LIBERTY UNIVERSITYLIBERTY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

THE HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 6.1-6: A REFORMED APPROACH

A PAPER

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE

HERMENEUTICS

NBST 610-B07

BY

JEFFREY S. KRAUSE

VENICE, FL.

26 JUNE, 2015

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………. 1

THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION ……………………………………………. 1

THE NATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT COVENANT RELATIONSHIP …... 2

THE COVENANT OF GRACE ……………………………………………………… 2

Both Justified and Non-justified Members ……………………………………….... 3

God Deals with Families in Covenant …………………………………………….. 4

THE COVENANTAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ………….. 6

HEBREWS 6.1-8 EXEGESIS ………………………………………………………….. 7

VERSE 1 ……………………………………………………………………………… 8

VERSE 2 ……………………………………………………………………………… 8

VERSE 3 ……………………………………………………………………………… 9

VERSE 4 ……………………………………………………………………………… 9

VERSE 5 ……………………………………………………………………………… 10

VERSE 6 ……………………………………………………………………………… 10

HEBREWS 6.1-8 APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION ……………………... 11

CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………….. 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………….. 15

ii

INTRODUCTION

One of the more debated passages since the time of the Reformation has been the

interpretation of Hebrews 6.1-6. At stake in one’s conclusion to this text is the nature of

justification, imputation, salvation, and adoption as sons and daughters in the kingdom of God.

In some theological circles, scholar and layman alike propose that justification can be lost by an

individual who was once a true child of God. Others propose that the warning passage of

Hebrews are simply hypothetical in nature, and in this sense, used as a means to bring about

God’s end, namely, covenant faithfulness.

It is the intent of this study to analyze this passage to determine the historical audience and

original intent of the author to the Hebrews. In doing so, this essay will support the classical

Reformed tradition and its understanding of this passage, namely, that the author to the Hebrews

was speaking in terms of Old Testament covenantal binding and applying this understand to the

new era of redemptive history.

THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

In his commentary, Ed Hindson proclaims the following regarding the differing positions on

Heb 6.1-6 when he states in this extended quotation:

Some propose that these verses refer to the saved who have fallen from salvation . . . Others teach that these are professing Christians, though unsaved, who apostatize and so are forever unable to be brought to repentance and true saving faith . . . A third group proposes that these are indeed saved people who do not fall from salvation, but who fall into sin—they backslide . . . The fourth popular view states that these verses refer to a hypothetical situation whereby the author stresses what would happen to a saved person if he could fall away.1

In noting Hindson’s helpful summation, it can be said that the first category in question is that

of the classical Arminian, Roman Catholic and the like. These positions view justification as a

process rather than a forensic decree which is punctilar in nature. Hindson next mentions the 1 Edward E. Hindson and Woodrow Michael Kroll, eds., KJV Bible Commentary, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 2548.

iii

view of F.F. Bruce, namely, that there are individuals which are in the church and therefore,

partakers in some sense in the blessings of God and display of His power. The third position

highlighted above is a more modernized version of the faith, which posits the possibility of

“carnal Christianity” as a true possibility. Finally, there’s the view of the Reformed Baptist and

others associated with baptistic theology, which claims that the warning passages in Heb 6 are

simply hypotheticals which are used as a tool of faithfulness and correction.

THE NATURE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT COVENANT RELATIONSHIP

In the beginning, God created Adam and placed him in a covenantal relationship with Him in

the Garden. This covenant, which is often referred to as the Covenant of Works, Covenant of

Life or the Covenant of Creation, was foundational for mankind because in it, the first parent

Adam federally represented all of his posterity via his headship.

THE COVENANT OF GRACE

After the Gen 3 fall of man, fellowship was broken between God and Adam as corruption and

sin entered into the created realm. This led the always gracious Lord to establish another

covenant with mankind, which is often referred to as the Covenant of Grace (CoG). The initial

proclamation of the covenant is noted in Gen 3.15, where the Lord announces the coming reality

of the than future Lord and His established kingdom. Within this singular CoG, there exists a

number of sub-covenant or various administrations. In Gen 9, YHWH enters into covenant with

all of mankind once again, which is often referred to as the Noahic Covenant. Next, Gen chapters

15 and 17 highlights the reality of the Abrahamic Covenant, which in reality reestablishes the

covenant people of God.

