Holy spirit and eternal security vol. 2

HOLY SPIRIT AND ETERNAL SECURITY VOL. 2
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
NOTE-In this study we forcus on the Arminian view first and then the Calvinistic view.
Both have such convincing arguments for their view that it is very difficult to decide which
to hold as your own. Even when you are convinced enough to take a view for your own, you
need to be aware of the other perspective, for all involved love the Lord Jesus, and they
love the Bible as the Word of God. Do not reject fellow believers because you choose to
reject their viewpoint on specific issues. You know you love your wife eventhough she often
disagrees with you, and evencalls you stupid sometimes.
ARMINIAN VIEWPOINT
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS: THE BLESSING
AND THE CURSE
MATTHEW MCAFFEE*
Anyone familiar with the literature on the warning passagesfrom the book of
Hebrews is well aware of the familiar arguments regularly put forth for and
againstthe possibility that genuine believers actually apostatize. These
exegeticalpaths are well trodden, and one would be rather presumptuous to
suggestthat something new could be added to the fray this late in the game.
As the title of this essaysuggests, I am interested in the broader issue of
covenant, particularly as it relates to two areas ofconcern:(1) the blessings of
covenantthat members can be expected to receive;and (2) the curses of
covenantthat stand as a warning to members againstcovenantunfaithfulness.
In focusing on these two areas, Iam attempting to synthesize two exegetical
threads I have explored elsewhere by zeroing in on their significance for the
book of Hebrews, one being the covenantsignificance ofthe goodword in the
OT,1 the other being the high-handed sin of Numbers 15.2 It is my view that

these two strands of thought contribute significant insight for interpreting the
warning texts of Hebrews.
I. THE COVENANT BLESSING: RECIPIENTSOF THE GOOD WORD IN
HEBREWS 6:5 Hebrews 6:4–6 records one of the more familiar warning
passagesfrom this exhortation (cf. 2:1–4;3:6; 3:7–4:13; 10:26–39;12:25–29)
and emphasizes the fact that it is impossible for the said apostate to renew
repentance. Thoughthe emphasis on this text is usually couchedin the
negative, it is also important to observe the elements of covenant that appear
to be assumedamidst the cataloguing ofcharacteristicsobservable in these
individuals identified in vv. 4–6. One might argue that the writer of Hebrews
clothes his discussionin the nomenclature of the old covenant, all the while
transforming the situation in light of the new covenantreality inaugurated in
Christ.3 Numerous studies have focusedon the purported OT background
subsumed in this list, but none has fully articulated how the strictures of
covenantblessings and curses might play a role in the writer’s argument
concerning apostasy. * Matthew McAffee is
Coordinatorof the TheologicalStudies Programand ProfessorofBible and
Biblical Languages atWelchCollege, 3606WestEnd Avenue, Nashville, TN
37205.1 Matthew McAffee, “The GoodWord: Its Non-Covenantand
CovenantSignificance in the OT,” JSOT (forthcoming). 2 Matthew McAffee,
“F. Leroy Forlines on Presumptuous Sin in Numbers 15:27–30 andthe Way
Forward” (paper presented for the Forlines Lecture Series ofWelch College,
Nashville, TN, March 2013). 3 This fact is nowhere more obvious than his
quotation of Jer31:31–34 in Heb 8:8–12.
538 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY1.
“The goodword” in secondaryliterature. Until recently there has been a
significant gapin the secondaryliterature on the meaning of the expression
“the goodword” in the OT and its significance as covenantterminology. The
importance of this expressionfor the book of Hebrews becomes apparent in
light of the writer’s reference to those who have tasted of the “goodword of
God” in Heb 6:5. However, scholars have not adequately explored the
ramifications of this connection. Paul Ellingworth equates the goodword in
Heb 6:5 with Christian preaching and the “powers ofthe age to come” that
accompaniedit.4 Despite an appealto the OT backgroundof this passage,

Dave Mathewsonsimilarly affirms that it is probably “the word which was
preachedto the covenantcommunity and confirmed by signs and wonders in
2:1–4,”5 moving a step closerto the argument we will advance momentarily.
Martin Emmrich makes the same assessment, though he entertains Erich
Gra‫ޠ‬sser’s earliersuggestionthat the goodword may derive from earlier
statements in Josh21:45 and 23:15.6 Emmrich suggeststhat sucha
connectionmay indicate that these believers are to envision their own
experiences as a “replica” of Israelduring its formative period as a nation,
but stops short of articulating how this point would affect our reading of the
passage. F. F. Bruce also connects this expressionwith the preaching of the
gospel, citing as a parallel Acts 6:3 where Simon Magus “realizedhow good
the word of God was” and was amazedby the accompanying signs and great
powers.7 This interpretation is slightly different from the one proposedby
Ellingworth, Mathewson, andothers in that Bruce seems to be interpreting
C:DGϓF á¬E:as an identifiable quality of gospelpreaching rather than
gospelpreaching itself. George Guthrie follows this same approach by
translating the expression, “the goodnessofthe word of God,” instead of the
usual, “goodwordof God.”8 Although this interpretive option may make
sense in an English rendering of the expression, it does not accuratelyreflect
the actualphraseology ofthe Greek. The Greek phrase does not express the
quality of something unstated and thus implied in the text (i.e. the goodness of
the word of God, which is the gospelpreached), but refers to the thing itself
that they have actually receivedor experienced(i.e. the goodword of God).9
4 Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993)321. 5 Dave Mathewson, “Reading Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the
OT,” WTJ 61 (1999)218. Similarly, see Philip Hughes, “Hebrews 6:4–6 and
the Peril of Apostasy,” WTJ 35 (1973)142. 6 Martin Emmrich, “Hebrews 6:4–
6—Again! (A PneumatologicalInquiry),” WTJ 65 (2003)85–86, citing Erich
Gra‫ޠ‬sser, An die Hebra ‫ޠ‬ er [Hebr 1–6](Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener,
1990)352. 7 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, (rev. ed.; NICNT;Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990)147. 8 George Guthrie, Hebrews (NIVAC; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1998)219. Cf. Donald Guthrie, Hebrews (TNTC 15;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983)143;Stanley Outlaw, The Book of Hebrews
(Randall House Bible Commentary; Nashville:Randall House, 2005)128;

Luke Timothy Johnson, Hebrews: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville:
WestminsterJohn Knox, 2006)163;GarethLee Cockerill, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (NICNT;Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012)270–71.9 Technically
speaking, C:D• F is an attributive adjective modifying the noun á¬E:, thus
“goodword.” Forthe translation, “goodnessofthe word of God,” one would
expectan abstractnoun followedby a series oftwo genitives. It is also possible
to interpret C:D•F … á¬E:as a predicate accusative:“tasting the word of
God (as) good.” We have opted for the attributive interpretation, but as we
shall see below, the OT exhibits both attributive and predicate renderings of
this expression.
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 539 Iwould not deny
the validity of equating the goodword with the gospelmessageofChrist as a
whole, but what does not seemvalid is to suggestthatit is looselydefined as
the goodnessone perceives eachtime the gospelis proclaimed. The real
interpretive challenge, however, is how one moves from “goodword” to
“gospel.”But what often goes without saying is that the specific designation
“goodword” as such appears nowhere else in the NT. Appeals to occurrences
of the word D• <GKor á¬E:as it refers to the gospelmessageare not entirely
helpful either,10 since these words appear to share a more generalized
reference to the Christian gospelmessage. True, C:DGϓF á¬E:must have its
ultimate significance in the gospel, but the specific meaning of this term deals
with a particular aspectofthe gospel, anaspectwe will identify more fully
below. Mathewsonhas grappled valiantly with this issue in his study of the
OT backgroundinforming these descriptions in Heb 6:4–6. The most helpful
aspectof his study is that it considers the underlying old covenantcontext
from the perspective of covenantblessings and curses.11He argues
convincingly for a literary connectionbetweenHeb 6:7 and Deut 11:11 (LXX),
as the following comparisonaptly demonstrates:<¬ <xJ â IBGÅL: M¾F —Iw
:ÆM¬K •P•E>FGFIGDD•CBKÇ>M•F (Heb 6:7) <¬ … •C MGÅ
Ç>MGÅMGÅ GÆJ:FGÅ Ié>M:B (Deut 11:11 LXX) “Forground that
drinks the rain that often comes upon it” “The ground drinks from the rain of
heaven” As Mathewsonnotes, the context of Deuteronomy11 is one of
blessing and cursing: the rewards for obedience outlined in vv. 13–15and 22–
25, and the punishment for disobedience mentioned in vv. 26 and 28.12 The

allusion in Hebrews is all but certainin light of the writer’s explicit mention of
blessing (>ÆDG<é:K) and cursing (C:MŽJ:K) in Hebrews 6, vv. 7 and 8
respectively.13 Essentially, the writer applies the old covenantland promise to
the new covenant reality inaugurated in Christ. Commentators have been less
clearon the significance of“the goodword” as it is referencedin Heb 6:5.
Mathewsoncomes closerthan any previous scholarI am aware of in couching
the conversationin covenantterms,14 but even he does
10 E.g. Hughes, “The Peril of Apostasy” 142;
ScotMcKnight, “The Warning PassagesofHebrews:A FormalAnalysis and
TheologicalConclusions,” TrinJ 13 (1992)47. McKnight’s unique approach to
the goodword is to suggestthat it refers to the believer’s confessionoffaith,
emphasizing that it is reflective of genuine Christian experience. The problem
with his analysis is that it compares C:D• F á¬E:with uses of á¬E:by itself.
This approachfails to recognize the distinct nuance of the goodword in the
OT, as we will outline it below. 11 “Heb 6:4–6 in Light of the OT” 221. 12
Ibid. 13 See also Harold Attridge, Hebrews:A Commentary on the Epistle to
the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1982)173 n. 90. 14
Similarly, David deSilva, “Hebrews 6:4–8:A Socio-RhetoricalInvestigation
(Part 1),” TynBul 50 (1999)55–57.
540 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETYnot
develop this motif to its fullest interpretive potential.15 Partof the problem
lies in the fact that the goodword has not been fully understood as a covenant
expressionin its distributive contexts throughout the OT. My previous recent
study of covenant and non-covenantcontexts of “the goodword” seems to
confirm the scholarlyhunch that “the good word” in Heb 6:5 may in fact
relate to Josh21:45 and 23:15.16We shall now summarize the findings of this
particular study as to the meaning of the expressionbefore considering its
significance for interpreting Heb 6:5. 2. The goodword in the OT. According
to a recent analysis of the Hebrew expressiondƗbƗr ‫ܒ‬ôb “goodword” as it
variously appears in the OT, we find that it was commonly used in both non-
covenantand covenantcontexts. When we isolate those non-covenant
environments, this phrase tends to yield two related nuances:(1) the good
word as a reliable word; and (2) the good word as a favorable word. For
example, the goodword in the sense of “reliable word” is found in the context

