Apostasy Described (Hebrews 10:28-29) Part 2

Let's begin now with the word of prayer. Our Father, it is our desire that as we look at your word today, that you would grant to us understanding and insight in your word.

We pray that as we tackle a difficult subject, that you would be honored through us understanding this passage and thinking of it rightly.

Help us to see this passage and its meaning and its context. And we pray that your spirit would be our teacher and your word would be our focus today and that you and your glory may be our everlasting concern.

Be honored here through this we pray in Christ's name. Amen. Turn now if you will please to Hebrews chapter 10.

Hebrews chapter 10. We're going to read together beginning at verse 26 and we'll read through the end of verse 31.

Hebrews 10 beginning of verse 26. For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot 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?

For we know him who said vengeance is mine, I will repay. And again, the Lord will judge his people.

It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Each one of these warning passages that we are encountering in the book of Hebrews has at its core a question that we have been discussing at length every time we come across it and that is the question of whether or not a believer can lose their salvation.

That is a key question that comes up in every one of the warning passages because it is the warning passages that are often focused on by those who believe you can lose your salvation.

It's the warning passages and usually a phrase or a statement or a description in the warning passages that becomes the focus for those who say you can lose your salvation.

They camp on those phrases. So what we have been doing as we come to the warning passages is we slow down from our normal rapid pace through the book of Hebrews.

We slow down considerably to really examine that passage and see are we required to believe from this description or from this phrase that someone who has saved can lose their salvation and finally perish.

And we come now to the phrase this morning that is at the core of that controversy between Arminians and what we would call the reformed or Protestant view of salvation.

The concern of whether or not a believer can lose their salvation and it is in that phrase that you find in verse 29.

He has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified. That phrase. Really the key question is who is it that is sanctified here and what does sanctification mean?

And your interpretation of that phrase is going to determine whether or not you believe that you can lose your salvation or not.

So that phrase, that description there is our focus this morning. And we have been looking at this description of the sin of apostasy in the warning passage in verse 29 now for a couple of weeks.

Taking each one of these phrases and seeing does it describe a believer? And why is it that the author of Hebrews here describes the judgment that is due to an apostate with such severe terms?

The fury of a fire which will consume the adversary is a terrifying expectation of judgment. Concluding this solemn and sober warning with that phrase at the end of verse 31, it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living

God. If you're a believer in Jesus Christ, it is not a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living

God. I did not plan that. There was no instructions given regarding that.

The sound guy fell asleep. I saw that sound happen. He popped up and said okay. It is, if you're a believer in Jesus Christ, it is not a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living

God. But if you're an unbeliever and you're an apostate and one who has never trusted Christ for salvation, it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living

God. That would have been the point where we could have used the reverberation right there. Terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living

God. So the author is describing this act of apostasy and he is really pulling back the curtains as it were to allow us to see what apostasy really is.

What is it? Is it just somebody unable to make a decision about Jesus Christ? Somebody who's heard a little bit of the gospel and goes on about their lives and then dies kind of in ignorance?

No, this willful sin is a turning away from a full understanding of the truth and a full apprehension of the truth so that one examines the truth and sees it and then willfully chooses something else over that truth and in turning their back on Jesus Christ, they step away from, walk away from the truth and repudiate all that Christ represents and all the truth that they have known that scripture teaches concerning Christ and salvation in him.

That is the act of apostasy. It is no small thing. It is in fact a trampling underfoot the son of God and we saw last week what that means, why that is so horrible.

It is horrible because it is a sin against the father who sent the son and that assessment of the son that he is worthy to be tread upon, that he is of no use and of no value is an assessment of the father's gift.

If the father has given the son and the father has said of the son, this is my beloved son in whom

I am well pleased and in giving the son and that sacrifice of that great gift, one turns from it.

It is not only an assessment of the person of Christ and his work but it is also a thumbing of the nose, a turning up of the nose at the gift of the father himself so that the father and his work in sending the son is offended by the act of apostasy.

Now there is the second phrase what we're looking at this morning and that is in verse 29 that he has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.

He has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified. Now this is the second description of apostasy.

It deals with the work of Christ. We said a couple of weeks ago or I said a couple of weeks ago that this threefold description of apostasy could be categorized in terms of the person who is offended, the father, the son and the spirit.

