Re-Repentance
Can Apostates Come Back to Christ?
Let’s start with the obvious: nowhere does the Bible actually say that apostates can’t repent.
Of course I know what the immediate comeback will be: “What about Hebrews 6:4-6??”
This passage is one of the darker parts of Scripture:
For it is impossible to renew to repentance those who were once enlightened . . . and who have fallen away, because, to their own harm, they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt.
The exact meaning of this passage is, at the very least, debatable. I’m convinced a hopeful reading makes the best sense.
The nature of apostasy. Let’s first consider the seriousness of what the author1 is talking about: “they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt.”
The two Greek verbs used here—anastauróō and paradeigmatízō—are written in the active voice, meaning that these twin actions are conscious and willful. The attitude of the apostate is that he is taking the side of those who literally put Jesus to death.
In addition, it’s possible that this individual isn’t merely indulging in secret sin, but is committing his apostasy openly. The second verb, rendered by Holman as “holding up to contempt,” complements the first: just as crucifixion was usually a public act, so also paradeigmatízō could be translated as “holding up to public shame” (NLT).
We’re talking about something far more serious than normal “backsliding.” Apostasy as described here is open and unapologetic.2
This in turn qualifies “fallen away” in the same verse. “Fallen” sounds vaguely accidental, unintentional; but like the other verbs in the sentence, this verb (parapíptō) is written in the active voice. The apostate doesn’t just “fall,” as if tripped; he purposely “turn[s] away from God” (NLT3). What’s more, parapíptō is written in the aorist tense, possibly indicating a specific juncture when the apostate recanted his former faith.4
This is the most egregious type of apostasy.
Of course . . .
There’s “apostasy” and there’s “apostasy.” It’s worth noting that Hebrews 6:4-6 doesn’t actually use the word “apostate” or “apostasy.” The idea is there, certainly—but where does the Bible actually use that specific terminology, and what does it mean?
The Greek noun apostasia occurs only twice in the New Testament.5 Paul refers to an end-time “apostasy” in 2 Thessalonians 2:3; a revolt by professing Christians against the Lord and toward the “Man of Lawlessness”—the Antichrist.
How do we know that Paul’s talking about “professing Christians”? Well, because of how apostasia is used in its other NT occurrence, when Paul himself is accused of spearheading an apostasy:
“But the Jewish believers here in Jerusalem have been told that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn their backs on the laws of Moses. They’ve heard that you teach them not to circumcise their children or follow other Jewish customs.” [Acts 21:21]
What the New Living Translation renders as a verb-phrase—”to turn their backs on”—is a single noun in Greek: apostasia. More literally, then, Paul was being accused of teaching orthodox Jews “apostasy from Moses” (DLNT). Well, you can’t be a Jew who apostatizes from Moses . . . if you weren’t actually a Jew in the first place.
Likewise, you can’t be a Christian who apostatizes from Christ if you’re not actually a Christian to begin with.
This is also indicated by the fact that apostasia is merely the feminized form of the noun apostasion, which means “divorce.” It’s literally impossible to get divorced if you weren’t already married.
However, unlike divorce—which is an official nullification of a marriage, requiring a legally recognized declaration on the part of both spouses—the Bible nowhere says that apostasy requires an “official declaration” on the part of the ex-believer.
But apostasy does entail a kind of “renunciation” in the heart. Paul wrote of “people [who] claim they know God, but . . . deny him by the way they live.” (Titus 1:16) This isn’t a literal, verbal denial, but it’s a denial nonetheless.
Which brings us back to Hebrews. Previously I considered the specific case of those who have overtly or verbally recanted their former faith in Jesus, since very likely Hebrews was originally written to Jewish Christians who were tempted to revert back to Judaism. But the author doesn’t actually say that open renunciation is specifically what he has in mind. That’s just the worst form of apostasy, because it requires more commitment from the apostate.
And it doesn’t describe most apostates.