of Absalom’s coup of his father’s throne when he intercepted individuals
approaching the king with casesofdispute. Absalom tells them: “See, your
words are goodand right, but there is no one from the king listening to you”
(2 Sam 15:3). In other words, the people had “sound arguments” (lit. “good
words”), but the king was not listening to them. At other times, a goodword
refers to favorable words, like the prescribed “goodword” of the prophets for
King Ahab, as Micaiahis thus counseled:“Please, letyour words be like their
word and speak something favorable (lit. “speak good”).”This particular
meaning gives way to a more nuanced depiction of a pleasantor delightful
utterance (Ps 45:1[2]; Prov 15:23), or even a word of comfort in the case of
YHWH’s “goodwords” to the distressedprophet Zechariah(Zech 1:13). As
we turn our attention to the goodword in covenantcontexts, there are several
instances dealing with personal/politicalalliances, but for our purposes we
will focus on YHWH’s covenantwith Israel.17 Wheneverthe goodword
appears 15 Verlyn Verbrugge also appeals to the
OT covenantcommunity as a necessarybackgroundfor interpreting Heb 6:4–
6, but the purpose for doing so does not arise from his exegesisof6:4–6, but
from that of 6:7–8 (citing allusions to Isa 5:1–7 and Deut 11:26–28).He offers
a communal interpretation of the warning, stating that “the primary concept
in the author’s mind is that of a covenant community and not the individual
child of God. Thus, when we read of the falling awayand of God’s subsequent
rejection, it is rejectionof a community that is in focus” (“Towards a New
Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4–6,” Calvin TheologicalJournal15 [1980]62).
More exactly, this warning is againstthe incipient danger of that local
community of believers committing apostasyas a whole, urging them not to
repeatIsrael’s apostasyfor which there is no further repentance (p. 69). The
main problem for Verbrugge’s novel reading is that it undercuts the author’s
allusions to the wilderness wanderings of Numbers 13–14, whereinthe
individuals responsible for leading in the rebellion, along with their associates,
are punished, while the community of Israelas a whole continues its journey
to Canaan. Note also deSilva’s critique of this view in “Hebrews 6:4–8:A
Socio-RhetoricalInvestigation” 52 n. 43. On the connections between
Numbers 13–14 andHeb 3:7–4:13, see Mathewson, “Heb6:4–6 in Light of the
OT” 212–13;as well as the recentthesis by Todd Scacewater, “Hebrews in
Rebellion: The Appropriation of Numbers 13–14 inHebrews 6:4–8” (Th.M.

thesis, SouthwesternBaptistTheologicalSeminary, 2012). 16 McAffee, “Good
Word.” 17 By saying monolithically “covenantofIsrael,” we are not
diminishing the factthat the biblical covenants are diverse and multifaceted.
On the other hand, the biblical authors do present God’s cove
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 541 within this
context, it demonstrates reliable favor in two ways:(1) covenantblessings in
particular; or (2) covenantblessings in contrastwith covenant curses. The
paradigmatic text comes from Josh23:14–15, whichhas been duly noted as a
plausible backgroundfor Heb 6:5. Becauseofits importance for Hebrews, we
cite it fully here: Look, I am going this day the wayof all the earth, and you
know with all your heart and with all your soul that not one word from all the
goodwords which YHWH your God pronounced upon you has fallen. The
whole [of the goodwords] came to you; not one word from it has fallen. But
just as every goodword that YHWH your God spoke to you has come to you,
thus YHWH will bring upon you every bad word, until he destroys you from
upon this goodland that YHWH your God has given to you.18 Taking this
passagein front of the backdrop of the words YHWH had delivered to Moses
earlier, these goodwords are tied to the promise of land. Furthermore, these
words are the opposite of the covenant curses, oras they are designatedhere,
“the bad words.” We should think not only of Deut 28:15–68 where the
specific curses are outlined, but also Deut 11:26—“Look, Iam setting before
you this day blessing and cursing”—inlight of the fact that it appears to be
front and centerin the argument of the author of Hebrews in 6:7–8. Land is
part of the promise, but a series of divine acts of judgment leading up to the
eventual removal from the land constitute the curses. Whatis important to
keepin mind here is that, technically speaking, the OT goodword is the
promised blessing associatedwith living in the land that will be replacedby
curses leading up to a final removal from the land should covenantmembers
act unfaithfully.19 The goodword is essentiallythe blessings of the covenant
promised to those who live in faithful obedience to the terms of the covenant
and not the covenantitself. For this reason, the author’s use of the goodword
in Hebrews does not refer to the gospelas a whole, but rather to the blessings
associatedwith the new covenantreality of the gospelofJesus Christ. Another
development in the OT usage ofthe goodword finds expressionin Solomon’s

prayer dedicating the newly constructedtemple in Jerusalem. He announces,
“Notone word from all his goodword which he pronounced through Moses
his servanthas fallen” (1 Kgs 8:56b). The intertextual affinities with Josh
23:14–15 are without question, as the king envisions a certainlevel of
fulfillment concerning the words of Joshua announcedon the other side of the
Jordan. This point is confirmed by the additional rest motif in the first
portion of the verse:“Blessedis YHWH who has given rest to his people,
according to all that he
nant activity at leastin a progressive fashion, whereby successive covenants
seemto build and expand upon previous covenants. 18 All translations are
mine. 19 The old covenant contextenvisions the curses both corporatelyand
individually. On the corporate level, the covenantcurses outlined in
Deuteronomy 28 will be enactedagainstthe covenant community as a whole
should it defectfrom Torah corporately. Yet on the individual level, high-
handed sin againstthe stipulations of covenantwill result in removal from the
covenantcommunity irrespective of the status of the whole. As Num 15:27–30
frames it, there remains no sacrifice forthe individual who has committed this
kind of sin. See the discussionin part 2 of this essay.
542 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
spoke” (1 Kgs 8:56a). This text is also significantin that the goodword as
“promised land” and the goodword as “promised dynasty”20 coalesce,seeing
that the Davidic dynasty is fully intact in the person of Solomon (the good
word as a royal dynasty) whose prayer envisions that the temple provides
symbolic confirmation for the restof YHWH’s covenantpeople in the land
(the goodword as promised land). 3. The significance ofthe OT good word for
Heb 6:5. In addition to the insights already noted regarding the author’s
observable awareness ofDeuteronomy11, the usage ofthe goodword in the
OT further strengthens the case that the book of Hebrews is reinterpreting
old covenantcategories in light of the realities inaugurated in the new. This
awarenessbrings further light to earlier warnings regarding the potential
failure to enter into rest(4:1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11).21 According to the language of
6:5, the rest amounts to the good word now experiencedin part by new
covenantbelievers, even though there is another aspectof this rest yet to
come. The tensionbetweenthe now and not yet aspects ofthis rest finds

expressionin 6:5. The identification markers listed in vv. 4–6 cannotbe
interpreted fully from a surface-levelreading of the passage.22Careful
analysis of 6:4–6 demonstrates that the five-member list should be read as a
series oftwo parallel pairs falling under the governing phrase “those once
having been enlightened,”23 as demonstratedin the following arrangement of
the text:
20 There are apparently two applications of the
goodword in the OT: (1) the goodword as the covenantpromise of land for
the people of Israel, as we have already noted; and (2) the goodword as the
promise of a royal dynasty to David and his descendants. This second
application of “the good word” canbe seenin 2 Sam 7:28: “And now, O Lord
YHWH, you are God, and your words are true; you have spokenthis good
thing to your servant,” the “goodthing” being the promise of an eternal
dynasty. 21 The curious reference to Ď@LGÅK in 4:8 has spawned a great
deal of speculationabout whether Jesus or Joshua is intended. See the listing
of interpretive options in Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews 252– 53:(1) a
reference to the historicalJoshua of the OT; (2) a reference to Jesus;or (3) a
reference to the historicalJoshua as a play on words bringing to mind Jesus.
One might simply add that the broader theme of restand its connectionto the
goodword in 6:5, where the primary OT texts as such are Josh21:45 and
23:14–15,might add weight to the view that the historicalJoshua is meant.
Admittedly, such an interpretation would move us beyond the wilderness
wanderings of Numbers 13–14, whichclearly serve as the main backdropof
the writer’s argument (see Mathewson, “Heb6:4–6 in Light of the OT” 212–
13; and especiallyScacewater, “Hebrewsin Rebellion”), but it fits in with his
overall point that there remains a future rest, even one beyond that of Israel
residing in the land of Canaanduring the days of Joshua. 22 E.g. Wayne
Grudem’s conclusionthat these terms are inconclusive as to the identity of the
individuals being described, since “they speak ofevents that are experienced
by genuine Christians and by some people who participate in the fellowship of
a church but are never really saved,” misses the point of these descriptions
altogether(“Perseveranceofthe Saints: A Case Study of Hebrews 6:4–6 and
the Other Warning Passages in Hebrews,” in Still Sovereign:Contemporary
Perspectives onElection, Foreknowledge,and Grace [ed. Thomas Schreiner

and Bruce A. Ware;Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000]137). 23 Cf. Cockerill,
Epistle to the Hebrews 268, who argues that the first participle is emphasized
by its position and accompanying qualifier “once,” leading him to analyze the
following three participles in apposition to the first.
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 543
MGÄK |I:H ORMBLAçFM:Kthose once having been enlightened, both
<>NL:EçFGNKM> M¬K =RJ>yK M¬K —IGNJ:FéGN having tastedof the
heavenly gift C:¥ and E>M• PGNK<>F@AçFM:K IF>ëE:MGK{<éGN
having become partakerof the Holy Spirit C:Bϓ and C:DGF
<>NL:EçFGNKA>GÅ á¬E:having tastedthe goodword of God =NFŽE>BK
M> EçDDGFMGK:ž ÏFGK and the powers of the age to come.24
The first pair is marked by a Mç … C:é construction:both “tasting of the
heavenly gift” and “partaking of the Holy Spirit,” 25 while the secondpair is
indicated by the fact that the one participle <>ëGE:B “having tasted” governs
both objects:“the goodword of God” and “the powers of the age to come.”
The secondoccurrence ofthe postpositive particle Mç in v. 5 appears simply
to function as a conjunction, perhaps chosenstylistically as a means of
organizing the two pairs chiastically:Mç … C:é … C:é … Mç. Taking these
two items together—the goodword of God and the powers of the age to
come—is important for the overall theologyof the book of Hebrews, especially
in light of its warning in chaps. 3 and 4 that focuses stronglyon the prospects
of failing to enter into the rest of God. For Hebrews, covenantentails both the
now and the not yet: “tasting the goodword” with its emphasis on the promise
of rest, and “(tasting) the powers of the age to come” with its emphasis on the
actualentrance into rest.26 Therefore, the issue in this pas
24 For similar structural analyses, see GrantR. Osborne, “A Classical
Arminian View” in Four Views on the Warning Passagesin Hebrews (ed.
Herbert W. BatemanIV; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007)111–12;Cockerill,
Epistle to the Hebrews 268–69 n. 3. Osborne also cites George Guthrie, The
Structure of Hebrews:A Text-Linguistic Analysis (Leiden: Brill, 1994)217,