You've offended the father by his giving of the gift of his son. So it is an offense to the father, it is an offense to the son to regard as unclean the blood that he shed for our salvation and it is an insult to the spirit of grace apostasy is.

So there are three persons who are offended in this act of apostasy. Turning from the truth of scripture is an offense to the father, to the son and to the

Holy Spirit. We could also categorize these acts of apostasy in terms of the work that is snubbed.

The father sends the son and you turn up your nose at that. The son gives himself in sacrifice and you turn up your nose at that.

The spirit shows you the grace of drawing you to Christ and you turn up your nose at that so that the work of the father and the work of the son and the work of the

Holy Spirit are all repudiated by the act of apostasy. So when he describes in verse 29 the apostate as regarding as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, the author is describing there the work of Christ and we've seen the blood of Christ all the way through of course the book of Hebrews.

This has been a main theme all the way since chapter seven as the author has been describing the work of Christ and his act of inaugurating this new covenant that we have now and so the blood of the covenant by which he is sanctified, that blood is the blood of Christ and this is what inaugurates the new covenant.

It is a better blood as we saw in Hebrews chapter nine. All things are made clean and all sin is forgiven on the basis of blood.

The old covenant was inaugurated with the blood of an animal sacrifice. The new covenant is inaugurated with the blood of the sacrifice of the son of God.

So it is the sacrifice of Christ that is being described. Most often in scripture when we read the phrase the blood of Christ, what it is shorthand for is the entire act of self -giving sacrifice that the son has made.

It's not describing the literal plasma of the son of God. It is far more broad and comprehensive than that.

It is describing, when we talk about the blood of Christ and in particular here in verse 29, he has regarded it as unclean.

It is describing the entire self -giving act of sacrifice that the son did in his death upon the cross.

It is not only the shedding of blood, it is the giving of his body and it is the act of self -giving and atonement and bearing the wrath of the father and finishing and accomplishing the work of redemption on behalf of all of his people.

That is all that is wrapped up in that phrase, blood of Christ. Well, what does the apostate do? The apostate regards that sacrifice as unclean or common.

That is the assessment of the apostate. The apostate, knowing what scripture says concerning the death of Christ and knowing what scripture says concerning his suffering in his act of atonement, knowing what scripture claims concerning the fullness and the finality of that act and the preciousness and the glory and the majesty of it, the apostate, knowing all of that, regards that act of self -giving sacrifice as common, as unholy, as unclean in the

NASB says, the word unclean. That word describes something that is common or unclean of little value, ordinary or worthless.

I'll tell you how it is variously translated in scripture. Verse 29 where it says he is regarded as unclean, the blood of the covenant, that word that's translated as unclean there in our text is translated as common seven times in the book of Hebrews.

He regards it as common. In other words, not unique, not set apart, not special, not holy in that sense of being solely and singularly unique, he just regards it as common.

That word is also translated as unclean three times. It's translated as unclean usually when it is describing a sacrifice which is unclean and not holy or not acceptable.

It's translated as defiled once and as unholy once. In other words, this word describes something that is the opposite of set apart, the opposite of holy, the opposite of special or unique.

The apostate regards his assessment of the sacrifice of Christ, that self -giving sacrifice, is that the sacrifice of Christ is a common sacrifice.

It is to treat Jesus as if he had shed the blood of an ordinary man, as if he was just an ordinary

Jewish carpenter who sort of ran afoul of Roman authorities and Jewish authorities and ended up dying on a cross just like thousands of other

Jewish men had done at the hands of the Romans over the course of that period of time when they occupied Israel.

He's just an ordinary man, nothing special about him, nothing set apart, nothing sanctified, nothing holy, nothing unique of no special importance.

It is to regard Jesus as an ordinary person, an ordinary sinner who died and shed a blood that is just as tainted as your blood or my blood.

That if you or I were to die a death and shed our blood in the process of dying that death, the apostate treats the blood of Christ as if it is just as common and ordinary and polluted and sinful and useless for the sake of salvation as the shedding of any other blood of any other person who had ever lived, nothing unique about it, nothing special, holy, set apart, just common, ordinary, defiled, even unholy, profane, or sinful.

This is the assessment of the apostate. He says that the father's work in sending his son and the work of that son in accomplishing salvation is just a common death, nothing special or unique about it.

