; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000). For a third Reformed interpretation.
[4] See Thielman, 606, 607; Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 595-597; See Bateman, 217-218. Fanning also believes genuine believers are being described in these passages. He adds the caveat that the language used is language that the recipients of the letter were using to describe themselves. This paper will come to similar conclusions.
[5] Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 2001), 131-132.
ENCORE! ENCORE!
ReplyDelete