but this appears to be incorrect, as I have been unable to locate suchan
analysis in this book. Guthrie does provide a syntacticalanalysis in his
commentary, but he interprets four parallel participles here: having been
enlightened, having tasted the heavenly gift, having become partakers of the
Holy Spirit, and having tasted the goodness ofGod’s word and the powers of
the coming age (Hebrews 217). 25 The postpositive particle Mç thus functions
in two ways:(1) as a particle marking close connectionbetweencoordinate
words or phrases (i.e. “both X and Y”); and (2) as a simple conjunction much
like C:é (see BDAG 993). This particle occurs a total of twenty times
throughout the book of Hebrews (1:3; 2:4; 2:11; 4:12; 5:1; 5:7; 5:14; 6:2a;
6:2b; 6:4; 6:5; 6:19; 8:3; 9:1; 9:2; 9:9; 9:19; 10:33; 11:32;12:2), and all but
four of these instances (1:3; 6:2a; 6:5; 12:2) mark a “both … and”
construction. This particular function of Mç is indicated when it occurs with
C:é in one of two positions:(1) immediately before C:é (most common) or (2)
before C:é but with intervening words. For example, the more common M>Ғ
C:é occurs in 2:4: L@E>éGBKM> C:¥ MçJ:LBF “both by signs and
wonders”;the less common Mç … C:é is found in our passage, as wellas in
2:11: À M> <xJ {<B•?RF C:¥ G• {<B:?•E>FGB •H•F¾K I•FM>K “For
both the one who sanctifies and those being sanctifiedare all from one” (see
also 6:2b; 9:2; 9:19). 26 One should keepin mind that “goodword” is not
exclusively concernedwith the now, while “powers ofthe age to come” is not
limited to the not yet, since both are in some sense inaugurated with further
fulfillments yet to come. This fact does not deny, however, that “goodword”
emphasizes prom
544 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETYsage
is not so much a matter of determining whether or not this list describes
genuine believers. The text assumes they are members of the covenant
community who have experiencedthe good word of God’s promised restin
the now and who are destined to experience the powers of the age to come
should they persevere.27 Consequently, Mathewson’sclaimthat the people
depicted in Heb 6:4–6 were not true members of the new covenantcommunity
but had failed to exercise saving faith defies the power of the “rest” motif
utilized in the writer’s overallargument.28 If we follow Emmrich and others
who assume a pilgrimage imagery as operative here,29 the ultimate rest must

be understood as the final eschatonor destinationof the Christian journey.
Emmrich may be warrantedin claiming that these warning passagesin
Hebrews “were never designedto investigate the ‘can-true-believersfall-
away?’kind of inquiry.”30 On the contrary, the text assumes this factprima
facie. The OT covenantcontext assumes that the members of the wilderness
wanderings were members of the covenantcommunity; what was not a given,
however, was that all covenantmembers would by necessityachieve the
promised rest. The whole argument of the writer on this point is founded
upon the notion of covenant blessings and covenantcurses as the proper
motivation for instilling perseverancewithin the new covenantcommunity.
II. THE COVENANT CURSE:RENUNCIATION OF THE GOOD WORD
IN HEBREWS 6:4: A HIGH-HANDED SIN? Given the fact that a reasonable
case canbe made for interpreting the goodword in Heb 6:5 in light of its OT
covenantforce, coupled with the explicit mention of blessing and cursing in
6:7–8 replete with allusions to Deut 11:11 as noted above, not to mention a
broader awarenessofthe work’s Jewishnessas a whole,31 interpreting the
warnings according to the covenantframework of curses is entirely
warranted, if not mandated. The OT backgroundapparently guiding the
writer’s ise
(as we have argued from the OT evidence)and that “powers ofthe age to
come” emphasizes fulfillment. Thomas Oberholtzer has also recognizedthe
now and the not yet aspects ofthis passage, but mistakenly suggeststhat
“goodword” may refer to Jesus’teaching about the kingdom, citing Heb 2:3
(“The Thorn-Infested Ground in Hebrews 6:4–12,” BSac145 [1988]322). 27
The structure of the text as it is outlined here renders highly unlikely Roger
Nicole’s (and others’) contention that although the reference to having tasted
the powers of the age to come “could refer to people who have received
‘eternal life,’” it may just as well “describe people who had been in contact
with the supernatural powerof the gospel” (“Some Comments on Hebrews
6:4–6 and the Doctrine of the PerseveranceofGod with the Saints,” in
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation [ed. G. Hawthorne;
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975]361). As a parallel to C:D¾F á¬E:, which
refers to the blessings of the new covenant, it is more natural to interpret
=NF•E>BKM> EçDDGFMGK:•ÏFGK “and the powers of the age to come”

as a reference to the eschatologicalrestawaiting the new covenant saints who
persevere. 28 Mathewson, “Heb6:4–6 in Light of the OT” 224. 29 Emmrich,
“Hebrews 6:4–6—Again!” 86–87;Randall Gleason, “The OT Backgroundof
the Warning in Hebrews 6:4–8,” BSac 155 (1998)73–74.30 Emmrich,
“Hebrews 6:4–6—Again!” 88. 31 Note especiallyDonaldGuthrie, Hebrews
38–46.See also RobertP. Gordon, Hebrews (2d ed.; Readings;Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix, 2008)24–29;Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews 25–29;
Ellingworth, Epistle to the Hebrews 37–42, 45–49.
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 545 articulationof the
sin of apostasyis arguably that of Num 15:30 and the highhanded sin, but the
significance for this type of sin is framed in terms of its meriting the covenant
curses, atleastaccording to the argument of Heb 6:7–8. 1. The high-handed
sin of Num 15:30 and the warnings of Hebrews. The language ofthe OT
presumptuous sin utilizes the expression, “to actwith a raised/high hand,” in
Num 15:30–31,renderedhere in full: ʠʥʑʤʔʤ ˇʓʴʓ˚ʔʤ ʤʕʺʍʸʍʫʑʰʍʥ ʳʒːʔʢʮ
ʠ˒ʤ ʤʥʤʩʚʺʓʠʸʒˏʔʤʚʯʑʮ˒ʧʕʸʍʦʓʠʕʤʚʯʑʮ ʤʕʮʕʸ ʣʕʩʍˎʤʓˈʏʲʔˢʚʸʓˇʏʠ
ˇʓʴʓ˚ʔʤʍʥ32 ʡʓʸʓ˟ʑʮ ʟˑʕ˙ʔʲ33 ʟˑʕʡ ʤʕʰˣʏʲ ʠʥʑʤʔʤ ˇʓʴʓ˚ʔʤ ʺʒʸʕ˗ʑˢ ʺʒʸʕ˗ʑʤ
ʸʔʴʒʤ ˣʺʕʥʍʶʑʮʚʺʓʠʍʥʤʕʦʕˎ ʤʥʤʩʚʸʔʡʍʣʩʑ˗ But the person who acts
with a raisedhand, whether native or foreigner, he is a reviler, and that
person will be cut off from the midst of his people. Becausehe has despised
the word of YHWH and has turned aside from his command, that personwill
certainly be cut off; his iniquity is on him. This statement contrasts the
previous stipulations concerning inadvertent sin, for which atonement
through sacrifice was granted.34Unlike all other types of sin committed, no
sacrifice was provisionedfor the high-handed sin.35 Verse 31 interprets the
nature of this sin, specifying that it involves despising the word of YHWH and
turning awayfrom his command. The notion of defiance or stubborn
32 To be read: '– ! ™! (here and in the following verse). 33 It is a 3fs suffix
because its antecedent, f ˜ 6˜ 1, is feminine. 34 I interpret this passage as
designating two categories ofsins, (1) the high-handed sin and (2) all other
sins, while at the same time recognizing two subcategoriesunder the second
type, one involving sins committed without the knowledge ofthe offender and
the other concerning sins committed with some knowledge ofthe offense, yet
short of being considered“high-handed” (following F. Leroy Forlines, The

Questfor Truth: Theologyfor Postmodern Times [Nashville: Randall House,
2001]472). Myapproach differs from that of JaySklarwho proposes three
categories:(1) sins committed without knowledge withprovisional atonement;
(2) sins with knowledge with provisional atonement; and (3) sins with
knowledge without provisional atonement(“Sin and Atonement: Lessons
from the Pentateuch,” BBR 22 [2012]478–82). The weaknessofhis
interpretation is that he claims to base it upon whether or not atonement is
granted. However, according to this stricture, there are only two kinds of sins:
those for which atonement is granted, and the one for which it is not. For this
reason, I deliberately avoid calling the nonhigh-handed sins “sins of
ignorance” or“sins in error,” due to the fact that this categoryincludes all sin
short of the one high-handed sin (i.e. sins knowingly committed and sins
unknowingly committed). In NT terms we would call this specialcategoryof
sin apostasy, concerning which the author of Hebrews warns that it is beyond
the pale of repentance and likewise involves the renunciation of Christ’s
oncefor-allsacrifice, thus beyond sacrifice. This point also suggeststhat there
is only one sin of apostasy, eventhough the biblical authors speak of this sin in
numerous ways (e.g. sin againstthe Holy Spirit [Matt 12:32;Mark 3:29], sin
unto death [1 John 5:16–17], drift away [Heb 2:1], fail to enter into rest [Heb
4:1], fall away[Heb 6:6]). Concerning all sin short of this one and final high-
handed sin, the repentant individual canfind forgiveness through Christ’s
once-for-allsacrifice. 35 We canthank the KJV for the translation
“presumptuous,” while others such as the NASB and NIV qualify the sin as
being committed “defiantly.” The ESV retrieves a more ancienttradition in
translating the phrase quite literally, “with a high hand.” The ancient versions
favor a literal reading of this idiom. For example, the Syriac Peshitta is
strictly literal in its translation: ¾ýòå• ÊÂî•• ÀÊØ½Á ¿ÿâ• (wnpšҴ dtҵbd
bҴydҴ rmtҴ) “The person who acts with a high hand,” while the LXX is less
so, but closerto the original than most English versions:C:¥ QNPè ®MBK
IGBèL>B •F P>BJ¥ ÇI>J@O:Fé:K“The person who acts with a hand of
arrogance.”Interestingly, the Aramaic Targums introduce the notion of an
uncovered head in their readings of this statement: '—+’ f' —:’ '—” 4™' ’
f•1 • • # “The man who acts with an uncovered head” (Tg. Onq.); '+ f':
3= ' f61# “The person who acts with uncovered head” (Tg. Neof.). This
tradition highlights that this sin concerns the defiance of divine authority.