Now I know that the apostate would say, no, hold on, Jim, that's not exactly what I think. That's not at all what

I would be saying. My turning from the truth of salvation is not an assessment of Jesus whatsoever.

It's just me regarding all of the people that are in that church as being hypocrites. It's just my assessment of whether or not

I really wanna spend my time with those people or doing those things. It's not an assessment of Christ at all.

And the author of Hebrews would differ with that. He would say, no, you may not view your sin that way, but God views the sin of an apostate just as this, as a trampling underfoot of the

Son of God and as a regarding or assessing of the blood and sacrifice of Christ as just a common, unholy, defiled, ordinary, and not at all unique thing.

The apostate would say that his assessment of Christ, he may even say, no, I think he was a special person.

I think he was unique and probably in the plan of God. It's just not for me. But the act of apostasy itself is a regarding as unclean the blood of that sacrifice.

In other words, contrary to how the apostate himself would describe his treachery,

God sees it as a regarding of that sacrifice as a common or unclean thing. For the apostate to go back to an animal sacrifice and to say, no,

I will go back and sacrifice animals or I will go back to those other priests or I will go back to the temple or the tabernacle, that is to make an assessment concerning the sacrifice of Christ that regards it as no more unique, no more special or powerful, and maybe even less so than the animal sacrifices that you're turning back to.

Does that make sense? You go back to those animal sacrifices, how does that say that you are evaluating the blood of Christ?

If you regard those animal sacrifices as worthy of trust, but not the sacrifice of Christ, and you turn instead to that, you're really making an assessment of who and what you think

Jesus is and has done. Furthermore, if you were to turn back from Christ to a life of sin or to your wretchedness or to enjoy sin for a season or the pleasures of this world, or if you were to turn away from Christ because you regard your reputation as more valuable than being aligned with him and his people, if that's your assessment, then again, you're making an assessment of the blood of Christ that it is of less value than those things.

It is to regard it as unclean. It is to see it as not special at all. And to go back to that, to go back to those things and to turn back to your sin is to make an assessment of the blood of Christ.

That is how God sees it. That is, in fact, what the apostate is doing, even though the apostate may never recognize that or say that.

Here's what we've learned about the blood of Christ in the book of Hebrews. What does this blood do? Chapter nine, verse 12, it secures eternal redemption.

Chapter nine, verse 14, it cleanses the conscience. Chapter nine, verses 25 and 26, it removes our sin.

Chapter 10, verse 19, it grants us access to God. Chapter 10, verse 29, it sanctifies us. In other words, the blood of Christ does everything that the blood of bulls and goats could never do.

It could never perfect us. The blood of bulls and goats could never draw us near. It could never give us access to God.

It could never remove sin. But the sacrifice of Jesus has done all of those things.

And the apostate says, I understand that, but I don't think that I need eternal redemption. I don't think that I need my sins taken away.

I don't think I need a clean conscience. I don't think I need access to God. Or the apostate says,

I disagree that that is actually what the blood of Christ does, and not only do I not need that,

I don't even think that the blood of Christ does those things. So I'm gonna go back to the temple and sacrifice an ox.

Or I'm gonna go back to the temple and sacrifice a lamb. The apostate's assessment is that the blood of Christ is in no way unique, just common.

He regards as unclean, common, defiled, the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.

Now, here is our interpretive issue. Who is the he in verse 29?

And what does it mean that he was sanctified? This is where if, till this point, you have been mentally disengaged for whatever reason, you're going to have to mentally engage to follow through this.

Because this is an important issue. Who is it that is sanctified here? And I want you to follow the pronouns, and I'm gonna explain to you why this is significant and what type of interpretation, what type of issue theology hangs upon this phrase in this warning passage.

This is, this phrase, the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, that phrase is the battleground over whether or not a

Christian can lose their salvation. And here's why. Follow the pronouns through the passage.

Let's see. Yeah, beginning at verse 29. How much severe punishment do you think he will deserve?

Who's the he being spoken of there? It's the apostate, the one who goes on sinning willfully, verse 26.

The one who can expect nothing but a terrifying expectation of judgment, verse 27. The one who's going to receive the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

That's the one who is described in verse 29 with that first he. How much severe punishment do you think this one will deserve?

Who has trampled underfoot the son of God, has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which the apostate, the one who leaves, has been sanctified, and he has insulted the spirit of grace.

