Hebrews 10:29: A Test Case in Reformed Hermeneutics

The science of hermeneutics (i.e., principles of interpretation) is among the most rewarding branches of all theological studies. Something wonderful results from bringing into focus the exegetical, systematic, and redemptive-historical considerations of any given passage in the process of interpreting Scripture. At the foundation of all sound Protestant hermeneutics, however, are two basic principles––the analogia Scriptura (i.e., the analogy of Scripture) and the analogia fidei (i.e., the analogy of faith). These two guiding principles of the Protestant Reformation serve the task of interpreting both clear and less clear passages of Scripture.

In the opening chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1.7), the divines notes the fact that some passages of Scripture are more difficult to interpret than others. They state,

“All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

The members of the Assembly then set out the hermeneutical principle for the analogy of faith and the analogy of Scripture.  

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly” (WCF 1.9)

In order to come to a right understanding of Scripture, we must compare Scripture with Scripture (i.e., the analogy of Scripture). To know whether a proposed interpretation of a more difficult passage of Scripture is plausible, the doctrine proposed must coalesce with the systematic categories of dogma contained in the unfolding of biblical revelation (i.e., the analogy of faith). On the most basic level, one passage may not teach any doctrine that is contrary to other established doctrines–-especially thew more clear passages of Scripture.

The Reformer William Tyndale noted the primary role that the analogia fidei holds in the Protestant interpretive process. He stated,

“Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; but (as Paul says) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.”

There are many places that could serve as case studies of the two principles of the analogy of Scripture and the analogy of faith in operation with the other theological sciences (namely, exegesis, systematic theology, and redemptive history). However, one example will suffice. When considering the vexing warning passage of Hebrews 10:26–31, we have to seek to determine who the writer of Hebrews has in mind when referring to one who ‘was sanctified by the blood of the covenant?'” In his Blank Bible entry on Hebrews 10:29, Jonathan Edwards offered a reasonable exegetical and systematic theological proposal to the authorial intent, when he wrote, 

“[‘And has counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified.’] There are these things that satisfy me, either that by him that was sanctified by ‘the blood of the covenant’ is meant Christ himself, and that the Apostle alludes to the law of Moses where it was commanded that Aaron and his son should be hallowed with the blood of the sacrifice (Ex. 29:21), or if he intends the person himself that despises it, that he intends only a sacramental sanctifying, alluding to Moses’ sprinkling the blood of the covenant on all the people, thereby sealing the covenant (Ex. 24), viz. that these expressions here seem evidently to be taken of those laws, the expression of ‘blood of the covenant,’ and that of ‘an unholy thing,’ and that he treats throughout this whole book of those laws, and here speaks of Moses’ law, as in the foregoing verse. It showed the profaneness of him that despised Moses’ law or covenant, that he despised it though consecrated with blood, and after it had been sealed by sprinkling blood on the people. He showed a contempt of that blood by which it had been sealed, as though it had not been an holy thing. So, the covenant of grace is sealed by the blood of Christ in baptism, and the person sacramentally sanctified. He therefore that despises Christ, he profanes that blood, as though he accounted it ‘an unholy thing.”1

John Owen also concluded the section of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews with the idea that Christ is the one intended as “sanctified” by the blood of the covenant. He wrote, 

“It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself,—to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Heb. 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office.”2

Christ was the one who was sanctified by the blood he shed on the cross. His was the blood of the covenant. He was the representative, last Adam who would become the sanctified one for his people. The author to Hebrews speaks of Christ as having been “made perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10); and that “being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:9). When the writer refers to Jesus having been “made perfect” he is highlighting the fact that he underwent something of a sanctification process on the cross, though he knew no sin. Christ was sanctified on the cross as God’s wrath was poured out on him. As he became sin for his people, so, Jesus washed away our sins with his blood on the cross. Accordingly, it is the writer of Hebrews may be saying that Christ was “sanctified by the blood of the covenant.” To reject Christ is to profane the blood of the covenant by which Christ was sanctified. It is to profane the sacrifice that made him the source of the believer’s sanctification. It is to reject the fountain that was opened for sin and cleansing. 

Edwards and Owen put this forward as a plausible interpretation with an appeal to the exegetical and redemptive historical foundation of the priestly sanctification in Exodus 29:21. The external consecration of Aaron and his sons with the blood of the sacrifices  forms the basis for how it may be said that Christ–as the great high priest of his church–was sanctified by his own blood (Heb. 9:12, 26). The rejection of Christ is then the rejection of the priestly sacrifice of the one who, in his sufferings, was sanctified by his own blood. 

Edwards moved on to suggest that it might also be a reference to those who were baptized and had once made a profession of faith in Christ yet who abandoned that profession and departed from the external covenant community. Edwards utilized the systematic theological category of the external administration of the Covenant of Grace. The distinction between the internal and external administrations of the Covenant of Grace come into sharp focus in Edwards’ hermeneutical process. The Post-Reformation scholastics relied heavily on the systematic theological concept of the covenant. They commonly distinguished between those who were in covenant by baptism yet who were not recipients of the saving blessings of the Covenant of Grace. This accounts for the Reformed understanding of the doctrine of apostasy. One cannot lose his or her salvation, but they may abandon their profession of faith and depart from the Christ in whom they once professed to believe. 

Edwards brings the redemptive historical element into view for this proposal as well, when he noted that all the members of old covenant Israel were in covenant with God. All the people were sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice at the foot of the mountain. However, the better part of them rejected the Lord, His law, and the blood by which the covenant that pointed to the blood of Christ. 

Whether one takes the phrase, “the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified,” in Hebrews 10:29 to be a reference to Christ himself or to those who, having once professed faith in him and departed from the covenant community makes little difference. The same truth is taught in accord with the analogia fidei. Both are doctrinally sound interpretations. The author of Hebrews, no doubt, had one of these two interpretations in mind. The analogy of faith protects the interpreter from having to know beyond a shadow of a doubt whether this is the intended meaning of a less clear passage of Scripture. 

As we seek the intended meaning of the divine and human authors of Scripture, we must hold fast to the two primary Protestant interpretive principles––namely, the analogy of Scripture and the analogy of faith. As we do so, we will be able to bring our exegetical, systematic theology, and redemptive historical elements to bear on the interpretation of the more difficult portions of Scripture. 

_______________________________

1. Jonathan Edwards, The “Blank Bible”: Part 1 & Part 2, ed. Stephen J. Stein and Harry S. Stout, vol. 24, The Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2006), 1154–1155.
2. John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, vol. 23, Works of John Owen (Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter, 1854), 545–546.