It may surprise some to realize that the author of Hebrews considers those who have openly recanted their faith to be in the same boat as those who, like the people in Titus 1:16, deliberately live in sin:
When the ground soaks up the falling rain and bears a good crop for the farmer, it has God’s blessing. But if a field bears thorns and thistles, it is useless. The farmer will soon condemn that field and burn it. [Hebrews 6:7-8]
What’s interesting here is that this agricultural analogy comes immediately after the warning against apostasy in 6:4-6. The idea of “bear[ing] thorns and thistles,” in turn, parallels a later warning in Hebrews:
If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God . . . who ha[ve] trampled the Son of God underfoot [and] who ha[ve] treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them [10:26-27, 29].
Isn’t “trampl[ing] on the Son of God” and “treat[ing his blood] as an unholy thing” equivalent to “recrucifying” Him and “holding Him up to contempt” (6:6)? Obviously “deliberately keep[ing] on sinning” doesn’t have to involve an official or open renunciation of Christ.
It’s a matter of the heart.
There are two other links to apostasy here. The phrase “received the knowledge of the truth” not only parallels “once enlightened” in 6:4—but also Paul’s words to Timothy: “God our Savior . . . wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3-4) This is apparently New Testament lingo for conversion.
Secondly, Hebrews 10:29 tells us that these deliberate sinners “treat . . . as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them[.]” Wait—these people were sanctified? Why, yes, they were; elsewhere in Hebrews the verb “sanctify” is applied to those whom Christ has actually saved.
We’re not talking about people who may be aware of the Gospel but have never believed it. These are people who in fact embraced Christ at one time—but later rejected him, whether verbally or behaviorally. The same kind of people Jesus referred to:
The seed is God’s word. . . . The seeds on the rocky soil represent those who hear the message and receive it with joy. But since they don’t have deep roots, they believe for a while, then they fall away when they face temptation. . . . And the seeds that fell on the good soil represent honest, good-hearted people who hear God’s word, cling to it, and patiently produce a huge harvest. [Luke 8:11, 13, 15]
In verse 13 the phrase “fall away” translates aphistēmi, the root-word of both apostasion (“divorce”) and apostasia (“apostasy”). Notice that, like the author of Hebrews, Jesus uses an agricultural analogy: verse 15 thus represents believers who, shall we say, “don’t stop believin‘,” as opposed to the unfruitful, deliberate sinners of Hebrews 6:7-8 and 10:26-29.6
Unquestionably, apostasy in any form puts one in grave danger. However . . .
Danger isn’t doom. As bad as apostasy is—and it’s seriously bad—it’s important to notice that Hebrews 6:4-6 does not say that an apostate can’t be restored just because he’s an apostate. The author explicitly identifies the blockage: “they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt.” (v. 6)
We’ve already defined these words, but now consider the tenses: they’re written in the present tense, thus denoting continuous action. This is supported by the agricultural analogy: the word “produces,” in verse 8’s phrase “produces thorns and thistles,” is likewise a present-tense verb. The person in view persistently, continuously produces anti-Gospel “fruit” in his life.
And such doggedness makes that person unreachable by others. We could express the idea this way:
The apostate is currently “recrucifying” Jesus by willfully producing rotten spiritual fruit—i.e., presently living in a state of hostility toward Him. As long as the apostate maintains this hostility, it’s impossible for the faithful to restore him.
Ah, but that leaves the situation open-ended: the passage doesn’t actually tell us whether the apostate can or will re-repent. In other words, the author isn’t telling us what’s “impossible” for the apostate (that he “can’t” re-repent)—but instead what’s impossible for the rest of us: we won’t be able to win him over as long as he keeps up this attitude.
Edward M. Zerr comments:
The impossibility is upon the part of the would-be restorer and not on the one who falls away. It does not say he cannot repent, but it is impossible for anyone else to induce him to. The reason is that the apostate already knows as much about the subject as the one who wants to renew him, and hence the exhorter cannot offer any new arguments or reasons.7
This makes a lot of sense in the immediate context, because the author has just finished telling the recipients of his letter that he found it difficult to explain certain concepts to them,
since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen. You . . . need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word. . . . [L]et us stop going over the basic teachings about Christ again and again. [5:11-12; 6:1]
What “basic teachings”?