In other words, the first option here is that this refers to the apostate, the one who goes on sinning willfully. He has been in some sense sanctified by the blood of Christ.

That's what verse 29 would teach. At least that's one option that the person who is sanctified here is a genuine believer or he is the apostate, but the one who is sanctified here, the he being spoken of by that phrase, he was sanctified, describes the person who suffers this judgment.

Here's why this is important. Because if that refers to a Christian who has been sanctified, then we have here a statement that a

Christian who has been sanctified suffers the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. You see what's at stake on that?

The one sanctified, if he is a believer, then you have here a description of one who at one time was sanctified, he was a saint, but then he suffers the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

So that's one possibility. Or, and here's the second one, follow the pronouns beginning at verse 29 again.

How much severe punishment do you think you will deserve? Who has trampled underfoot the Son of God and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.

Could you tell by the different way that I'm emphasizing or reading that who I'm describing? The Son of God is being the one who is sanctified.

So this passage comes down to one of two options. I'm gonna give you three interpretations of those two options.

Try and keep the math straight as well, but I'm gonna give you three interpretations of those two options. But here are the two options.

Either the he being spoken of is the one who receives the punishment, or the he being spoken of is a reference to Christ.

The he being spoken of is the one who receives the punishment. That person is either a believer or he was never a believer, he was an apostate, or the he being who is sanctified here is

Christ. Christ who is in some way sanctified. Now, this interpretation comes down to not only who the he refers to, but also to what does it mean that this person was sanctified?

If it is a believer, if it is the person who receives the fury of the fire, this person who is punished, if the he is a

Christian, now here's, again, these are the three interpretations. If the he is a Christian, then he is obviously sanctified in the same way that we would describe being sanctified in any other context.

You are a saint and you are sanctified, this one perishes and suffers the fate of eternal damnation.

Or it is the unbelieving apostate who was never saved to begin with, and if it is him, then here's the second interpretive key.

In what sense is the unbelieving apostate sanctified? How can an apostate be sanctified?

You see, if I'm going to argue that this is an apostate here that is being sanctified that ends up perishing, then the question is how can an unbeliever be sanctified?

And particularly, how can an unbeliever be sanctified by the blood of the covenant which Jesus shed?

Or the third option is that the one who is sanctified is the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

This is the blood of the covenant by which the Son of God, who he trampled underfoot, was sanctified.

It's Christ who was sanctified. So those are our two options. Either first to the person who is punished or to Christ himself. Now here are our three interpretive.

It's either the person who is punished is either a believer or an unbeliever. You get that? Either a believer or an unbeliever, or it refers to Christ.

I'm gonna lay all my cards out on the table here for you, and I'm gonna tell you at the outset, I think that the one who is sanctified here is

Christ. Now that's what I'm gonna argue for in, wow, not very much time. That's the one

I'm gonna argue for before we get done with this. And I'm gonna go through the case for the other two, and I'll explain to you the case that they make, and then

I'll explain to you what I think the issues with those two cases are. All right, so those are the three options. Number one, a true believer.

This is the position of the Armenian who would say that this passage describes somebody who was once sanctified or a

Christian who has lost their salvation. Now they would argue, they would say that, they would say that only somebody who is a

Christian could be referred to as sanctified, because really the root word for sanctified is saint.

We recognize that all the way through scripture. There's a large family of words that are kind of all related to this hagiazos or hagia, a concept of being sanctified.

It means set apart for special use. It can be, and that can be referred to the temple or to a vessel in worship or to a person or to a priest or to even ground which can become holy or sanctified if God indicates it for a special use.

So it is a broad family of words that can be applied to almost anything in scripture as long as it is set aside, set apart or made holy.

It's also the root word for the word saint. We are saints or those who have been sanctified. And our sanctification takes place in three tenses.

We are sanctified, set apart for God in eternity past when he chooses us. We're set apart for God in this world as he saves us and grows us in holiness.

And then we're eventually set apart entirely perfectly at the end when we go to heaven. So it is saints or believers who are sanctified.

So the Arminian would say, this passage refers to one who is a believer, who was a saint at one time and then he perishes.

Because they would argue and of course their whole, their whole gist for their interpretation of this rests upon the meaning of the word sanctified, that it is referring to a saint or one who has grown in holiness.

