An Exegesis of Hebrews 10:26-31 Loss of Salvation?

[P31Woman]

Also, he is only revered within the Reformed tradition (Calvinists) outside of it he has been called to task for his numerous straw-men arguments particularly on the subject of Calvinism. He has not ceased from offering those arguments so I don't really care how "educated" he is, I have a big issue with his exegesis, or rather.. eisegesis..

LOL what makes you think I am a Calvinist? The part in bold is again a falsehood. I have very few Calvinists friends yet most all have MacArthur's commentary set in their library. (I have in mind, Baptist, Methodist and Church of God both people holding multi. phd's to people with only a HS education, from pastors in small congregations to bible professors)

His whole interpretation is built on this presupposition:

"Hebrews, we're in this situation. Now, look at the advantage they'd have. Look at verse 4.[Hebrews 6] "They were enlightened." What is enlightenment? Head knowledge. They were enlightened. It refers to the light of knowledge and teaching. It's the natural knowledge of truth, acquired through the senses.

The Gospel had broken on their minds and they understood it. In fact, it even says once enlightened, and the word is once for all. They, at one time, were so informed on the Gospel, that there was nothing more to say. They intellectually comprehended every bit of it. They understood it in their minds.

There are plenty of people like that. They know the Gospel. They know it completely. They just are on the borderline, and they've never committed themselves to it. They were enlightened, head knowledge." - John MacArthur

This is eisegesis, notice he doesn't examine the meaning of the word "knowledge" in Hebrews 10, or "enlightened" in Hebrews 6, but rather ASCRIBES a meaning onto what it is referring to.

Did you copy this from a sermon? It sounds like a sermon. Why not give the link? I don't think you have ever "studied" one of Dr MacArthur' books.


This is from the introduction of his Commentary on the book of Hebrews.

"I have titled this study of the book of Hebrews, "The Preeminence of Jesus Christ". Jesus Christ is superior to and preeminent over eveyone and everything."

Now on page 142 he discussed verse 4 of chapter 6.

First of all, we should notice that this passage makes no reference at all to salvation. There is no mention of justification, sanctification, the new birth or regeneration. Those who have once been enlightened are not spoken of as born again, made holy or made righteous. None of the normal New Testament terminology for salvation is used. In fact, no term used here is ever used elsewhere in the new Testament for salvation and none should be taken to refer to it in this passage.

The enlightenment spoken of here has to do with intellectual perception of the spiritural, biblical truth. In the Septuagint, the Greek word (photizo) several times is translated "to give light by knowledge or teaching". It means to be mentally aware of something to be instructed, informed. It carries no connection of response-of acceptance or rejection, belief or disbelief." (it goes on but I see no reason to invest more of my time)

EDIT ADDED:

http://www.gty.org/resources/print/sermons/1304

that is the link to the sermon you did your copy and paste from

 

[francisdesales]

In a great house there are vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour. God will reject those who don't keep their garments clean.

Does this mean they will be cast into the lake of fire? No, we are told they will be cast into outer darkness.

The problem with modern Christianity is that everything revolves around how one feels...rather than the truth. Is it any wonder that most modern Christians will be rejected? We are in the time of the church of the Laodiceans. But the ones who sleep don't bat an eye over this.

Hello again Adullam, been a long time.

Not trying to be controversial or argumentative, but could you explain the difference between "the lake of fire" and "cast out into the darkness"? Could they be descriptions of the same metaphysical reality? Eternal life without God?

Regards

 

[John Zain]

Oh Johnny MacArthur and his Calvinism and Cessationism, while he isn't the worst Bible teacher around and does have some good things to say here and there, most of the time I try to avoid any and all teaching from him.

I'd say no one has all the truth ...
so you'll need to give Johnny a break about his cessationism,
which was passed down to him through 1900 years (and counting) of false doctrine.

News Flash! ... Satan + man = a potent combo to fight against God's truth.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Oh Johnny MacArthur and his Calvinism and Cessationism, while he isn't the worst Bible teacher around and does have some good things to say here and there, most of the time I try to avoid any and all teaching from him.

I'd say no one has all the truth ...
so you'll need to give Johnny a break about his cessationism,
which was passed down to him through 1900 years (and counting) of false doctrine.