Next, Gen chapters 19-24 impart to the reader another administration of the CoG, this time

made with Moses and the people of Israel after their rescue from the suppressive hand of pharaoh

in Egypt. The Mosaic Covenant, which retains features of both of the previous covenants,

iv

governs the covenant people of God and identifies them as such. Next, God promises the “man

after His own hear,” David, that a descendent of his would be eternally seated on the throne of

Israel. This covenant, which is often referred to as the Davidic Covenant, is highlighted in 2 Sam

7.1-17 and 1 Chron 17.1-15. Finally, there is the proclamation of the New Covenant, which is

initially found in Jer 31.31 and following, with the unfolding reality of this covenant being fully

realized during the period of Jesus’ ministry here on earth. Some of the common features of

these “various administrations” of the CoG are justification by faith (Gen.15.16, Habk 2.4),

identification with/as YHWH (Gen 17.7, Ex 19.5, Jer 31.31) and the covenant headship of

YHWH as the representative of His people.

On this point, Hodge notes of the common Baptistic view of the CoG the following, “The

Baptists, especially those of the time of the Reformation, do not hold the common doctrine on

this subject. The Anabaptists not only spoke in very disparaging terms of the old economy and of

the state of the Jews under that dispensation, but it was necessary to their peculiar system, that

they should deny that the covenant made with Abraham included the covenant of grace.”2

Interestingly, Hodge goes on to speak about those who are identified as covenant members,

proclaiming “it cannot be denied that infants were included in the covenant made with Abraham,

and that they received circumcision, its appointed seal and sign,”3 a point which will become

vital later in this essay.

Both Justified and Non-justified Members Another interesting feature of the CoG relationship which YHWH established with His people

if the identification of the people themselves within this covenant. On countless occasions, the

people of Israel are indiscriminately referred to as God’s people, even in the midst of their sin

2 Charles Hodge, The Covenant of Grace, (Kindle Edition, n.d.), 202-205.

3 Ibid.

v

and outright rebellion. Just one example of this can be drawn from the Book of Isaiah, chapter 1,

verse 2-3, where the Lord proclaims, “Children have I reared and brought up, but they have

rebelled against me. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib, but Israel does not

know, my people do not understand" (Isa 1.2-3, ESV).

The covenantal inclusion of this verse and others like it signify to the reader that there was

both a broad and specific understanding of the nature of the covenant relationship; a relationship

which was consummated by individual faith as noted in the previous section. Hence, one could

be a member of the CoG by identification of circumcision (or a circumcised representative, as in

the case of females), yet, they could likewise not grasp onto and cherish that relationship by

faith. In this sense, Israel of the OT was often the people of God generally speaking, yet, more

narrowly, they were not the people of God due to a lack of faith, which demonstrated itself in

unfaithfulness. As Douglas Wilson notes, “A true son is brought into the covenant and is

nourished there. A false son is brought into the covenant and by his unbelief incurs the

chastisement of the covenant.”4 This understanding of the covenant will become more clear in

the next section, but for now, it is vital to recognize that there was both an individualistic and a

corporate reality to the CoG; a corporate reality which becomes vital in the understanding of Heb

6.

God Deals with Families in Covenant

Another feature which is present in God’s various covenantal administrations is seen in the

all-inclusive nature of the covenant regarding children. In Gen 1 at the creation of man, he is told

to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1.18, ESV). Thus, God commanded man to

produce offspring which, were it not for the fall, would have enjoyed the same fellowship with

YHWH that the first parents did. Next, just one chapter after the fall narrative, the story of 4 Douglas Wilson, Reformed is not Enough: Rediscovering the Objectivity of the Covenant, (Moscow, ID. Canon Press, 2002), 96.

vi

creation shifts from the first parents to the offspring of Adam and Eve; a section which features

both Cain and Abel bringing sacrifices to God. In Gen 7-9, Noah and his entire family are

rescued from the flood.