Therefore, it must refer to a Christian and cannot refer to an unbeliever. Furthermore, they would say it can't refer to Christ since Christ did not grow in holiness and he was not made any more holy in this life through what he endured.

That's true. Now, most if not all of what I just said to you is true technically speaking.

So the Arminian would say this has to be a believer. And they would point to Hebrews chapter 10, verse 10. And they would say, don't you remember?

In fact, you can look there. It might even be on the same passage or pages what you're looking at now. Hebrews chapter 10, verse 10.

By this will, we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

So they would say there, the sacrifice of Christ. Earlier in chapter 10, the author says that it is the body of Christ, his offering once for all that sanctifies us.

So we are the sanctified ones, are we not? We are made saints through the offering of Christ's body. By this will, we have been sanctified.

So therefore, this one who suffers this fury of fire must be one who was at some point a saint, a sanctified one, but later repudiates it and therefore loses their salvation.

That's the case. That's the case that this refers to somebody who was a Christian and then lost their salvation.

How would we answer that? I would just simply ask you to not just observe one verse in the context, but actually another verse in the context,

Hebrews 10, verse 14. For by one offering, he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Yes, it is true that the offering of the body of Jesus Christ sanctifies us, that offering, that one -time offering once and for all, but Scripture says how long are we sanctified for?

He has perfected forever all those who are sanctified. So the ones whom he has sanctified by the offering of his son, he has perfected that same group of people and he has done so forever.

So how is it, in what sense can somebody who has been made a saint and then is perfected forever perish in eternal flames?

Is it possible that somebody who has been perfected, brought near to God, and been made the recipients of his grace could perish in eternal flames?

The author of Hebrews is suggesting that this sanctification that happens through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, that sanctification in setting us apart perfects us.

That offering does not make our perfection possible, it doesn't make our perfection likely, it makes our perfection eternal and settled.

So that the author of Hebrews is saying those who have been sanctified by the blood of Christ, he has, in that offering, by the work that he has done, he has perfected them forever.

If we have been perfected forever, then we cannot be unperfected because then forever isn't what?

Forever. What does forever mean? It means forever. If you've been perfected forever, that's forever forever, not partially forever, not a temporary forever, it's forever forever.

Forever forever times forever, it goes on. It's the perfection that is forever, it's everlasting. I don't know how else to say that other than people who have been perfected and given access to God and been brought near and had their conscience cleansed and their sins removed and their guilt expiated and their wrath satisfied and have been made sons and justified and declared righteous, that situation is what is being described by that word perfected.

Do you remember how the author has said previously that the law cannot perfect us, the animal sacrifices cannot perfect us?

What does he mean by perfect? He's not describing moral perfection. He is describing the accomplishment of God's redemptive practices.

We have been brought near by the death of Christ. That is the perfection. We have been brought near for how long?

Forever, yeah, and we're all catching on now, aren't we? We've been brought near forever. Forever. Therefore, this is not describing a believer who has lost their salvation because the author has already told us how long our sanctification lasts.

Okay, so that's the first option. The second option is that this refers to one who suffers punishment but that the one who suffers punishment here was never a believer but instead they were never a believer but they are the apostate so they are a faker, somebody who has made a profession of faith in Christ but then is never actually genuinely saved.

And this, of course, hinges upon the question of the interpretation of sanctified. In what way can we say that an unbeliever is sanctified?

In fact, does Scripture ever describe an unbeliever as being sanctified? Can you think of an,

I'll just give you a second. Can you think of a place in Scripture where it describes an unbeliever being sanctified?

The Arminian would say no. Unbelievers are never described as being sanctified or set apart in any sense.

Well, you might wanna let Paul know that. 1 Corinthians 7, 14 says the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband for otherwise your children are unclean but now they are holy.

Oh, so an unbeliever can be sanctified in some sense, right?

Not made inwardly holy, not changed and given a new nature but the unbeliever is in some way sanctified by being married to, united to and in the home with a believing spouse.

The believing spouse is a channel of set apartness or uniqueness for the unbelieving spouse.

So in answering the question, if I become a believer and my spouse is not saved, am I justified in leaving the spouse?

And Paul would answer that question and say no because the unbelieving spouse is set apart, sanctified through his believing wife or she, the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her believing husband or through her believing husband.

What does the word sanctified mean in that sense? When an unbeliever can be said to be sanctified.