Surely we don’t need to start again with the fundamental importance of repenting from evil deeds and placing our faith in God. You don’t need further instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. [6:1-2]
The author then expresses his hope that
God willing, we will move forward to further understanding. For it is impossible to bring back to repentance those who were once enlightened . . . and who then turn away [6:3-4, 6].
What he has to say about doctrinal education ties into what he says immediately after about apostasy. It seems that these immature believers, who “need[ed] milk, not solid food” (5:12), were attempting to “renew [apostates] to repentance” by re-enlightening them—i.e., feeding them the basics over and over again. But that isn’t going to get the job done.
To such people there is no point in reiterating the need for repentance or to attempt to seek to enlighten them as to the Gospel. They know all about it, possibly more than the evangelist. Thus to spend time teaching them the fundamentals that they already know would be to cast pearls before swine.8
There’s a saying you often hear in the dark world of substance abuse: “You can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped.” Depending on how deeply entrenched their habit is, an addict may appear hopeless.
Yet in the very same context there’s another saying: “Some people have to hit rock bottom.” Does this mean such individuals are doomed? No, just the opposite: there’s an implied hope that “hitting rock bottom”—i.e., experiencing the complete ruination that addiction can bring—might make the addict willing to be helped.
I believe that’s exactly what the warning of Hebrews 6 implies: ordinary persuasion won’t lead an apostate back to Christ—but “hitting rock bottom” just might.
This idea is found elsewhere in the New Testament. In one of his letters to the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul instructed the church on how to deal with an unrepentant sinner in their midst9:
[H]and this person over to the devil. His body is to be destroyed so his spirit may be saved on the day the Lord comes again. [1 Corinthians 5:5]
We aren’t told what exactly “His body is to be destroyed” means, but it’s easy enough to infer some kind of suffering as a consequence of persistent hardheartedness.
Paul himself had to take this same action with at least two supposed disciples:
Some people have ruined their faith because they refused to listen to their conscience, such as Hymenaeus and Alexander. I’ve handed them over to Satan so that they can be taught not to speak against God. [1 Timothy 1:19-20]
Being “handed over to Satan” “probably refers to removing him from the church, since those outside of the church are in Satan’s realm (Luke 4:5–6; Eph. 2:2; 1 John 5:19).”10 In effect, excommunication is like being “transferred” out of “the Kingdom of [God’s] dear Son” and put back into “the kingdom of darkness,” a reversal of Colossians 1:13.
This form of church discipline assumes that ordinary persuasion has already been tried, and more than once, as per Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 18:15-17. Though he wasn’t addressing apostasy specifically, the principle is the same: both Matthew 18 and Hebrews 6 are dealing with individuals who can’t be reasoned with. The hope is that direct divine discipline will weigh on the person’s conscience so as to drive them back to a state of contrition.
After all, who’s to say this person won’t want to be “helped”—restored to repentance—in the future?
Unless they’ve taken the Mark of the Beast—right? One of the most severe and terrifying warnings in all of Scripture is found in the book of Revelation:
. . . “Anyone who worships the beast and his statue or who accepts his mark on the forehead or on the hand must drink the wine of God’s anger. It has been poured full strength into God’s cup of wrath. And they will be tormented with fire and burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and the Lamb. The smoke of their torment will rise forever and ever, and they will have no relief day or night, for they have worshiped the beast and his statue and have accepted the mark of his name.” [14:9-11]11
The context is the End-time: the “Beast,” otherwise known as the Antichrist, has risen to power and basically terrorizes the populace into worshipping him. This doesn’t make them innocent, though. Paul tells us that those who worship the Antichrist (or “Man of Lawlessness”) will fall for his deception “because they refuse to love and accept the truth that would save them,” and “will be condemned for enjoying evil rather than believing the truth.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10, 12)
In other words, it’s not so much that they “love” the Beast; they’re scared of him. But they’re willing to believe his claim of divinity because they already love their sin.