News Flash! ... Satan + man = a potent combo to fight against God's truth.

I'd be careful when throwing around terms like "Satan". The concept of "Satan" is a slippery slope when a careless name-dropper is called out to actually define who Satan is.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I'd be careful when throwing around terms like "Satan". The concept of "Satan" is a slippery slope when a careless name-dropper is called out to actually define who Satan is.

The "concept of Satan?"

Satan comes from the Hebrew word שָׂטָן which the transliteration is Satan, this noun's gender, which of course nouns gender never changes, is masculine. Also, in the Greek we find the noun (also masculine) Σατανᾶς or Satanas (translit) which is not described as a concept, but as "he" who is able to speak, perform actions, and was known by the Jewish culture during the ministry to be the Lord of Demons. Jesus, actually when accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul, doesn't say anything about Beelzebul, but refers to him as Satan, who is the Lord of Demons.

This is common knowledge among those who call Jesus our Lord, that we have and adversary, the Devil.. Satan. Who, is prowling around seeking someone to devour, and we ought to resist HIM... HIM not some spiritual concept firm in our faith.

I surely hope you aren't trying to assert Satan isn't an independent cognitive being, who is referred to in the masculine, him.

 

[Deborah13]

There is no mention of justification, sanctification, the new birth or regeneration.

Hi P31, it's good to see you participating in this discussion, I firmly believe it takes different views of scriptures to get to the all the facts of what is being said. From there we will each take what we see as the most plausible from what witnesses to us.

From your quote I have addressed this one statement. I realize that you are speaking here of Heb. 6:4-10, which I do not think is very clear as to what the condition is of the persons being spoken of. However, I cannot ignore that the whole scripture is tied together and so 10:26-31 is speaking of the same persons. Here is what it says and this is what I have trouble fitting in with the idea that these persons were not true believers and saved. Maybe someone can help me with this.
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Do you or anyone have an explanation for this? I don't if we are saying they were not saved to begin with. I'd be happy to hear how McArthur addresses this I don't have a problem with that. I am open to interpretation.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi P31, it's good to see you participating in this discussion, I firmly believe it takes different views of scriptures to get to the all the facts of what is being said. From there we will each take what we see as the most plausible from what witnesses to us.

From your quote I have addressed this one statement. I realize that you are speaking here of Heb. 6:4-10, which I do not think is very clear as to what the condition is of the persons being spoken of. However, I cannot ignore that the whole scripture is tied together and so 10:26-31 is speaking of the same persons. Here is what it says and this is what I have trouble fitting in with the idea that these persons were not true believers and saved. Maybe someone can help me with this.
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Do you or anyone have an explanation for this? I don't if we are saying they were not saved to begin with. I'd be happy to hear how McArthur addresses this I don't have a problem with that. I am open to interpretation.

John Gill, a famous Reformed Commentator makes these statements, which this is basically what I have heard from their crowd.

this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so:

Exposition of the Entire Bible by John Gill [1746-63]​

The issue I have with this, is at the level of the Greek text. The Greek word for "made holy" or "was sanctified" is ἡγιάσθη and it is in the passive voice and 3rd person in this passage, thus demonstrating that the person was not acting upon themselves, making the remarks from John Gill here inconsistent with a close exegesis of the passage. It was the blood of the Covenant.. Jesus' blood that had sanctified these people. Those who drink unworthily of the Lord's Supper, do not drink sanctification unto themselves, they drink JUDGMENT onto themselves. Though of course this is something that is done to them.. which we have clarified is not the case.

Simply put, one must presuppose that this is not truly someone who had been previously redeemed in order to make such observations.. but that just proves they aren't observations, or exegesis but eisegesis, and are reading their theology into the text. Thus doing damage to the message of the author's clear words.

 

[Deborah13]

29 How much worse punishment do you think the person will be considered worthy of who treats with disdain the Son of God and who considers ordinary the blood of the covenant by which he was made holy and who insults the Spirit of grace?

I do not care for the translation into this word, ordinary, where the Greek says, common.

This is why, and this is just my thoughts and not that it is perfect.
Hebrews is clearly being addressed to a Jewish Christian audience not Gentile. So I look to the OT for a clear definition of this word, common. There are few.