Likewise, Abraham is promised an heir to carry the name of Israel’s inheritance, while

already possessing a son who was outside of the covenant fold in the redemptive sense (Gen

21.18), yet a member of the covenant by identification (Gen 17.25). In the Exodus wanderings, it

is the children of the people who inherited the land, and as previously mentioned, God promised

David that an offspring from his decent would eternally reign on the throne of that nation.

Finally, in the proclamation of the New Covenant as found in Jer 31.31 and following, God

ensures the reader that in this covenant administration He would not cast off the children of the

people when he proclaims “Thus says the LORD, who gives the sun for light by day and the

fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves

roar---the LORD of hosts is his name: "If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the

LORD, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever" (Jer 31.35-

36, ESV).

What this verse and the general understanding of the covenant and its nature means to the

present study can be surmised as follows: the nature of the covenant relationship in the NT has

continuity with the Old, as noted by Calvin where he proclaims of the sacrament of Baptism the

following, “It follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may thereby then

become the children of God, as if they had been before aliens to the church; but, on the contrary,

they are received into the Church by this solemn sign, since they already belonged to the body of

Christ by virtue of the promise.”5 For a more modern understanding of the nature of the covenant

5 John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing, 2008), 4:15:22.

vii

and its inclusive nature, 6 Robert Raymond proclaims “that infants of believing parents are to be

viewed as members of and under the governance and protection of Christ´s church and should be

treated as such.”7

THE COVENANTAL RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

As demonstrated in the previous section, the nature of the covenantal relationship in the OT

Scriptures was both broad and narrow whereby there existed a corporate and individualistic

reality to covenantal binding. Many argue that this changes with the establishment of the New

Covenant, yet as previously noted, verses 35-36 of Jer 31 tell the reader the exact opposite,

namely, that God will not cast aside the children of the Israel. And, this is exactly what the

reader finds as they unpack the pages of the New Testament witness. To begin, in John 8.37, the

Lord Jesus tells His opponents that He knows that they are children of Abraham. Yet, just six

verses later, He identifies them as children of the devil. Next, in the Book of Acts, Luke, when

speaking to the issue of Gentile inclusion in the covenant, includes a number of household

baptism references to clarify his teaching.

Moving on, in the Pauline Corpus, Paul addresses his letters to the church in general, fully

knowing that there exists within these local bodies’ unbelieving “brothers.” He likewise

addresses children within his Epistles, demanding of them love of God and parent alike and

placing upon them the same standards of faithfulness which were previously established in the

6 Yet, some deny the nature of this teaching, as noted by Wikner when he states of the various positions the following, “Those who deny a real promise of salvation made in the covenant to every child born to Christian parents argue in one of three ways. Some hold that the promise of the covenant is made, in fact, only to elect infants and not to Christians' children generally. Others maintain that the promise made in the covenant is not a promise of salvation but only of privilege. Finally, others argue that the promise is to be taken as a generality, that is, that it holds in many, if not most cases, but cannot be claimed to hold in all.” Benjamin K. Wikner, To You and Your Children: Examining the Biblical Doctrine of Covenant Succession, (Kindle. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2005), 476-480.

7 Robert Raymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 948-49.

viii

old era of redemptive history.8 Moreover, in 1 Cor 7.14, Paul tells his readers that their children,

or, the children of all believing parents are ἁγιάζω (hagiazo > “holy”) or “set aside or . . .

suitable for ritual purposes, consecrate, dedicate.”9

Paul bolsters this corporate reality in chapter 10 of the same Epistle, where he speaks of all of

the covenant wanderers partaking in the “spiritual rock” of Jesus Christ during their Exodus,

with no distinction between adult and child. And the list could go on, with the continuity of the

old era of redemptive history and the new converging within the pages of the New Testament;

thus demonstrating that the consummation of the New Covenant did not in any way alter the

efficacy of the Old in any manner, because the promise of the new is “for you and for your

children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself” (Acts

2.39, ESV).

