Replies

The danger of apostasy is real, not imagined, or else why would the writer include this passage. He would not construct a bogeyman for the purpose of "frightening" people to a better Christian walk. Secondly, it's not a person who appears to have become a believer but really hasn't. The person here is hypothetical which allows us to "see" what they've gone through. And the writer tells us this hypothetical person has 1) repented (thus "again to repentance), 2) have been enlightened, 3) tasted the heavenly gift, (which Aquinas said was grace and Chrysostom said was forgiveness of sins), 4) partakers of the Holy Spirit (which good Pentecostals will claim is the charismata while the Baptists say something about, "have you never read John?"), 5) tasted the good word of God (the gospel) (note also the parallel use of tasting a heavenly gift and the good word of God which would imply both are metaphorical), 6) tasted the powers of the age to come - perhaps signs and wonders, dynamic evidence of the activity of the Holy Spirit. These are all different aspects of the salvation that the Gospel brings. And though this person has undergone all these things, the dreadful possibility that they will become apostate is contemplated in the same breath (or pen stroke, or quill).

It does little good to say that this is all hypothetical. "If anyone should become apostate..." with the implication that such a problem would never occur. The author goes on to say that he is persuaded of better things of his listeners. What would be the purpose of warning someone of the dangers of apostasy and then, assuring them that "Hey, never mind, it can't happen." It would seem self-defeating.

Others have attempted to soften the language of the author. (Ambrose, Aquinas, Wordsworth, Spicq and others) They say that "impossible" means impossible for man but not for God. But the passage presupposes the work of God with "tasting heavenly gifts..."etc. So to say that the same sentence does not suppose the interaction of God doesn't make sense to me. And to those who point at Mk. 10:27, the notion of "impossibility" has no qualifier here. To follow Erasmus' idea that "impossible" really means "difficult" is just too much to bear. And, a view that I have held in the past doesn't really cut the mustard either. Some say that the passage is in the present tense, which would make them render the passage "it is impossible to renew them to repentance...while they are crucifying the Son of God..." Which F.F. Bruce rightly denounces as "a truism hardly worth putting into words."

Bruce goes on to make a great point, if one takes the participles (crucifying and putting to an open shame (one word)) as causal then that indicates why they are unable to be brought to repentance. Thus, the RSV and the NEB translate it to the effect of "since they crucify the Son of God on their own account."

The situation that the author is addressing is not a particular sin or even a combination of sins. It is the attitude of the heart that he is addressing. An attitude which shows up with a scorn for Christian faith and belief. So that even an act of adultery coupled with murder, as King David committed, does not necessarily imply apostasy. How do we know? We have Psalm 51.

1 John 5:16 speaks of a sin that is a "sin unto death." Mk. 3:29 also gives the warning against "eternal sin." This is, of course, the response of Christ to the charge that he was casting out demons through Satan's power. By shutting out the power of the Kingdom of God which had come among them and by attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan, these religious professionals showed a clear hardness of their hearts to the truth. They made a clear display that they were enemies of the light that came to men. That they were part of those who tried to shut out that light. Calvin comments on Mk. 3:29 - "He is referring to a complete falling away from the gospel, in which the sinner has offended God not in some on respect only but has utterly renounced his grace."

So, the author is not addressing sin in our passage in Hebrews so much as an attitude of the heart. Not a sin of those who are "ignorant and wayward" (Heb. 5:2) but of those who "sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth" (Heb. 10:26). The picture of the Israelites who "did not enter into rest" despite being the chosen because of their "hardness of heart" is repeated time and again throughout the book.

Phillip Edgecumbe Hughes' Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews is a great book and the source that I used for this post. Questions are welcome.