1 Samuel 21:4
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread;

I take from this that "common" is the opposite of "holy". Therefore, it is unclean, defiled.
This statement made to a Jewish audience would be very strong in meaning.
I do not think that the "willful sin" in v.26 is anything other than, the total rejection of the blood of Christ shed for the believers salvation. I don't believe this is speaking even to the sins, such as murder or adultery clearly God's grace was sufficient for King David, "under the law given by God, David should not have had more than one wife even, so...that's another subject entirely.
This sin is one that there is no longer grace to cover it.

The one who believes that the blood of Christ is common, unclean, defiled, to believe this is to believe it cannot save anyone.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

I surely hope you aren't trying to assert Satan isn't an independent cognitive being, who is referred to in the masculine, him.

I surely hope you aren't trying to assert that an independent cognitive being could be so powerful that it can persuade man to sin(all the while remaining invisible to the eye), and yet so stupid that it tries to overthrow the authority of the Creator of the Universe, who created him in the first place. With over 7 billion people in this world, you would need to be not necessarily omni-present, but at least multi-present in order to have a noticeable affect on this world. Furthermore, this multi-presence would have to be sanctioned by God. To answer your curiosity, yes, Satan is an independent cognitive being. Satan is the "Accuser". He is an agent of God. Satan knows God more than any Christian alive today. Satan used to hang out with God and mess around with people like Job. As far as I know, they could still be partaking in similar activities today.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I do not care for the translation into this word, ordinary, where the Greek says, common.

This is why, and this is just my thoughts and not that it is perfect.
Hebrews is clearly being addressed to a Jewish Christian audience not Gentile. So I look to the OT for a clear definition of this word, common. There are few.

1 Samuel 21:4
4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread;

I take from this that "common" is the opposite of "holy". Therefore, it is unclean, defiled.
This statement made to a Jewish audience would be very strong in meaning.

My OP agrees with this assessment, and I believe ritualistically unclean is the best idea that this passage conveys IMO.

I do not think that the "willful sin" in v.26 is anything other than, the total rejection of the blood of Christ shed for the believers salvation. I don't believe this is speaking even to the sins, such as murder or adultery clearly God's grace was sufficient for King David, "under the law given by God, David should not have had more than one wife even, so...that's another subject entirely.
This sin is one that there is no longer grace to cover it.

I do however take issue with this statement, the Greek word ἁμαρτανόντων (sinning) is not in the singular referring to one kind of sin, that being the ultimate rejection of Christ, but characteristic of continual sinning of differing and multiple kinds. The adverb willfull then modifies the verb, and displays that not only are there many sins being committed and on a continual habitual basis, but they are willfully committed. The OT called this sinning with a "high hand," and it was the kind of sinning that transgressed and broke the Covenant.

I do not think that we can simply simply this and shrink it down to just one sin, also it is the deceitfulness of sin that may cause us to have an evil unbelieving heart, that can lead us to fall away from the Living God, as was said earlier in the Letter.

 

[Deborah13]

Simply put, one must presuppose that this is not truly someone who had been previously redeemed in order to make such observations.. but that just proves they aren't observations, or exegesis but eisegesis, and are reading their theology into the text. Thus doing damage to the message of the author's clear words.

Yes, I read Gill's explanation last night and I don't see how it satisfies the simple wording in English never mind the Greek.

To me the "thought worthy" most be referring to the people in the community thinking they are worthy for surely the Lord "knows the condition of the heart" and they were sanctified by His blood.

So when discussing OSAS, surely these scriptures need to be taken into account.

However, I also think they can't be used to condemn a person who has other sin in their life and tell them that if they keep say lying they will loose their salvation. I think this is speaking only to this particular willful sin and that because it is described as "willful" it cannot be done without the person understanding full well what they are doing. I think we can clearly see what is going on in Hebrews and why this letter was written to the Jewish Christians. They were willingly leaving the Christian faith and turning back to Judaism those "falling from grace" "the covenant of grace".

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I surely hope you aren't trying to assert that an independent cognitive being could be so powerful that it can persuade man to sin(all the while remaining invisible to the eye), and yet so stupid that it tries to overthrow the authority of the Creator of the Universe, who created him in the first place.

What are the works of the Devil?