opposition for the “raised-hand” idiom becomes clearerin light of its two
other attestations in the OT. In Exod 14:8 we find the exit of the Israelites
from the land of Egypt “with a high hand,” in opposition to Pharaoh. This
statementfollows the narrative’s report of YHWH strengthening Pharaoh’s
heart and thus provoking his pursuit of Israelduring their initial exodus.
Numbers 33:3 harkens back to the same event. In both cases, high-handedness
should be read againstthe backdrop of Pharaoh’s stubborn will in opposition
to YHWH and his refusal to permit Israel’s departure from Egypt. God told
Moses thatPharaohwould not let them leave, “exceptwith a strong hand,”
and this no doubt signals the battle of the gods about to commence. Israel’s
departure “with a high hand” signals defiance in the face of Pharaoh’s will,
thanks to the overwhelming force of God’s powerand ability to break the
obstinate king of Egypt.36 Although severalcommentators have pointed out
the importance of Num 15:30 for the warnings in Hebrews, its interpretive
import yields different opinions. Charles Carlstonassumedthis background
for Heb 10:25 with its emphasis upon the fact that there remains no further
sacrifice for the sin of apostasy, adopting “the well-knowndistinction between
presumptuous and unintentional sins.”37 Thomas Oberholtzerobserves that
Num 15:30–31 illustrates the sin of Heb 10:26–39,but softens its offense by
maintaining that the issue in Numbers 15 was not soteriological,but was a
“temporal discipline for violating the Mosaic Covenant.” He goes onto
summarize the sin of Hebrews 10 as follows:“Sinning willfully results in being
in a position in which experiential forgiveness ofsin is no longer possible. The
result of this position is an expectationof temporal discipline on the defecting
believer.”38 Besides the simple factthat this interpretation lacks textual
support from either context, Numbers 15 appears not to be aware ofthe tidy
distinction betweenthe physical and soteriologicalas Oberholtzerhas defined
them, but simply warns that high-handed sin will result in being cut off from
the life of the covenantcommunity, which is tantamount to death. The larger
context of the wilderness wanderings narratedin Numbers 13–14 should
inform our understanding of the high-handed sin of Num 15:30–31 andits
application to Hebrews 10. Although the wilderness wanderings are widely
recognizedas a subtext for the author’s argument concerning entering into
rest in Hebrews 3–4 and his warning againstapostasyin 6:4–6,39 the original

connectionbe 36 The expression“with a strong
hand” occurs in Exod 3:19; 6:1; 13:3, 14; 14:16. The fact that Israeldeparted
“with a strong hand” is in direct contrastwith the stubborn will of Pharaoh,
which YHWH eventually breaks. On the significance of this expression, see
McAffee, “The Heart of Pharaoh in Exodus 4–15,”BBR 20 (2010)350–51. 37
Charles Carlston, “Eschatologyand Repentance in Hebrews,” JBL78 (1959)
298. Cf. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews 261 n. 132;Ellingworth, Epistle to the
Hebrews 531;Guthrie, Hebrews 217;Outlaw, Book of Hebrews 253;Osborne,
“A ClassicalArminian View” 120. 38 Thomas Oberholtzer, “The Dangerof
Willful Sin in Hebrews 10:26–39,”BSac 145(1988)412, 419.39 See
Oberholtzer, “The Kingdom of Restin Hebrews 3:1–4:13,” BSac 145(1988)
187–88;Gleason, “OT Backgroundof the Warning in Hebrews 6:4–8” 72–74;
Mathewson, “Heb6:4–6 in Light of the OT” 212–13;Scacewater, “Hebrews in
Rebellion” 24–64.
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 547 tweenNumbers
13–14 andthe high-handed sin of Numbers 15 is often left unstated.40 It
seems that the placementof this teaching on two types of sin—the highhanded
sin versus all other sin types—is deliberate. At the least, Numbers 15 is
intended to be read in light of the wilderness rebellion in the preceding two
chapters;at the most, the sin “with a high hand” is the sin committed by those
who gave an evil report.41 Furthermore, the immediate context of the sin
outlined in Num 15:30, beginning in v. 17, concerns one’s obedience to the
stipulations of the covenant, provisioning atonement in the case ofnon-high-
handed failure to observe “allthese commandments” (v. 22). The curse of
death for certainindividual sins is only invoked in cases ofhigh-handed sin,
which is illustrated in the following narration of the wood-gatherer’s breaking
the Sabbath (Num 15:32–36).According to the wording of Num 15:31, such a
one’s guilt is not temporarily setaside, but is “againsthim,” thus necessitating
the covenantcommunity’s executing the individual via stoning. The
precedence forthe communal executionof an individual is found in the divine
executionof the evil spies and their associates—the grumbling generationof
twenty years of age and older, save Caleb and Joshua—during the forty-year
wilderness wanderings (Num 14:22–23,26–35). This deathsentence is
essentiallythe curse, in that it entails being cut off, not only from the

community, but also from the goodword (= covenant blessing)of the
PromisedLand. 2. The high-handed sin of apostasyas incurring the covenant
curse. When read together, the warnings of Hebrews 6 and 10 make their case
for the severity of this sin from the perspective of sacrifice, and for the new
covenantcommunity that sacrifice is none other than Christ crucified. For the
new covenantcommunity the only means of sacrifice for sin is the “once for
all” sacrifice ofChrist, which, if renounced in a “high-handed” manner,
leaves the individual beyond the pale of atonement. Hebrews 6 emphasizes the
problem from the perspective of the blasphemer who renounces Christ’s
sacrifice:it is as though the Son of God were crucified again(6:6).
40 For an alternative approach arising from source analysis, see JoelBaden,
“The Structure and Substance of Numbers 15,” VT 63 (2013)357–62. I do not
deny the immediate connectionwith the following narration of the man
gathering wood on the Sabbath as a sample illustration of the high-handed
sin, as Baden puts forth. On the other hand, from a canonicalreading of the
text (which is the perspective of Hebrews) the preceding narration of the
wilderness rebellion would have inevitably informed one’s reading of the
high-handed sin of Numbers 15. 41 This point seems clearfrom the
introduction of the ritual material in Num 15:2: “Speak unto the sons of Israel
and sayunto them: When you enter into the land of your dwelling which I am
giving to you …” It is in this way that YHWH has forgiven the Israelites, as
statedin Num 14:20:the nation of Israelwill go on and inherit the land. This
is preciselywhy the text is at pains to state YHWH’s pardon carefully: “I have
pardoned according to your [Moses’]word” (Heb.: '– k ’ %™+ š 2 U ˜ :š
• •V ) (Num 14:20). Randall C. Gleason’s appraisalthatthe sin of Hebrew 6
is “not absolute apostasy” is basedpartly on a misreading of this passage,
leading him to suggestthatthe Lord reluctantly “pardoned them” in light of
Moses’petition (“OT Backgroundof the Warning in Hebrews 6:4–8” 79–80).
But as we have noted, it is not that YHWH pardoned the sins of the wicked
spies;on the contrary, they and those aligned with them were judged: the
wickedspies were executedby divine plague (Num 14:36–37)and the evil
generationthat allied with them were sentencedto death in the wilderness,
and consequentlywere banned from entering Canaan. The generation
responsible for the rebellion of chaps. 13–14 will not inherit the land. The way
in which God pardoned such iniquity “according to Moses’word” is that he

did not destroy the nation entirely and start anew with Moses andhis
descendants (Num 14:11–12).
Hebrews 10, on the other hand, presents the actfrom the divine perspective,
indicating that no further sacrifice is provisioned for the one who renounces
Christ (10:26).
III. CONCLUSIONS Thus far we have set out to analyze the warning
passagesofthe book of Hebrews from within the covenantalframework of
blessing and cursing. It therefore remains for us to specifytwo major
conclusions that naturally arise from this particular covenantalperspective. 1.
The nature of the covenantcommunity and the sin of apostasy. As we reflect
on the teaching of Hebrews on apostasythrough the lens of covenantblessings
and curses, the significance of one’s associationwith the covenant community
becomes clear. As we considerthe language of Heb 6:4–8 concerning apostasy,
the individual who renounces his identity as a member of the new covenant
community in turn revokes the covenantblessings in exchange for curses. The
OT covenantsignificance of“the goodword” as an equivalency for the old
covenantblessings only solidifies the fact that we are dealing with legitimate
covenantmembers who have actually receivedthe inaugural blessings ofthe
new covenantreality through the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit. What
remains to be seen, however, is their perseverance in the life of the new
covenantcommunity and the final attainment of the eschatologicalrest. The
failure of certainmembers of the old covenantcommunity constitutes the
bedrock of the writer’s argument for the new covenantcommunity againstthe
same hardness of heart—if God judged the high-handed sin of that
generation, so will he judge such sin in the new covenantcommunity. It is
patently incorrectto overemphasize the communal nature of the old covenant
community over againstthe individual nature of the new. Again, it should be
noted that YHWH dealt with the Israelites onboth the corporate and
individual levels. Regardless ofwhat we might believe about the continuity
versus the discontinuity of the old and new covenants, the argument of
Hebrews assumes that God deals with Israelon both levels. The
presumptuous sin of the wickedspies in Numbers 14 (or the woodgathererin
Num 15:32–36)andits relation to the highhanded sin of Numbers 15:30–31

shows that although God judged their sin by invoking the curse of death, at
the same time he pardoned the community of Israelin allowing the younger
generationto continue on in their journey to the promised land. Yet, one also
sees the potential for the opposite situation to develop as well— the failure of
the covenantcommunity as a whole and the inevitable application of the
corporate curse of exile does not necessitateGod’s rejectionof the faithful
remnant. For these reasons,the argument of paedobaptists rings hollow in
their suggesting a third categoryofindividual in view in the book of Hebrews
beyond “saved” and “unsaved”—namely, as MichaelHorton explains, “the
person who belongs to the covenantcommunity and experiences thereby the
work of the Spirit
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 549 throughthe
means of grace, andyet is not regenerate.”42Notonly does this suggestionfail
to understand the meaning of the secondparallelpair of Heb 6:4–5 (i.e. the
blessing of the now and the blessing of the not yet), it also fails to accountfor
the old covenant’s means of dealing with sin on the individual level. Such an
argument is foreignto the overall sense ofHebrews, especiallyin its allusion
to the wilderness wanderings of Numbers 13–14 andthe subsequent teaching
on high-handed sin in Num 15:30–31, whichin simple terms is meant to
dissuade covenantmembers from defecting from the faith. Besides, this
approachalso fails to take accountof what is “new” aboutthe new covenant
in the writer’s argument for its superiority over the old. One of its key
features is the removal of any potential “third” category, according to
Horton’s covenant reading. Note especiallythe writer’s quotation from Jer
31:31–34,particularly vv. 33b–34:I will setmy Torahin their midst and upon
their mind I will write it. I will be their God and they will be my people. No
longerwill eachperson teachhis neighbor nor eachperson his brother,
saying, “Know YHWH,” for all will know me from the leastunto the greatest.
This statementcomes shortly after YHWH’s oracle to Jeremiahconcerning
the sour grapes proverb in v. 29, “The fathers have eatensour grapes, but the
children’s teeth are set on edge.”43It is generallybelieved that this saying
may have arisenfrom misappropriating the statementfrom the third word of
the Decalogue concerning the sins of the fathers visiting the third and fourth
generations.44 As for Jeremiah, he stressesindividual accountability for sin in