HEBREWS 6.1-8 EXEGESIS

Having briefly covered the nature of the old covenant relationship and bridged it with the

new, it is now time to evaluate the passage in question while remembering that the author to the

Hebrews is writing to “a congregation of Jewish Christians who were urged to move on to

maturity in the face of looming persecution.”10 Hence, the authors target audience would have

been intimately acquainted with the teachings of Old Covenant relationship as relayed in the

previous section. Moreover, the intent of the author, especially in chapters 6-10 is to relay to his

readers the superiority of the perfect High Priest who “perfectly” saves those who come near to

8 Such as the proclamation of the 5th Commandment, which reads, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land’" (Eph 6.1-3, ESV).

9 William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 9.

10 L. Scott, Kellum, Andreas J. Köstenberger and Charles L Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown, (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009), 20906.

ix

Him (Heb 10.1). Thus, “Considerable evidence supports the idea that Hebrews was written to

Jewish Christians. The frequent appeals to the Old Testament, (and) the presumption that the

readers knew Jewish ritual”11 help to lay the foundation as to the meaning of Heb 6.1-8 in the

context of the Jewish mindset.

Moreover, the pretext for this chapter includes a warning against apostasy in chapter 5, verses

11-14. Likewise the verses following the text in question are inundated with OT covenantal

references, as noted in the remainder of Heb 6 and its references to the everlasting covenant

promises and chapter 7, with Christ being the perfect and more superior High Priest, not in the

order of Aaron, but rather, in the order of Melchizedek.

VERSE 1

“Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God”

The first clause of verse one is very telling in that it incorporates the OT inclusiveness

previously spoken of in this essay. The author to the Hebrews is speaking to his audience with

the presumption of regeneration and covenant binding (“let us”). Thus, this is not an evangelistic

passage, but instead, it is a call to covenant faithfulness and maturity. His point is much like

James’ message in chapter 2 of his Epistle, namely, that his audience possess a living, breathing

faith that demonstrates itself in works and the Christian life lived (“dead works and of ‘dead’

faith”).

VERSE 2

“and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment”

Being interconnected from verse 1, verse 2 goes on to elaborate on specific Biblical doctrines

which would have been prevalent among those who previously held a Judaic worldview. 11 Thomas Lea, and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message, (Nashville, TN. B&H Publishing, 2003), 499.

x

Interestingly, the word βαπτισμός is utilized in verse 2, yet, the overwhelming scholarly

consensus points to these being OT or ritual washings and not Christian baptism, as noted by

Greenlee when he cites in support Henry Alfred, Leon Morris, Marcus Dods, Donald Hagner and

F.F. Bruce among a list of other prominent scholars.12 However, the laying on of hand may refer

to a first century custom after Christian baptism, yet, being in the plural, it is highly doubtful.

Also mentioned is the resurrection and the judgment. Interestingly, the author uses the term

αἰωνίου (aioniou) in this section, thus indicating that the judgment incurred is eternal in nature.

VERSE 3

“And this we will do if God permits”

This maturing in the Christian faith via verse 1 is qualified by the sovereignty of God in verse

3, which notes that Christian growth only takes place with the permission of YHWH Himself.

Also, the “this” (τοῦτο) in verse 3 refers back to verse 1 and its declaration of further growth and

maturity.

VERSE 4

“For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit”

Verse 4 begins the highly contested section of this passage, beginning with the use of the term

ἀδύνατος (adunatos > impossible, powerless) in clause one. This use of ἀδύνατος is

interconnected to the author’s use of φωτίζω in clause two of the verse, which generally means to

“cause light to shine upon some object, in the sense of illuminating it,”13 yet, in this context, this

term is functioning most likely in both a cognitive and volitional sense in that it is speaking

about those who had previously tasted and partaken in the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives.

12 J. Harold Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of Hebrews, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 181.

13 Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, (New York: NY. United Bible Societies, 1996), 172.

xi

It is vital to note at this point that the term enlightened in this verse is qualified by the terms

“tasted” and “shared” in the remainder of the verse. Meaning, this is not necessarily a declaration

of justification and/or conversion, but rather, the Hebrews author is simply describing one who in

God’s work.