The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Sin is the work of the devil, and that is what Jesus came to destroy, the power of sin broken in Jesus death, and sin ultimately abolished and done away with at his coming. The ultimate plan and purpose of Satan is not extremely well known so I will not suppose I know, I am not convinced Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan, if so then it was indeed his purpose to ascend on high.

With over 7 billion people in this world, you would need to be not necessarily omni-present, but at least multi-present in order to have a noticeable affect on this world.

Are you purposefully denying Scripture?

We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 1 John 5:19

in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4

in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Ephesians 2:2

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

Also, your position supposes that he is acting alone, he is not he is indeed the lord of Demons, these fallen angels are at his disposal, who is referred to as the "prince of this world," indeed the "god of this world," and the whole world lies in the power of the "evil one." The Bible declares this:

1. Satan is not alone, he has many demons at his disposal.
2. Satan has a world wide influence, indeed over the whole world, and all the unbelieving.

Furthermore, this multi-presence would have to be sanctioned by God.

Or... through the gospel, God is putting an end to this power by establishing his kingdom on earth and he will one day cast out and destroy his enemies under his feet, and indeed our feet.

To answer your curiosity, yes, Satan is an independent cognitive being. Satan is the "Accuser". He is an agent of God.

"An agent of God?" What precisely do you mean, that he is carrying out God's expressed will on his behalf? This paints a picture of God that he is playing both sides, setting up the enemy.. only to come and destroy what he setup. They must submit to God of course and do fear him, but they are opposed to God.

Satan knows God more than any Christian alive today. Satan used to hang out with God and mess around with people like Job. As far as I know, they could still be partaking in similar activities today.

Well, that's a long discussion on how you view the purpose of Job, and it is indeed an interesting story, but it needs to be tempered with the rest of the Biblical revelation, especially the more recent revelation on the subject.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yes, I read Gill's explanation last night and I don't see how it satisfies the simple wording in English never mind the Greek.

In obvious agreement here.

To me the "thought worthy" most be referring to the people in the community thinking they are worthy for surely the Lord "knows the condition of the heart" and they were sanctified by His blood.

It appears, you've been reading the KJV and misreading what it means. Let me quote the NASB for you..

How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? Hebrews 10:29(NASB)

He isn't thinking himself worthy of anything, the author is instead asking to reason based on how severe a punishment those who transgressed and profaned the new Covenant over the severity of the old Covenant. "How much severer punishment DO YOU THINK he will deserve." These people were not thinking they were worthy or sanctified, or least that isn't specified. What he is talking about is an objective sanctification done by the person, which adds even more to the severity of the warning.

So when discussing OSAS, surely these scriptures need to be taken into account.

However, I also think they can't be used to condemn a person who has other sin in their life and tell them that if they keep say lying they will loose their salvation.

I strongly disagree with this, as it is not the only Scripture that can be used.

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-9

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Ephesians 5:5

There should not be given assurance to those who are willfully and habitually living in sinful behavior which we know with certainty that these people have no inheritance in the kingdom of God. It's incredible how clear Scripture is on this.. and yet how ignored it is..

I think this is speaking only to this particular willful sin and that because it is described as "willful" it cannot be done without the person understanding full well what they are doing. I think we can clearly see what is going on in Hebrews and why this letter was written to the Jewish Christians. They were willingly leaving the Christian faith and turning back to Judaism those "falling from grace" "the covenant of grace".

This still fails to realize that it's not referring to one sin, but many.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

What are the works of the Devil?

The "works of the Devil" are crackpot assertions by ancient vandals who derived their theology from the Book of Enoch and other such heresy. These vandals helped themselves and inserted their theology into God's Word. I believe that the Holy Spirit helps me to decipher, by using simple logic, what makes sense and what doesn't. It's been a life-long journey and isn't over yet.

The one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 1 John 3:8

Yeah, well, let me fill you in on a little suh'm suh'm. From the beginning? In Genesis 3, you have four main characters: God, Adam, Adam's wife, and a snake. God didn't like the way the other three behaved, so He handed out punishments to all three and their descendants. God chose not to call in The Accuser(Satan) on that particular day. God decided to handle that one Himself, for whatever reason.

I am not convinced Isaiah 14 is referring to Satan.

Me either.

Are you purposefully denying Scripture?

