Hebrews 10:29 has become a bit of a lightning rod in the whole FV debate (see Lane Keister’s interactions here and more importantly here). Just had a few brief and very unqualified comments to make about the passage in question.

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The problem the passage poses to the TR crowd is that the author of Hebrews (let’s call him “Paul,” just for kicks) seems to be saying that there exists the sort of person who has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant who has fallen away to damnation. For the TR, a typical way to interpret this passage (along with Hebrews 6:6) is that “Paul” is actually speaking in hypotheticals (such as Matt 24:24—“...to lead astray, if possible, even the elect”). In other words, if someone sanctified by the blood of the covenant were to fall away (though this is tacitly impossible) he would be judged even worse than the man who rejected it from the beginning.

Lane Keister, to his credit, rejects this exegesis. The passage does not pose an impossible hypothesis. The Greek uses the aorist tense – it’s more definitive than the TR interpretation is comfortable with. Mr. Keister suggests that the man “Paul” has in view may indeed be an apostate – one who partook of baptism and communion and fell away, but never had “faith." The problem with this, on the surface, is that “Paul” says this apostate was sanctified by the Spirit. From the TR perspective, the Spirit cannot and will not actively work in someone internally if they are not elect.

Just from my cursory look at the passage (I haven’t looked at the Greek yet, aside from Mr. K’s comments), it seems clear, at first glance, that there is a definite historical/eschatological dimension that the TR interpretation doesn’t take into account. (Warning: here is where my remarks tend toward the speculative.)

Hebrews is the most covenantal epistle in the NT. Sacrificial language, temple allusions, contrasts between Moses and Christ are at the heart of its message—that is, Christ and His new covenant are superior to the old Aaronic dispensation. Christ’s sacrifice is once-and-for-all.

My observation boils down to this: Hebrews 10:29 is right in the middle of this historical/eschatological framework. So couldn’t it be that “Paul” is again contrasting the old covenant (“the blood of the covenant”) with the new? Look at the context:

26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

The Israelites were covered under the blood of the covenant, and were led by the Spirit. They saw the glory of Christ, the last prophet and true Son, and scorned him, profaning His blood. “Paul” is talking about Israel. He argues along these lines: if under Moses (while Israel was ignorant of what was to come) the disobedient were punished, how much more will Israel be judged now that Christ has revealed himself. Israel was baptized (1 Corinthians 10:2) and shown favor (i.e. grace) from God. But now that the perfect has come, they have rejected it, calling upon themselves a harsher judgment than the Israelites in the wilderness.

I need to do a little more study to firm up some things. However, I can’t escape the conclusion that the historical/eschatological dimension is central to Hebrews 10 (and the rest of the epistle). The key to the “problem passages,” like 6:6 and 10:29, lies in “Paul’s” interest in the historical and future apostasy of Israel (the people of God).

The problem is at the heart of the FV debate: God works in His people to save them through real, physical, covenantal grace. Israel was offered this salvation in Christ, but rejected it. The apostasy passages in Hebrews, which troubled me so deeply as a TR, resolve beautifully when viewed eschatologically. When the people of God reject this salvation, the judgment is worse for them than on the ignorant.