his preface to the new covenantpronouncement, stating in v. 30 that “a man
will die in his own iniquity” and that “for eachman who eats sour grapes, his
own teeth will be seton edge.”45Notwithstanding the factthat God held
individual sinners accountable under the
42 MichaelHorton, “A ClassicalCalvinist View,”
in Four Views on Eternal Security (ed. J. Matthew Pinson; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2002)37. This particular view on the Hebrews warning texts has
not gainedmuch attention within evangelicalscholarship, but, in my opinion,
is a much more robust argument than the typical discussions that focus on
whether or not the addressees were genuine believers. Partof the appealof
Horton’s position (and others like his) is that it is able to maintain two
seemingly incompatible tenets, one exegeticaland the other theological:(1)
exegetically, the text presents these individuals as covenant members; and (2)
theologically, the Calvinistic view of perseverance maintains that regenerate
believers cannot fall away. Horton affirms both points by redefining what it
means to be a member of the new covenantcommunity. No doubt part of the
hesitancyamong evangelicalsis their unwillingness to acceptHorton’s
“mixed” new covenantcommunity approach, which poses serious problems
for baptistic Calvinists. While I agree with Horton’s contentionthat these are
indeed covenantmembers, I disagree with his definition of what that
membership entails (i.e. regenerate covenantmembers and unregenerate
covenantmembers). On the other hand, I agree with the baptistic approach to
the new covenant community as consisting of regenerate members, but at the
same time I cannot justify exegeticallythe attempt to deny covenant
membership for these addresseesin Hebrews. 43 Cf. Ezekiel’s quotation of the
same proverb in Ezek 18:2 and the following discussionin vv. 3–24. 44 Exod
20:5–6;Deut 5:9–10. 45 Hebrew: L1L” 4™C f'– ¡- • '•V “forindeed each
person will die in his own iniquity.” Cf. the similar phraseologyofNum 15:31:
Iš !š 1L” 4 # – ! ™! f•6•^• ! “As for that individual, iniquity will be
againsthim.”
550 JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETYold
covenant,46 there will be a superior manifestation of this principle in the new.
Returning to our author’s use of this text from Jeremiah, he quotes it againin
Heb 10:16–17, only this time it is found within his argument concerning the

sufficiency of Christ’s “once for all” sacrifice, for which he singles out Jer
31:33 and its emphasis on the internalization of the law for new covenant
members. The outlook of the covenantcommunity as it is presentedin the
book of Hebrews is one of inaugurated eschatology, emphasizing on the one
hand their reception of the covenant blessings alreadyexperiencedby
members of the new covenantcommunity (“the goodword of God”), all the
while maintaining that they are indeed participating in the eschatological
community of the heavenly greathigh priest (“the powers of the age to
come”). Or as Carlstonhas aptly expressedthe same sentiments, “the
community with which believers are associatedis an eschatological
community, not merely in the sense that its members entertain a common
hope … but also (and primarily) in that they all worship in the same
sanctuary, the heavenly one.”47 Again, this is the exactimagery of Hebrews
10 with its emphasis on Christ’s finished atonement and his being seatedat
the right hand of God in heaven (v. 12). Such emphasis then leads into his
exhortation for the believers of Hebrews to enter the true sanctuary by the
new and living way (vv. 19–25). The worshipof the new covenantcommunity
envisions its members worshiping in the true heavenly sanctuarythrough the
work of Christ, the greathigh priest who is seatedthere.48 It goes without
saying that the trajectoryof the book of Hebrews and its appropriation of the
covenantframework stands againstthe argument of those who suggestthat
the individuals exhorted in these warnings are not truly regenerate.49Suchis
an intrusive element utterly unfamiliar to the literary setting of these
warnings. In particular, the old covenantnomenclature of the goodword as
“covenantpromises” in Heb 6:5 assumes inauguralmembership in the
covenantcommunity and warns againstthe potential forfeiture of the
eschatologicalrestawaiting those who persevere. Onthe other hand, to avoid
entirely questions regarding the identity of the addressees, insteadaffirming
that these warnings function rhetorically to motivate true believers to
perseverance,actuallydeconstructs the sting of the author’s argument as a
whole—thatthey are in grave danger of committing the sin of apostasy, which
is without remedy. On the exegeticallevel, the “means-ofsalvation” approach
does nothing to exclude the real possibility that some might
46 See also Deut 24:16:“Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, and sons
shall not be put to death for fathers. Eachone shall be put to death on account

of his own sin.” 47 Carlston, “Eschatologyand Repentance in Hebrews” 300.
48 See also Heb 8:1–5;9:11, 23–26. 49 E.g. Grudem, “Perseverance ofthe
Saints” 133–82;cf. Nicole, “Some Comments onHebrews 6:4–6” 355–64;
Buist M. Fanning, “The ClassicalReformedView” in Four Views on the
Warning Passages172–219.ChristopherW. Cowanhas recently made a more
extensive criticism of the “false-believerview” advocatedby Grudem and
Fanning in “The Warnings in Hebrews Revisited: A Response to Wayne
Grudem and Buist M. Fanning” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the
ETS, Baltimore, MD, November 2013). Cowanlevels his criticisms as an
advocate ofthe “means-of-salvation-view” ofSchreinerand Caneday(see next
note).
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 551 notpersevere.
Otherwise it renders the author’s appeal to the old covenantcontext entirely
irrelevant, since the same fate that met the previous generationof believers
could never meet those of the new covenant community. In other words, this
position would actually negate the basis for the writer’s allusions to the
wilderness rebellion of Numbers 13–14 in the first place.50Forthese reasons,
we find that the covenantconnotations of the “the goodword” require that
the subjects of these warning passagesbe granted the status of full covenant
membership, which they are in danger of forfeiting should they apostatize.
From this covenantalperspective, these individuals have experiencedfull
membership in the life of the new covenant community, but they have
exhibited a certain hardness of heart characteristic oftheir forbears in the
wilderness wanderings. Indeed, these warnings are intended to dissuade them
from their hardened ways in order to bring them to repentance, but their
spiritual destruction via apostasylooms everso near as a realand present
danger. 2. The nature of the curse incurred by the sin of apostasy. The second
prong of our argument concerning the covenantcommunity in the book of
Hebrews concerns its appropriation of the high-handed categoryof sin and its
application to the sin of apostasy. Consideration ofthis feature is largely
connectedto our contention that the author assumes these individuals are
members of the new covenantcommunity, and thus the high-handed sin of
apostasyinvokes the covenantcurse of individual separationfrom the life of
the covenantcommunity. This is the main outlook of Num 15:30–31 andthe

surrounding narratives, both of which necessitateinterpreting the
pronouncement of the offender’s being cut off as a death sentence. As we have
already argued, the factthat YHWH condemns the wickedgenerationof
50 For example, note the arguments of Thomas R. Schreiner and Ardel B.
Caneday, The Race SetBefore Us: A Biblical TheologyofPerseveranceand
Assurance (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001)193–213. With regardto
Hebrews 3:12–14, Schreinerand Canedaystate that “the warning and the
admonition function to encourage us to persevere in order that we may
receive salvation” (p. 202). They summarize the overall purpose of these
warnings as follows:“Thus, all the warnings caution us concerning
conceivable consequences. Theydo not confront us with an uncertain future.
They do not say that we may perish. Rather, they caution us lest we perish”
(pp. 207–9). I do not deny that the author pens these words for the distinct
purpose of urging these believers to persevere, which is rather obvious from
the factthat he wrote them in the first place. But for Schreinerand Caneday
to suggestthat “they do not say that we may perish” is entirely unfounded
exegetically, especiallygivenhis appeals to old covenant examples where
individuals did indeed perish. Neither will appeals to typology alleviate this
problem, as Schreiner and Caneday do in cautioning that “the New Testament
writers do not use Israel to show that it is possible for God’s spiritually
birthed children to apostatize and perish,” but rather “appealto Israel’s
rebellion to admonish us to be the true people of God that Israelwas not” (p.
226). Yet, this perspective fails to accountfor the OT’s use of this event in Ps
95:7–8 for the old covenantcommunity, which happens to be the exegetical
lens through which the author of Hebrews appears to be reading the Israelite
rebellion of Numbers 13–14. As Numbers 13–14servedto warn the old
covenantcommunity in their reading the Psalter, so does it warn the new
covenantcommunity in their reading the exhortations of Hebrews. Schreiner
and Caneday’s typologicalargument might work within a context perceivably
removed from the early Jewishness ofthe Christian faith, but it would be
quite unfamiliar to a largely JewishChristian audience, tempted to revert
back to a pre-Jesus-as-Messiahobservanceofthe faith. If Numbers 13–14
functioned typologicallyfor the author of Hebrews, one would suspectthat the
basis for its doing so was grounded in its typologicalimport for the psalmist

before him. At the least, it would be highly unlikely for the typology applied in
Psalm95 to be entirely different from that of Hebrews.
Numbers 14 to die in the wilderness for their sin of unbelief, along with the
divine death sentence prescribedagainstthe Sabbath violator with his
subsequent stoning in Num 15:35, bears this out without question. But the
significance ofthis observationfor the argument of Hebrews becomes clearer
when we understand his method of reinterpreting these materials in lieu of the
new covenantreality. To the degree that the new covenantcommunity could
be said to participate in the heavenly realm of God’s true temple through the
high priestly work of Christ, so too is the curse againsthigh-handed sin to be
understood in terms of eternalconsequence. The old covenantreference to the
offender being cut off from the covenantcommunity in death as an analogyto
being cut off from the heavenly life of the new covenant community breaks
down if we maintain that those in danger of experiencing such judgment have
not actually participated in this new reality in the first place. In plain
language, the punishment of physical death for high-handed sin in Numbers
14–15 has beenreplacedby the spiritual death of apostasyin the book of
Hebrews.51 This is the curse againstthe high-handed renunciation of the
atoning work of the new covenantgreathigh priest. The curse corresponds
equally to the blessing, or the “goodword of God,” in that it reanalyzes the
rest motif from a hope of entering into the physical locale ofthe land of
promise (i.e. Canaan)to the heavenly reality of the new covenantcommunity,
both as it has been inaugurated in Christ’s high-priestly work and as it will be
finally realizedin the eternal rest awaiting those who persevere. Therefore,
the appropriation of the high-handed sin as a way of interpreting apostasyin
Hebrews means that it involves a true covenant member’s final renunciation
of the new covenantblessings. This renunciation is not simply a matter of
losing out on certain benefits/rewards associatedwith the Christian life now
or hereafter, but it results in one’s eternal destruction. As the author’s appeal
to the wilderness wanderings from Numbers would suggest, this actarises
from a persistent hardening of heart towardthe Lord and his covenant
stipulations, resulting in the irremediable forfeiture of the covenant promise
of eternal rest.