It just simply means that they enjoy blessings and benefits by being in the home with and united with a believing partner.

In other words, the believing partner because they receive the blessings of the new covenant and the blessing is poured out upon that home by virtue of the believer that is in it, there is a set apart or uniqueness, a sanctifying effect that makes that household unique.

That household would not be unique and that unbelieving spouse would not be unique in that sense, set apart if he were divorced, if there was a divorce that would happen and the two would be separated.

So can an unbeliever be sanctified? Yeah, they can in that sense. We're not talking about again, an inward growth in holiness.

We're not talking about being set apart in eternity past. We're not describing here a progression or a conformity to Christ likeness.

We're simply describing the blessings that come to the unbeliever by virtue of the fact that they are united with and with a believing spouse.

How much more the apostate who is in with and among an entire believing community?

Could we say that they are in some sense sanctified? Yeah, we could, couldn't we?

In other words, they receive all of the blessings that are poured out upon a faithful and believing church of people.

They get to enjoy the preaching, they get to enjoy illumination, companionship, fellowship, friendship, the service of God's people.

They see the giftedness and the testimony of grace. They hear the worship. Their hearts are in some way warmed. They receive benefits and blessings just by being with and among the people of God.

So there is a sanctifying effect that comes to them being united outward physically, superficially even with the people of God.

There is a way in which they are sanctified. So that word sanctified could be describing an unbeliever in which case this could be applying to an unbelieving apostate who is in some way sanctified by their union with and in and among the people of God.

Now this is not my interpretation. I spilled the beans for you earlier when I told you that I think this refers to Christ.

But this is obviously a viable interpretation, a possible interpretation. My rebuttal to this would be that in the text, if you look at it, it says he is regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.

It seems as if the blood of the covenant itself sanctifies this person who is spoken of here.

That doesn't seem, it doesn't seem that the best way to understand that is as a reference to the apostate, the unbeliever.

In what sense does the blood of Christ itself, you notice he's not describing the pouring out a blessing on the believing community in which case the person would receive that, but that the blood of the sacrifice itself has a sanctifying effect on this individual as if there is a direct connection between the blood that is shed and this person.

That would be my rebuttal to that. I don't think that this is the best explanation of it. I think that the best explanation of it is the one

I'm about to drop on you right now. And then I will argue for it is to show you why I think this is the best explanation.

The third option is that this refers to Christ. And of course, this hinges also on the interpretation of what it means that he was sanctified.

In what sense was Jesus sanctified by his own offering? We understand how it is that you and I could be sanctified by his offering, right?

We're set apart, we're made his own, we are united with him. But is it even possible to scripture ever describe

Jesus as being sanctified? Can you think of any place in scripture where it says that Jesus was sanctified?

I'll give you just a second. Jesus said in John chapter 17, verse 19, for their sakes,

I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in the truth.

Now here's the significance of that passage. In that passage, Jesus was praying for his disciples.

And he says, I not only pray for them, he wasn't praying for the world, those who did not belong to him, but he's praying in John 17 for those whom the father had given to him from eternity past.

And he is praying for them and he prays for them and the disciples and says that he is also praying for all those who would believe through the testimony of the disciples.

In other words, Jesus is praying for you and I in John chapter 17. And what he prays is father, for their sakes, that is for the sake of those whom you have given me, who are united to me by virtue of that gift and that will of the father, for those whom you have given me,

I sanctify myself so that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

In other words, Christ was saying that he set himself apart through what he was about to endure.

This is the night before his crucifixion. This is on the way from the upper room out to the garden of Gethsemane where he would be betrayed.

And this was his prayer. I am setting myself apart for their sake so that they may be sanctified in me and in the truth.

He was praying for all those who were in him who would be united to him by faith and saying, I am giving myself to this.

I am setting myself apart. I am sanctifying myself to this task so that they may be sanctified in me.

So he was dedicating himself to this task. And listen, this is something that only Christ could do. This is what makes, we have seen what makes his sacrifice so unique all the way through the book of Hebrews.

Under the old covenant, no priest ever sanctified himself. You realize that? You remember that? No priest ever just said, hey,

I think I'll be priest. I'm just gonna show up at the temple. I've got a robe.