I don't purposefully deny anything. Denial is simply a reaction to the information that is presented.

Also, your position supposes that he is acting alone, he is not he is indeed the lord of Demons, these fallen angels are at his disposal, who is referred to as the "prince of this world," indeed the "god of this world," and the whole world lies in the power of the "evil one." The Bible declares this:

1. Satan is not alone, he has many demons at his disposal.
2. Satan has a world wide influence, indeed over the whole world, and all the unbelieving.

If you add the demons, I admit that it does cut down on some or all of the "workload", but that leaves you with this dilemma:

1. At least some of these beings and/or Satan must be multi-present, unless they number in the extreme.

-or-

2. If you have a billion demons, Satan needs to be multi-present, or how can he even be in charge? He must have a lot of trust in these demons. Remember, this is a guy who can't even read the sacred Book of Revelation to find out he loses in the end. Obviously, neither can the demons. I guess they just all work together in synch like an ant colony or something-- they have all the awesome synchronicity of an ant colony, and, just like an ant colony, they are oblivious to the Book of Revelation and what it says about their unchangeable fate-- all this paradoxy without God having to be directly involved. Ridiculous.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The "works of the Devil" are crackpot assertions by ancient vandals who derived their theology from the Book of Enoch and other such heresy. These vandals helped themselves and inserted their theology into God's Word. I believe that the Holy Spirit helps me to decipher, by using simple logic, what makes sense and what doesn't. It's been a life-long journey and isn't over yet.

What historical basis do you have for this wildly heretical claim? I don't jump to heresy quickly mind you, but this is utter denial of what we know is the Word of God. As we do not have the same basis for truth, the Bible.. all 66 books contained in it.. We cannot discuss and come to a conclusion on what is truly taught by Scripture.

Which this also calls into question what other texts you absolutely reject from Scripture on account of what the "holy spirit" tells you. You should have rather been warned by this very letter that not every spirit is FROM GOD, and we ought to test the spirits, to see if 1) they deny essential truths, or 2) agree with the apostolic teaching we have received.

Don't think there is anything left here to discuss..

 

[VirginShallConceive]

What historical basis do you have for this wildly heretical claim? I don't jump to heresy quickly mind you, but this is utter denial of what we know is the Word of God. As we do not have the same basis for truth, the Bible.. all 66 books contained in it.. We cannot discuss and come to a conclusion on what is truly taught by Scripture.

Which this also calls into question what other texts you absolutely reject from Scripture on account of what the "holy spirit" tells you. You should have rather been warned by this very letter that not every spirit is FROM GOD, and we ought to test the spirits, to see if 1) they deny essential truths, or 2) agree with the apostolic teaching we have received.

Don't think there is anything left here to discuss..

Well, we could take your route, and somehow accept every word of every version of the "66 books" that we currently have access to. We could take your route, and when a passage contradicts with another passage or contradicts with reality, we could muster up some weak explanation that "makes it all better" and quickly think about something else. The more we do this, I admit, the better we will become at it. That way, when archaeologists find another version that is even older than the countless versions that we already have, and it turns our world upside down, we will be better prepared for it.


Hey, then again, maybe it's just me. Maybe I am listening to the wrong spirit. I will try praying to the Father and the Son to see if my "Holy Spirit" spirit is legitimate . . .

 

[Guest]

Maybe I am listening to the wrong spirit. I will try praying to the Father and the Son to see if my "Holy Spirit" spirit is legitimate . . .

Hey Virgin, so how do you receive salvation and intimacy from the Father? Blessings.

 

[VirginShallConceive]

Hey Virgin, so how do you receive salvation and intimacy from the Father? Blessings.

In a nutshell? Right here:

John 3:16

 

[Deborah13]

I do however take issue with this statement, the Greek word ἁμαρτανόντων (sinning) is not in the singular referring to one kind of sin, that being the ultimate rejection of Christ, but characteristic of continual sinning of differing and multiple kinds.

hmm..if this is the case then if we take this a saying that it is more than one and different kinds, then it would be inconsistent with the too many of the other salvation scriptures in the Bible. Which brings me back to OSAS.

 

[Guest]

Hey Virgin, so how do you receive salvation and intimacy from the Father? Blessings.

In a nutshell? Right here:
John 3:16

Who is the son of God?