IV. SUMMARY The above discussionhas attempted to connectthe warnings
of Hebrews with the blessings and the curses associatedwith covenant
faithfulness/unfaithfulness in the OT. Doing so leads us to conclude that these
warning texts do indeed lend themselves to the possibility that an individual in
covenantrelationship with God can by deliberate unfaithfulness to the
covenantbe excluded from that relationship. The basis for this association
arises from the author’s utilization of the old covenantexpression“good
word” (i.e. the promised blessing)and
51 An obvious question for those who maintain
that these individuals are not true believers is this: Why would the judgment
of spiritual death be held out as a negative motivation for those who are
already spiritually dead? On the contrary, the writer seems to be addressing
the uniqueness of the situation involving high-handed sin committed by
members of the new covenantcommunity.
COVENANT AND THE WARNINGS OF HEBREWS 553 his categorizing
the sin of apostasyas being beyond the remedy of atonement (i.e. the warned
curse).52
If I Fell Away from the Lord but Came Back, DoesHebrews Teachthat I Am
Still Damned?
March 13, 2019, postedby SEA
On his website, Arminian Perspectives,BenHenshaw has a questions page at
which he answers questions aboutArminianism and Calvinism that visitors to
his site pose in the comment sectionof the page. The following is a question
and answerinteractionbetweenBen and a commenter named
Samuel/William (he uses both names).
QuestionPart 1: I am really shakenright now. I was raisedin a Christian
household, but never really fully trusted and surrendered everything to God
even though I had askedHim into my life. I worshiped and believed in Him.

But then in my early 20s something really heart wrenching happened that
causedme to in essence turn my back on Him and I fell into sin(sexually) for a
couple years. I never denied Him but largelyignored Him. I returned to the
faith but still struggled with sexualsin and was always losing the battle.
Finally, dr’s found a tumor in my neck. It turned out to be a benign one that
could eventually come back and be malignant. During the six weeks of
wondering what it was, Godfully broke me. I was on my knees every day
crying and repenting. Early in my Christian life I wanted Him to do things for
me, but now I only want Him. Since that scare everything has changedin my
life. I no longerhas a desire for sin. I am reading the scriptures non stop and
finally finding out what they all say. I can across the troubling verses in
Hebrews and was shockedand am terrified that they are talking about me
when I turned my back on Christ and sinned. How do I know that it is not too
late for me? I was brought up with a once savedalways savedmentality that
led to complacencyand now I am terrified because I didn’t know those verses
in Hebrews.
Thanks
Answer Part 1:
I recommend that you read my post on the nature of apostasyin Hebrews:
Perseverance ofthe Saints Part 11:Can Apostates Be Restored?
From what I have read of your experience you have not committed apostasy
as described in Hebrews 6 and 10. That apostasyis the result of a heart so
hardened by sin that repentance is impossible. Those who commit such
apostasywill never againdesire a relationship with the Lord. This is not the
case with you. Your writing this post to me and the concernyou have over
your spiritual state is clearevidence that you have not commited apostasyas
describedin Hebrews 6 and 10. If you had, you would not want anythng to do
with God and you would not be concernedabout your spiritual condition.
Here is a quote from that post,
Sin canlead to apostasyby hardening the heart to the point of unbelief. That
is why sin is such a dangerous thing and should never be trivialized in the life

of the believer. If believers persistin sinful living and refuse to repent,
irrevocable apostasymay be just around the corner. This “sinning” could be
the unrepentant indulgence of the flesh, or the gradual tolerance offalse
teaching. There is still hope of restorationand repentance prior to the decisive
act of willful unbelief. We cantherefore be sure that if one desires to repent
and be restoredto right relationship with the Lord that irrevocable apostasy
has not yet occurred.
Here is another quote that I took from F. Leroy Forlines,
I believe that we can restassuredthat the personwho comes to talk to us
about his or her fears of having committed the unpardonable sin does not fit
the descriptionof the people describedin 2 Peter 2:20, 21; Hebrews 6:4-6; and
10:26-29. If there is concernto be restoredto a right relationship with God,
such a person has not committed apostasy. (The QuestFor Truth, pg. 284)
If you are truly desiring a relationship with God as you indicate then my
advice to you would be to rest assuredin the promise that those who come to
Christ will not be castout or turned away(John 6:37), and continue to draw
closerto Godin faith and love (again, if you are desiring a relationship with
the Lord then that is clearevidence that you have not committed irrevocable
apostasy). I would pray that God replaces your fear with assurance and
comfort in His love and acceptance,that you might experience the peace of
God which transcends understanding (Phil. 4:7). I will be praying for you as
well.
God Bless
[Editor’s note: The reader might also be interested in this article, which takes
a different approach than Ben, arguing that Hebrews 6 does not mean that
those who fall awayin the sense it means cannot return to the Lord and be
forgiven: http://evangelicalarminians.org/brian-abasciano-my-argument-for-
apostasy-not-being-irremediable-in-hebrews-6/]
QuestionPart 2: Thanks for the reply. I have read just about every
commentary I could get my hands on on this subject matter. I sincerely
appreciate you taking the time to respond to my concerns.

I’ve read your post on the matter severaltimes through and it seems very
reasonable. The areas whichyou have just quoted for me have been my
greatestcomfortbecause they essentiallysaythat if you want to repent, if you
want Christ to be your Lord, if you want to love Him then that is proof that
you have not committed irrevocable apostasy. I just wish there was something
biblical that says this instead of a commentators opinion.
What still concerns me is the issue off not being able to be renewedto
repentance. Now I am not a greek scholarso I go by what commentaries
might say. In one, the author statedthat the impossibility is not in the
apostate’s ability to repent, but that it will avail nothing to God. He further
went on to give the example of Esauwho weepedand still found no place for
repentance.
How does one draw the line betweenbeing the irrevocable apostate and the
wandererof James 5:19? Biblically speaking. Do I have a misunderstanding
about Esaus wanting to repent?
Thanks for your time
Answer Part 2: Considering the context of the passage,and the overall view of
apostasythroughout the epistle, I think the example of Esauposes no real
problem to the view of apostasyI have described as consistentwith the
inspired writer’s view. It seems to me that Esauis used as an example, in that
passage, forthree reasons. First, he is used to show that the inheritance of
salvationis precious and should not be treated lightly (as Esaudespisedhis
birth right). Second, to show the great disparity in value betweensalvation in
Christ and the emptiness of Judaism without Christ (contrasting the value of
Esau’s birthright with a bowl of soup- also the need to endure suffering for
the sake ofsomething greater, just as Esaushould have endured his hunger a
little longerfor the sake ofpreserving his birth right, cf. 12:1-4). Third, to
show that once salvationhas been despised, it cannotbe recovered. Esau’s
tears were not tears of repentance, but tears of regret for forfeiting his
inheritance once that became a reality to him. In that sense, we might see it in
an eschatologicalsense forthe apostate. His tears will come when he stands
before the Lord and fully realizes what he has lost. I think the eschatological

emphasis really fits the context, as the writer emphasizes final salvation
throughout the epistle. Also, the “repentance” couldrefer to Isaac, and not
Esau. In that sense, it would mean that Isaac would not change his mind
(repent) and give Esauthe inheritance he lost.
So it is not a case ofwanting to return to the Lord, and not being allowedto
(as the one commentatorapparently suggested). Rather, it is a reminder of the
finality of the apostate’sdecisionbeing fully realized at judgment, when
nothing more can be done to change the eternalloss of inheritance. The
apostate would never seek a lostinheritance with tears in this world, since he
is convinced that no such inheritance exists for him.
Repentance has to do with a change of attitude and heart (Heb. 6:1). It is a
spiritual re-orientation. That is how the term is used and understood in the
epistle with regards to salvation. So just the basic meaning of repentance
removes any possibility that one can want salvationand simply be denied by
God (unless that person is seeking salvationon his own terms, i.e., not
according to faith in Christ). Therefore, when the writer says one cannot be
renewedagainto repentance, it includes the reality that the personwill not
ever againdesire to be reconciledto God through faith in Christ. Such a
desire would constitute the change in spiritual orientation that largelydefines
“repentance”. So the fact that you desire a relationship with Christ
underscores the factthat you have not committed apostasyas defined in
Hebrews (though, if you read my post, I wouldn’t necessarilysaythat you did
not commit a lesserform of apostasy, describedelsewhere in Scripture, that is
remedial). So when you write,
The areas whichyou have just quoted for me have been my greatestcomfort
because they essentiallysaythat if you want to repent, if you want Christ to be
your Lord, if you want to love Him then that is proof that you have not
committed irrevocable apostasy. Ijust wish there was something biblical that
says this insteadof a commentators opinion.
…I think the Bible does address it in the very way the writer of Hebrews
defines and uses “repentance” in the contextof Heb. 6:1-6. Hope that helps.
God Bless

QuestionPart 3: Thank you very much Ben for clearing this up. I’ve
struggledwith this for a long time and now I can finally put it to rest. The one
thing I can see is that God then never gave up on me and that he chastisedme
to bring me to repentance which I now genuinely have. I am still sifting
through both doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism. If its not to much to
ask could you point me toward some trustworthy resources that address
certain aspects ofArminianism.
1. When Christ says that no one can pluck us out of his hand. I’m not worried
about anyone taking me out of his hand, but rather the devil through
deception. Doesn’tthe Arminian view kind of make this statement powerless?
2. Also something on Romans 9 that you trust.
I don’t expect you to answerthese, but if could point me in the right direction
I’d be much obliged.
Thanks
Answer Part 3: You wrote,
1. When Christ says that no one can pluck us out of his hand. I’m not worried
about anyone taking me out of his hand, but rather the devil through
deception. Doesn’tthe Arminian view kind of make this statement powerless?
I am not sure I know what you are asking here. I guess you are thinking that
if the devil could pluck us out through deception, that would render the
promise meaningless. If that is the case, then I think the concernis invalid.
Believers are given all that they need to continue in the faith and remain in
Christ (2 Pet. 1:3-11). The devil cannot deceive them irresistibly. We do not
have to give in to the devil’s deception, so he is powerlessto pluck us out of
God’s hands. The only way we could view deceptionas negating this promise
is to view deception as impossible to resistor overcome through the grace of
God. Arminians do not hold to this, so their view does not negate the promise
here.
We need to remember that the promise is given only to Christ’s sheep, who
are presently trusting in Christ (“following” and “listening” to Him, verse 27).