VERSE 5

“and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come”

In verse 5, the author continues his list of benefits which the individual described in this

chapter has engaged in. Specifically, the individual has “tasted” the good and true word of God,

along with his perfect and eternal power “of the age to come.”

VERSE 6

“and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.”

Verse 6 of the Hebrews text speaks of the impossibility of the restoration of those who have

received the benefits of the Holy Spirit yet fall away. For such a person, it would be as if they

were crucifying again the Lord Jesus and holding Him in contempt. Interestingly, this verse adds

a great deal of clarity to the previous two verses in that it allows the reader to see the nature of

heard-hearted apostasy at work. However, conclusions made regarding this verse must be aligned

with the nature of covenant, justification and regeneration as found elsewhere in Scripture, which

will now be briefly spoken about in the application of this passage.

HEBREWS 6.1-8 APPLICATION AND INTERPRETATION

Having highlighted some of the particular nuances of the Hebrew 6 text, certain conclusions

can be made. First, any interpretation of this verse which posits that what is in view in this

passage is an individual who is losing or has lost their justification is roundly wrong and opposed

to the doctrine of imputation. Jesus is a perfect Savior who will raise up all that the Father has

xii

given Him on the last day (Jn 6.37-45) and likewise, as Rom 4 and Phil 3 teach the reader,

justification is based on the active and passive obedience of Christ which is imputed to the

believer, and not on the individuals own work or merit. Point in fact, an interpretation of this

passage which posits the loss of justification is contrary to Paul’s use of both David and

Abraham in verses 1-8 of Rom 4. Here, the word λογίζομαι is utilized to speak to the “reckoned”

or “imputed” righteousness which Christ imparts to those who believe. And were in not for this

gift of imputation, there would be no “peace,” has highlighted in Rom 5.1 where Paul speaks to

the believers past-tense justification which is punctilar in nature.

Next, is the reader to conclude from this passage that for any and all who walk away from the

Christian faith, there is no hope of restoration? Meaning, the restoration of the individual in Heb

6 is an impossibility according to the text. Likewise, if the individual who lost their justification,

truly repents in a heartfelt manner, why would the condition in the latter circumstance differ

from that of the former if Christ is the sin bearer? Additionally, if justification is indeed the same

in both the old and new eras of salvific history, what was the call to repentance in the Old

Testament pertaining to if restoration was impossible? Surely the worship of Baal and the taking

on of blasphemous ANE customs would constitute a walking away from YHWH in hard-

heartedness. With all of these points of consideration, it can be concluded that the loss of one’s

justification is simply not in view in this chapter.

But, it must also be stated that these are not just empty, hypothetical warnings either, which

is a popular position of many of the Reformed Baptist persuasion.14 Instead, the passage certainly

does read as if the loss of “something” is a real possibility to the original readers, and not simply

a literary tool to call one to faithfulness.

14 See Dr. James White’s sermon on this chapter, located at the following address: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2010/03/30/hebrews-61-6-prbc-pm-service-march-28-2010/

xiii

In contrast, there is an interpretation which treats the passage in the historical and theological

context of the entirety of Scripture, which is the classical reformed position on this subject. As

noted in previous sections, the OT covenant relationship was of both a general and particular

nature. Meaning, one could be “in covenant” with God in one sense, and thus identified and His

people, and yet, not be converted and/or justified. Once this view is applied to the message of

Heb 6, it seems to fit the authors point in clear and concise fashion. Meaning, the individual in

question in Heb 6 is not a justified convert, but rather, a member of the objective covenant and is

therefore marked out (as in the OT) as a member of the church.

For example, an unconverted toddler of a faithful and believing parent is “holy” (1 Cor 7.14)

and therefore, consecrated to God for holy service. Yet, this holiness does not imply conversion.

Likewise, being a covenant child of faithful parents, these individuals would grow up as disciples

of the Lord, being watered with the word (Heb 6.7). Yet, if this individual would turn his back on

the spiritual blessings which he received corporately from being assimilated into the covenant

fold (the daily blessings of God to the family and the church which he would be witness to), it

would be tantamount to denying the Holy Spirit which bestowed those gifts and in this sense, it

would be the equivalent to the growth of thorns and thistles (Heb 6.8), and not healthy fruit. N.T.

