‘Of how much sorer punishment, do you think, will he be judged worthy, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified (or ‘by which there was sanctification') an unholy thing, and has shown wanton arrogance to the Spirit of grace?'
How much sorer punishment then was deserved by the one who did even worse than that in that they set at naught the Son of God, and all God's provision for salvation. Once again we have the contrast between the Son and Moses (compare Hebrews 3:1-6), with the Son exalted above Moses. This clearly has in mind those of whom he has spoken previously who were considering turning away from Christ in order to return to full Judaism (compare Hebrews 6:4-6). They would be guilty of three heinous crimes:
1) They would have ‘trodden under foot the Son of God'. This is similar to having crucified Him afresh (Hebrews 6:6). He is treated like salt that has lost its savour which is trodden under men's feet (Matthew 5:13). He is like pearls which are tossed before swine and trodden under foot because the swine see them as meaningless rubbish (Matthew 7:6). It is to treat the very Son of God as a defeated foe, as a charlatan, as One Who is useless and worthless, worthy only to be humiliated and trodden down. They have basically denied that ‘Jesus is Lord' and have rather said that ‘Jesus is accursed' (1 Corinthians 12:3), for many non-Christian Jews saw Him as accursed because He died on the tree (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23).
2) Each would have ‘counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified (or ‘by which there was sanctification') an unholy thing'. By this they will have rejected the new covenant bought and sealed by the blood of Christ and declared it not of God, thereby declaring Christ's blood common if not debased.
‘By which he was sanctified (or ‘by which there was sanctification').' Under the old covenant the blood of the covenant was sprinkled on the people sanctifying them (setting them apart) to their part in the covenant. They were now outwardly God's own people, although their genuineness would be proved by obedience, and many fell at that hurdle. The writer pictures this as also being true of the new covenant. Having been baptised and declared their commitment to Christ, and having claimed that they have been set apart for Him in that they partake of the symbol of the covenant in His blood by partaking of the wine at the Lord's Table, thus declaring themselves as having been ‘set apart as Christ's by His blood' (and thus as being sanctified to Him), they now renounce that sanctification, declaring the means of it itself unholy and degraded. This exacerbates their crime. They renounce the very covenant blood which they had previously gloried in.
Alternately ‘by which there was sanctification' may simply be a general statement of the effectiveness of the new covenant when properly entered into. It is the ‘sanctifying blood' of the covenant that they are rejecting.
That this does not indicate that the apostates were once genuine Christians comes out in 1 John 2:16. ‘They went out from us but they were not of us. For if they had been of us they would have continued with us, but it was that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us.'
3) They would have shown wanton arrogance to the Spirit of grace. Their claim had been that the Spirit of grace had brought them to God though Christ, now they arrogantly reject Him and His ministry by denying that it was valid or genuine. Note the contrast between the graciousness of God and the arrogance of these rejecters. They have sinned against the love and graciousness of His Holy Spirit.
So having once confessed Him they now sin with a high hand against Christ Himself, against His blood and covenant and against the Holy Spirit, publicly repudiating them in the eyes of all. They have, outwardly at least, blasphemed against the Holy Spirit and committed the ‘sin unto death' (Mark 3:29; 1 John 5:16). For such there can only be judgment.