So long as we are trusting in Christ, nothing can remove us from Him (since
we are united to Him through faith). However, the promise does not extend to
unbelievers. God does not hold unbelievers and unbelievers canhave no union
with Christ. If a believer ceasesto “listen” and “follow”, andturns to unbelief,
then the promise of John 10:27-29 simply does not apply. It is not a matter of
a promise failing or becoming powerless. It is a matter of who the promise is
directed to. It is directed to believers and believers only. For more on this and
similar passagesthat Calvinist appeal to in order to support inevitable
perseverence,see here.
God Bless
Additional answerfrom a Commenter with the screenname, “Arminian”:
To add to Ben’s reply, saying that Jesus’promise that no one can snatch us
out of his hand would be meaningless if we could follow Satan’s deception
awayfrom the Father’s hand of our own free will would be like saying that
the promise of 1 Cor 10:13 is meaningless, whichpromises that we never have
to succumb to temptation but always have God’s power to resistit. That is one
of the most precious promises in all of Scripture, a real bedrock of practically
living the Christian life. I would find it incredible if anyone could consider
that promise empty or meaningless. The promise in John is similar. It is
comforting and assuring to know that nothing can overpowerus to forsake
the Lord or to take awayour blessing in him. The issue was evenmore
pressing in the first century world in which many fearedsupernatural powers
and magic (you can see this type of concerncome out especiallyin Ephesians
and Colossians). While succumbing to Satan’s deceptionis a possibility by our
own free choice–rememberPaul’s concernfor the Corinthians: “But I am
afraid that as the serpent deceivedEve by his cunning, your thoughts will be
led astrayfrom a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Cor 11:3)–by God’s
grace and protective hand we never have to fall to Satan’s deception, but
rather we are protectedby the powerof God*through faith* (1 Pet 1:5) (i.e.,
as we continue to trust in him). Thanks be to God!
Postedin Apostasy, Assurance, ConditionalEternal Security, Hebrews,
Hebrews 10, Hebrews 6:1-6, Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebrews 6:4-9, Henshaw. Ben,

Once savedalways saved, Questionand Answer Series by Ben Henshaw,
Repentance, Salvation, Security, Warning Passages.
APOSTASYIN HEBREWS 6:4-6
T. MATTHEW GREEN
The theologicalidea that has come to be recognizedas “eternalsecurity” is
one that has been studied, discussed, and debatedsince the advent of Jesus
Christ. The conceptis one that seemingly arose as a response to the Old
Testamenttheologyof salvationby works. This “new” conceptis basedon the
completed work of Christ and the grace by which he has savedhumanity. The
ideologystates that, once a personhas acceptedChrist as savior, there is
nothing that canremove, destroy, or change that person’s salvation status.
That person’s salvationhas become eternally secure in the hand of Christ.
There is the other side of the camp, though, that argues againstthis concept
of eternal security. Those thatadhere to this point will not go so far as to say
that a personis savedby his or her works, but once salvation is completed
there are measures to be takento “maintain” one’s salvation. These measures
would include actions such as staying in a right relationship with Christ,
spending time in prayer and biblical study on a regular basis, and doing
everything possible to abhor that which is evil and cling to that which is good.
Again, the point is stressedthat works do not save a person, but one’s
salvationmust be takencare of and not taken for granted.
2
The author of the book of Hebrews seems to weigh in on this ongoing
discussionand seems to offer some type of middle ground. He seems to allow
for the possibility of a believer to “fall away” from repentance, but he

describes it as one that is the result of a long process. This paper will seek to
explore the experiential nature of the believer that the author describes in
Hebrews 6:4-6 and discuss the idea of the impossibility of returning to
repentance once the believer has experienceda falling away.
This discussionmust begin with an examination of the experiential level of
the believerthat the author of Hebrews describes. In describing these
believers, the author uses three terms: enlightened (ϕωτισθεντας), tasted
(γευσαμενους), and partakers (μετοχους). Thesewords are very specific and
detailed terms used to explain the depth of experience of the believers. They,
in fact, describe the relationship of a Christian who has had a life-changing
encounter with Christ. Witherington goes so far as to say that a “more
fulsome description of a Christian would be hard to find in the New
Testament.”1 Bruce goesfurther to explain that the experience describedin
this passageis not a false experience that mimics the real relationship much
like an immunization mimics the thing it is preventing. This is not even the
description of a believer attachedto true religion without any

1 Ben Witherington III, Letters and Homilies for JewishChristians:A
Socio-RhetoricalCommentaryon Hebrews, James and Jude (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 212.
3
experience of that religion. Rather, this is a description of a believer who
has seenclearlywhere truth lies and has in some way conformed to that
truth.2
Attridge relates the use of the term “enlightened” to later in the book (Heb
10:32)and explains it as a common image for the reception of the salvific
message.3 Lane agrees withthis assessmentand also relates the term to 10:26
– “we have receivedknowledge ofthe truth.”4 Witherington takes the
description of the term a little deeperand relates it to other passages in the
New Testament. He writes, “In the first place the term enlightened is
regularly used in the New Testamentfor those who have come out of darkness
into the light and so have gone through the necessaryconversionofthe
imagination and intellect (Jn 1:9; 2 Cor 4:4-6; Eph 1:18; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Pet
2:9).”5 Enlightenment speaks ofa change in the believer, not just a
realization.
Heen and Krey point out that an early interpretation of this passageand,
more specifically, the term enlightenment, refer to baptism. Ephrem the
Syrian, in fact, translates the word ϕωτισθεντας as “baptized” rather than
“enlightened.” With this translation, he sees the impossibility of a personto
be baptized a secondtime. TheodoretofCyr seems to agree with this
interpretation stating

2 F. F. Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews (NICNT, RevisedEdition; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 144. 3 Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the
Hebrews (ed. Helmut Koester;Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1989), 169.
4 William L. Lane, Hebrews I, 1-8 (WBC 47A; Dallas:Word, 1991), 141.
5 Witherington, Letters, 212.
4
that a personwho has participated in “all-holy” baptism is unable to return
and be granted another baptism.6 Lane, however, believes this to be an
erroneous interpretation of the term ϕωτισθεντας. He notes that the
correlationbetweenbaptism and the idea of being brought to light,
illumination, or enlightenment is one that was not present at the time Hebrews
was written, but one that appeared around the time of Justin and gained
popularity in the secondcentury Roman church.7 Attridge also attests to the
later interpretation of ϕωτισθεντας as baptism.8 Therefore, it is less likely
that the author of Hebrews was referring to baptism when he used this word,
but that he was referring to enlightenment as the “regenerating work ofthe
Spirit experiencedby all true believers.”9
The author uses the term “tasted” (γευσαμενους)twice in the description of
the believer’s experience. This term is used, not in a physical sense, but to
describe the actof experiencing something cognitively or emotionally.10

Witherington sees the verb as meaning to “genuinelyexperience” and relates
it to

6 Erik M. Heen and Philip D. W. Krev, eds., Hebrews (ACCS New Testament
10; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 84. 7 Lane, Hebrews, 141.
8 Attridge, Hebrews, 169.
9 Randall C. Gleason, “The Old TestamentBackgroundof the Warning in
Hebrews 6:4-8,” BS 155 (1998):62-91.
10 Definition of γευομαι in Walter Bauer, A Greek-EnglishLexiconof the
New Testamentand Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick W.
Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 2000), 195.
5
2:9 in which the author uses it to express Christ’s experiencing (or tasting)
of death.11 It is deeper and more internally experiential than a physical taste.

Hughes has pointed out the tendency of some to relate, specifically, the first
mention of “tasted” to the Eucharist. He notes that this interpretation would
go well with the interpretation of ϕωτισθεντας as baptism. Essentiallythe two
gospelsacraments are neatlyplaced side by side in this experiential
description of believers.12 However, much like the baptism argument,
Hughes later notes that this interpretation may be erroneous as well. It is not
until later centuries that the term “tasted” was associatedwith the Eucharist.
He points out, in fact, that it was introduced by Teodorico whenhe related the
tasting of the heavenly gift to John 6:31ff where Jesus refers to himself as the
“bread of life given by the Fatherfrom heaven.”13 Thoughit feels nice to
relate these terms to baptism and Eucharist, the late introduction of these
ideas seemto be something other than what the author intended.
The final term that the author uses to describe the experiential nature of these
believers is “partakers” (μετοχους). Witheringtonrelates this term to the
“heavenly calling” usedin 3:1 to describe the believer as a partner with
Christ. He goes on to explain that having “sharedin” the Holy Spirit is the
“hallmark of

11 Witherington, Letters, 212. 12 Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, A Commentary
on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 208-09.
13 Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, “Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Peril of Apostasy,”
WTJ 35 (197273):137-55.
6
being a Christian, as Hebrews 2:4 stresses,along with numerous other New
Testamentwitnesses.”14 Manycommentators see a correlationwith this
phrase and the laying on of hands mentioned in 6:2.15 The Holy Spirit is
imparted through the laying on of hands, thus making the believer a partaker
of the Spirit. Again, this term, like the others, describes a very experiential
relationship betweenthe believer and Christ.
Hughes speaks to the argument by Teodorico andBruce that these three
terms are offered in a sequentialform representing the order of experience by
the believer.16 This position, held by Teodorico and Bruce, is basedon the
premise that “enlightenment” refers to baptism and “tasted” refers to
Eucharist. Essentially, the believer first experiences baptism, then is able to
receive Eucharist, and, finally, is made a partakerof the Spirit through the
laying on of hands. The cautionin adhering to the views on baptism and
Eucharisthas already been discussed;however, Hughes also cautions against
the adherence to a sequential order. He notes that there is no fixed pattern
regarding the impartation of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts. At times, it
happens before baptism while after baptism in other instances. It is also
imparted with or without the imposition of hands depending on the particular
account.17

14 Witherington, Letters, 212.
15 See Attridge, Hebrews, 170. Bruce, Hebrews, 146-47. Hughes, Hebrews,
210. 16 Hughes, Hebrews, 210.
17 Ibid.
7
The three terms the author of Hebrews uses to describe the experiential
nature of the believer are quite detailed and paints a picture of an intimate
encounter betweenthe believer and Christ. Gleasonpoints out a position held
by some interpreters that the community of believers to which Hebrews is
referring are not true believers. Rather, they are “merely professing
Christians who, thought they have exhibited signs that often accompanyfaith,
had in reality never expressedgenuine faith.”18 He goes ondescribe the
appeal of this view and its ability to avoid impugning the security of the
Christian.19 However, in light of the recent examination of the terms used by
the author, it would seemthat this interpretation of the passage is off base.
Rather, these Christians are genuine believers who have truly experienceda
salvific encounterwith Jesus Christ.
Now that the level of the believer’s experience has been examined, the next
logicalstepwould be to dissectthe term “fallenaway” used in verse 6. Bauer
defines the root word used for “fallenaway” (παραπιπτω) as “to fail to follow
through on a commitment, fall away, commit apostasy.”20 The idea of failing

to follow through on a commitment seems fitting for the Christian life. By
acceptanceof the free gift of salvation, the believer is, in essence,making a
commitment to follow Christ and turn awayfrom the flesh/sin. “Falling
away,” therefore, would constitute the believer backing out of said
commitment.