Yeah, it's not as flashy as the other guy's robe, but I've got a robe. I know how to kill animals. I'm gonna show up at the temple and just start grabbing the animals and killing them on a

Passover. That did not happen. No priest ever sanctified themself. Instead, a priest was sanctified by another priest, someone greater than them, who would set them apart for that work.

And you know what that sanctification of that priest always entailed? It was the offering of an animal sacrifice.

So the sacrifice of another, and another priest who was greater than that priest, would always do something that would sanctify or set apart that high priest or that priest.

Jesus said, I sanctify myself. You understand how bold that was, to say that as a high priest?

What was he saying? I take this office on my own initiative. I don't need another animal sacrifice to make me a high priest.

I take this position of high priest because the Father has said concerning me, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Therefore, I set myself apart. Through his self -giving act, he sets himself apart as the unique son, as the only functioning high priest, as the only acceptable atonement, as the only sacrifice for sin, as the only one who can perfect all those who are in him, and as the only one who can grant us access to the

Father. So when Jesus said, I sanctify myself so that they may be sanctified, he was saying that his offering and setting himself apart as the giver of that gift and his self -giving sacrifice was itself him setting himself apart for this work on behalf of other people.

He needed no other high priest to do this on his behalf. He needed no other animal sacrifice to make him sanctified.

Only Christ and Christ himself could sanctify himself. To whom else would he turn? Who is greater than he?

Is there an animal sacrifice greater than his sacrifice? No. Is there a priest greater than him? No. Is there a priesthood greater than Melchizedekian priesthood?

No. So who's higher than him to ordain him as high priest, to offer a sacrifice to make him high priest?

There is nobody higher to whom he can appeal. So all that Jesus could say is, I sanctify myself.

So what does the apostate do? He regards as common and unclean. After trampling underfoot the

Son of God, he regards as common and unclean and as unholy and defiled and impure the blood of the covenant by which

Christ himself was set apart as head of the church, sanctified as our high priest, given that position of Melchizedekian priesthood and seated at the

Father's right hand. The blood that set him apart, that blood of the covenant that sanctified him, the apostate says, no, it's useless.

It's just common and unclean. The apostate regards as a common thing the blood of Christ, which set

Christ apart as a high priest, as head of the church, as head of his people, as savior of all

God's elect, that blood that set him apart for that office and for that purpose, the apostate regards as unclean.

So those are our three options. It either refers to the one who is punished, either a believer or an apostate. I don't think that really those are viable options.

Or it is Christ himself who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant. If it is Christ himself who is sanctified by the blood of the covenant, then this passage does not teach that a believer can lose their salvation because it's not describing one who is sanctified who loses their salvation.

It describes the sanctifier who sanctifies himself for the purpose of bringing salvation to God's people.

And the apostate who turns from that, his sin is that he does not value the sacrifice of Christ, he does not value the blood of that covenant, and he regards it as unclean, unholy, and as common, which is the opposite of being sanctified.

He looks at the blood which sanctified the Son of God and says it is not set apart or unique in any way at all.

And because of what Christ did in his blood and in his self -giving sacrifice, that is why we as Christians value that blood, that is why we value that sacrifice, that is why we sing about the blood of Christ, and that is why his sacrifice is so central to everything we do, everything we preach, everything we sing, everything we teach, everything we pray, all because of the blood of that sacrifice which sanctified

Christ. The apostate views it as a common thing, we certainly do not, do we?

Our time is out, and so we will look at the spirit of grace next week and why apostasy is such an offense to the

Holy Spirit. Let's pray. Father, we thank you for so great a mercy in the giving of your

Son. We thank you that there was no one higher or greater than the Lord Jesus Christ who might set him apart as our

Savior, but that Father, you have appointed him a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, that his priesthood is faithful, it is everlasting and eternal, and he is a priest forever.

He intercedes for us, and he sits at your right hand even now praying for us, and we thank you for that. Because of his work and because of his intercession, we are safe and secure in him.

We thank you that he has provided atonement, and he has paid the price for all who have repented and trusted in Christ.

And if there is anyone here who does not know Christ as Savior and Lord, may you show them, open their eyes, so that they may see the value in that sacrifice and come to Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the adoption as sons.

We pray that you would be honored through this as you draw unbelievers to your Son, accomplish your purposes, draw in all your people, fill up the number of your chosen ones so that Christ may return and we may be with him forever.