Wright holds to this view when he states of Heb 6.4-5;

The normal way of holding what he says together with what Paul and others imply is that the people described in verses 4 and 5 are people who have become church members, and have felt the power of the gospel and the life that results from it through sharing the common life of Christian fellowship, but who have never really made it their own, deep down inside. When he says in 12:15, ‘Take care that nobody lacks God’s grace,’ he seems to envisage such a category of people. But he doesn’t press the point.15

F.W. Farrar explains further the nature of the impossibility of restoration when he explains

that “The falling away means apostasy, the worst kind of παράπτωμα, the complete and willful

15 Tom Wright, Hebrews for Everyone, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004), 59–60.

xiv

renunciation of Christianity.”16 Calvin, in support of the presented view, proclaims “That God

indeed favors none but the elect alone with the Spirit of regeneration . . . But I cannot admit that

all this is any reason why 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

perception of his goodness, and in some sort engrave his word on their hearts.”17 While not

particularly mentioning covenant children in his quotation, Calvin nevertheless lays out the

essential argument of this study, namely, that the individual in question in Heb 6.1-6 is

essentially of the same heart makeup of the Jews of Jesus day, who, while true “sons of

Abraham,” they were nevertheless, illegitimate in nature and in this sense, non-partakers in the

covenant inheritance, as noted previously in Jn 8.

CONCLUSION

As noted throughout this essay, the nature of the covenant and the continuity between the Old

and New Testaments plays a key role in the background of the Heb 6 passage. One could ask,

how would a first century Jew have approached the text? Would it have been from a western,

individualistic worldview which is derived via nineteenth and twentieth century revivalism, or

rather, would they have approached and assimilated the passage via the greater context of the OT

Scriptures? With this in mind, the conclusion drawn in this essay is that of the classical

Reformed understanding, namely, that the individual in question in the presented text is an

illegitimate covenant member, who, being a true son of God in the covenantal sense, is

nevertheless an apostate and denier of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hence, much like the people of Israel in the OT, or the Jews of Jesus’ day, these covenant

members have not embraced the covenant by faith. Moreover, the individual in question in Heb 6 16 F. W. Farrar, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, With Notes and Introduction, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893), 83.

17 John Calvin, Commentary on Hebrews, (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library), 119.

xv

has been a partaker in the Holy Spirit in some sense and has tasted of the goodness of God. In

noting this, the heart condition of the Heb 6 individual is set on full display; a heart which is dark

and rebellious against the Lord and His blessings. Hence, the individual in question is not in a

position of neutrality, but rather, he/she will therefore incur the wrath of the Lamb, for “the Lord

will judge His people” (Heb 10.30, ESV).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arndt, William, Danker, Frederick W. and Walter Bauer,. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Calvin, John. Commentary on Hebrews. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.

—. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing, 2008.

Farrar, F. W. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, With Notes and Introduction, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1893.

Greenlee, Harold J. An Exegetical Summary of Hebrews. 2nd. Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008.

Hindson, Edward E. and Woodrow Michael Kroll. KJV Bible Commentary . Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994.

Hodge, Charles. The Covenant of Grace. Kindle Edition, n.d.

xvi

Kellum, L. Scott, Köstenberger, Andreas J. Quarles, Charles L. The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 2009.

Lea, Thomas, and David Alan Black. The New Testament: Its Background and Message. B&H Publishing, n.d.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. New York, NY: United Bible Society, 1996.

Raymond, Robert. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews the Greek Text with Notes and Essays, 3d ed., Classic Commentaries on the Greek New Testament . London: Macmillan, 1903.

Wikner, Benjamin K. To You and Your Children: Examining the Biblical Doctrine of Covenant Succession. Kindle. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2005.

Wilson, Douglas. Reformed is not Enough: Rediscovering the Objectivity of the Covenant. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2002.

Wright, N.T. Hebrews for Everyone . London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004.

xvii