18 Gleason, “OldTestamentBackground,” 70.
19 Ibid.
20 Definition of παραπιπτω in Bauer, Lexicon, 770.
8
It is interesting how many scholars and interpreters simply write off this
idea or view it as hypothetical. Calvin strictly adheres to his ideas of the elect
when dealing with this phrase by defining the group in this passageas those
that are outside of the elect(in other words, reprobate). He states that “the
electare also beyond the dangerof finally falling away;for the Father who

gave them to be preservedby Christ his Sonis greaterthan all, and Christ
promises to watch over them all so that none may perish.”21 ForCalvin, the
electare exempt for condemnation. There repentance is final and their
salvationsecure. Therefore, the people to whom the author of Hebrews is
referring are reprobates to whom God has showngrace and mercy. He
continues:
I cannot admit that all this is any reasonwhy he should not grant the
reprobate also some taste of his grace, why he should not irradiate their minds
with some sparks of his light, why he should not give them some perceptionof
his goodness, andin some sortengrave his word on their hearts…There is
therefore some knowledge evenin the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes
away.22 Only the reprobate canbe in danger of falling away, or losing
knowledge, as Calvinexplains it.
deSilva does not use the same terminology (elect/reprobate)that Calvin uses,
but he shares the same principle as Calvin. FordeSilva, the believer that the
Hebrews author is describing is a personwho has receivedGod’s gifts and

21JohnCalvin, Commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 137-8.

22 Calvin, Hebrews, 138.
9
has benefited from God’s generosity, but not a person that is “saved.”23
However, according to deSilva, salvationis something that can only be
attained at the return of Christ. Until that point believers are only working
toward salvation.24 Thoughhis intention seems to be to exclude true
believers from the threat of falling away, basedon deSilva’s definition of
salvation, no believer is free of the threat until the return of Christ.
Wuesttakes the idea even farther and describes the threat of falling away
simply an empty threat. He assures us that “having fallen away” is “a
conditional participle here presenting a hypothetical case, a straw man.”25 In
essence, Wuestignores the possibility of falling awayall together. The threat
is hypothetical and of little regard.
These arguments make sense if the people the author is describing have not
had a genuine experience of salvationthrough Christ. The examination of the
detailed and intimate nature of the definitions of the previous terms
“enlightenment,” “tasted,” and “partakers,” however, suggestthat this is not
the case. Rather, these believers have had a definitive, salvific experience.
The adverb “once” (απαξ) comes into play here. According to Bauerit
denotes a

23 David A. deSilva, Perseverancein Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000), 221-2.
24 Ibid. 25 Kenneth Samuel Wuest, “Hebrews Six in the Greek New
Testament,” BS 119 (1962):45-53.
10
single occurrence that is decisively unique – “once and for all.”26
Worthington agrees and describes the term as carrying the connotationof
something that is unique.27 These are people that have not simply received
the gifts of God as Calvin or deSilva may suggest;these are people who have
had an unique and decisive experience with Christ.
This passageofscripture opens with the most disheartening word of all –
“impossible” (αδυνατον). Bauerdefines this term as “incapable of happening
or being done, impossible.”28 According to Attridge and Hughes, the initial
use of the word “impossible” is forceful and emphatic. There is no reasonto
assume that there should be a weak translationof the term such as “it is
difficult.”29 The term, rather, should be translated as a simply “impossible”
or “unable.” It will not happen. Attridge goes onto explain that this term is
linked to the infinitive “to renew again” (ανακαινιζειν)in verse 6. The
impossibility is in the believer’s return to repentance or renewal.30
The impossibility of the situation begs the question: for whom is it impossible
to renew the believer? Unfortunately, there is no subject of the infinitive
offered in this passage. The textexplains that it is impossible to renew,

26 Definition of απαξ in Bauer, Lexicon, 97.
27 Worthington, Letters, 212. 28 Definition of αδυνατος in Bauer, Lexicon,
22.
29 Attridge, Hebrews, 167. Hughes, Hebrews, 213.
30 Attridge, Hebrews, 167.
11
but it does not offer the subject for whom it is impossible to renew.
Verbrunge offers two contextualpossibilities: God (θεον) or us (ημας).31
Verbrunge rejects the idea of God as the subjectand invokes the words of
Jesus in Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, and Luke 18:27 which speak of a God
with whom all things are possible.32 This instance, therefore, cannotbe
implying God as the subject of the impossibility to renew. By elimination
then, Verbrunge sees the subject as “us.” It is impossible for man to renew
againonce he has fallen away. deSilva seems to see the impossibility as an
attribute of man as well. He suggests thateven implying the impossibility of
God would be an affront to him as the Patronresulting in the possible
exclusionfrom future favor.33 Hughes also references the idea that the
impossibility lies with man and not with God; however, he suggests that

because there is no subject, the infinitive is absolute.34 Inlight of the
Verbrunge and deSilva argument, though, attributing the impossibility to God
seems to contradictthe words of Jesus, thus making the impossibility of man
the better interpretation of the passage.
To bring this argument back to the idea presented in the introduction, cana
person’s salvationstatus change? Calvin, deSilva, and Wuestseem to think
not. However, Worthington suggests thatthe idea of apostasy, as this passage

31 V. D. Verbrunge, “Towards a New Interpretation of Hebrews 6:4-6,” CTJ
15 (1980):61-73. 32 Verbrunge, “New Interpretation,” 70. 33 David A.
deSilva, “Hebrews 6:4-8: A Socio-RhetoricalInvestigation. PartI,” TB 50/1
(1999):33-57.
34 Hughes, Hebrews, 212-13.
12

seems to be addressing, is the result of a deliberate action by the believer.
He states that in falling away (παραπιπτω)the believer is not accidentally or
carelesslyfalling down, but that he is “deliberatelystepping into a black
hole.”35 He goes onto explain that in the Septuagintthis verb is used to
describe an action that is faithless and treacherous. Continuing, he states that
it is not againsta dogma or idea, but againsta person, specificallythe Son of
God, as mentioned in verse 6. Ultimately, apostasyis “the sin of abandoning
God, Christ, and the fellowship of believers.”36
In light of all of the evidence presented, it seems that the author of Hebrews is
offering a warning to believers to beware of apostasy. Forthose who have had
a definitive and intimate encounter with Christ and have chosento
deliberately abandon him and the commitment they have made to him, then it
is impossible for them to renew againto repentance. The impossibility does
not lie with God, but in the believer’s own ability to bring himself to a place of
repentance. Godwill not take awaya person’s salvation, but based on this
passage, it seems that it is possible for a personwho has been savedto lay that
salvationdown of his own accordin total rejectionof Christ. Ultimately, the
believer’s salvation seems to be secure from everything and everyone except
himself.
Brian Abasciano, “My Argument for ApostasyNot Being Irremediable in
Hebrews 6”
April 27, 2016, postedby SEA
I postedthis argument in SEA’s private discussiongroup a couple years ago.
Given that format, it is written less formally. I have edited it only a little for
posting here. The main argument is followedby comments I made in reply to
some comments made in response to my argument in the discussiongroup. I
have grown more confident in the view so that it is now solidly my view, not
just tentatively, though I recognize it is not a definitive argument and that the
irremediable apostasyview is strong. That being said, here is my argument:

I long believed that Hebrew 6 teaches thatapostasyis irremediable. But I
have been thinking over an argument for taking the text in a different way
and have finally though tentatively changedmy mind to thinking that it does
not teachthat apostasyis irreversible. First, let me say that the view that it
does teachthat apostasyis irreversible is strong and there is very goodreason
to believe it. I also admit that I have been driven to considerif the view is not
correctbecause it doesn’tsit right with me in relationto NT teaching as a
whole, what I see of God’s characterin the Bible, practicalexperience, etc.
But I am not willing to just impose my view on the text. And I take the posture
of subjecting myself to the word of God no matter where it leads, whether that
is comfortable or uncomfortable to me personally. If my opinion differs from
the word, then I need to change my opinion, not try to conform the word to
my opinion. I am someone who does not say that if the Bible taught Calvinism,
then I would not follow Christ or that sort of thing. If it did, then I would
become a Calvinist. But it canbe appropriate to explore alternative
interpretations of a text if something doesn’tseemright with the normal
interpretation or seeming surface meaning of the text as long one does so
carefully and with a commitment not to force the text into one’s opinion.
Ok, having said all that, here is my current take. Many know that the text can
be legitimately translated to the effectthat either:
it is impossible to renew them againto repentance *because*theyare
crucifying for themselves againthe Sonof God and publicly disgracing him
or
it is impossible to renew them againto repentance *while* they are crucifying
for themselves againthe Son of God and publicly disgracing him
The secondoption would allow for repentance to be possible, just not while
they are crucifying for themselves againthe Son of God and publicly
disgracing him. The problem with this is that it would boil down to saying that
it is impossible for them to repent while they are not repenting, an obvious
truism not worth mentioning. However, that is assuming that this language
means simply rejecting Christ or the like, which is perhaps the most natural
way to take it on the surface. But I think that what may be going on is that

this language refers to something more specific. And that has to do with the
historicalbackground of the letter, which I take to be that the recipients of the
letter were largely of Jewishbackground(whether Jews orfor some, Gentiles
who came to Christianity by way of involvement in Judaism) and that many
were tempted to forsake Christ and go back to Judaism and rely on the OT
sacrifices forforgiveness ofsins and relationship with God. So my proposal is
that crucifying the Son of God againspecificallyrefers to practicing and
trusting in the OT sacrifices forsalvation. This could be calledcrucifying the
Son of God againbecause the OT sacrifices were types of Christ’s crucifixion
and symbolically portrayed it. Therefore, practicing them againand trusting
in them would be like crucifying Christ againand publicly disgracing him by
trusting in the inferior type overagainstits fulfillment in Christ. It would be
choosing the shadow over the reality.
This would then match up with a major issue in early Christianity, the
movement that held that people neededto follow the Law to be savedin
addition to following Christ. There was actually a strong movement in the
early church. It advocatednot forsaking Christ, but adding keeping of the
Law to him. With my proposal, Heb 6’s reference to the impossibility of
repentance would be making the point that someone couldnot be restoredto
true repentance/rightrelationship with God/salvationas long as he was trying
to add the sacrifices(orby extension, the Law) to Christ. In terms of the core
theologicalprinciple of the text that would allow for applying this beyond the
specific historicalcontext, it would be saying that someone cannotbe restored
to repentance as long as they trust in anything but Jesus forsalvation. They
cannot be restoredto repentance and relationship with Christ as long as they
would add anything to Christ as the foundation of their salvation. To put it
simply, they cannot trust something along with Christ for salvation, but it
must be him alone.
Now, this finds some support in the maturity theme developed around this
section. Many scholars have noted how Jewishthe basic doctrines were that
the readers seemedto be stuck on or focusedon. And one of the best
commentators around (PeterO’Brien) makes a comment that I think is right
and elucidates this concernin such a way that supports my proposal. He
writes: “If the listeners were converts from Judaism, then they seemto have

Holy spirit and eternal security vol. 2

Holy spirit and eternal security vol. 2

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Holy spirit and eternal security vol. 2

Similar to Holy spirit and eternal security vol. 2 (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Holy spirit and eternal security vol. 2