And although Revelation has the entire world in view, Paul is focused on those who commit apostasy (2Thess. 2:3). Putting the two prophecies together, we can reasonably infer that apostates—ex-Christians—at that time will be among those who accept the infamous Mark of the Beast.12
In the entire scope of history, I think it’s safe to say that this would be the most extreme form of apostasy.
But even here, the Bible doesn’t specifically say that those who take the Mark “can’t repent.” To begin with, in the Greek all of the “Mark”-related verbs in Revelation 14:9-11—“worships,” “accepts,” “worshiped,” and “accepted”—are, like the key verbs in Hebrews 6:6, written in the present tense. This can be reasonably construed as pointing to continuous action; not a one-time thing. If that’s the case, then it implies that if those who’ve worshipped the Beast and taken his Mark later change their minds and repudiate him, they can still be saved.
Secondly, it can be argued that we see a demonstration of that very thing elsewhere in Revelation:
When [the Two Witnesses]13 complete their testimony, the beast . . . will declare war against them, and he will conquer them and kill them. . . . But after three and a half days, God breathed life into them, and . . . a loud voice from heaven called to the two prophets, “Come up here!” And they rose to heaven in a cloud as their enemies watched. At the same time there was a terrible earthquake that destroyed a tenth of the city. Seven thousand people died in that earthquake, and everyone else was terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven. [11:7, 11-13]
The phrase “gave glory to the God of heaven” is important, because elsewhere in the Bible it’s a euphemism for confessing sin and/or turning to God.14 And since it’s reasonable to assume that before this point, these people would have worshipped the Beast along with everyone else—this implies that worshippers of the Beast can still reject him and turn to God for salvation.
“While it is still ‘today.’ ” In the midst of multiple warnings against apostasy, the writer of Hebrews also strikes a dual chord of both urgency and hope:
You must warn each other every day, while it is still “today,” so that none of you will be deceived by sin and hardened against God. [3:13]
Paul adds to this:
“At just the right time, [God] heard you. On the day of salvation, [He] helped you.” Indeed, the “right time” is now. Today is the day of salvation. [2 Corinthians 6:2]
You may know an apostate—or you may be one. Does that alter the fact that you’re still living in the Now; that it’s still “today”…?
We don’t actually know who wrote Hebrews.
Of course, backsliding itself shouldn’t be “normal”! But it’s much more common—because it’s much easier—than outright apostasy.
For the sake of objectivity, though, it must be pointed out that, in biblical Greek, a past action can be expressed by the aorist tense whether or not that action was momentary or ongoing. The main point is that it’s in the past, not the present or the future.
See also the use of this noun in three verses of the Greek Old Testament.
In the same vein, see John 15:1-8.
Italics mine.
We all sin—but not everyone is unrepentant when confronted.
Frank S. Thielman (notes on 1 Corinthians), ESV Study Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2008), 1Cor. 5:5.
For the record: I do not believe that (a) the words “fire and burning sulfur” and “smoke” are meant to be taken literally, or that (b) God personally is “torment[ing]” the lost.
We don’t really know what the “mark” is. But we don’t need to know in order to get the point: if you commit yourself to the Beast and don’t repent—you’re doomed.
I believe when we let the Bible speak for itself, it will take us where it wants us to go. In this case—
Revelation 1:20 establishes that “lampstands” represent local churches; it’s reused that way in 2:1, 5;
After chapter 2, the word “lampstand” isn’t used again except in 11:4, where the Two Witnesses themselves are called “lampstands”; in between there’s no indication that “lampstand” has changed its function of symbolizing churches;
In Revelation 2-3, only two churches escape all criticism from the Lord.
Ergo, I conclude that the Two Witnesses represent unusually faithful churches in the End-time, who are above reproach and who will have a uniquely powerful testimony to the world just before Christ returns.
In the interest of objectivity, though, I must acknowledge that in 1 Samuel 6:5 “giv[ing] glory to” God doesn’t necessarily mean that one has converted to Him. Nonetheless, it’s a regular euphemism that is strongly indicated in the book of Revelation outside of 11:13. Indeed, when 16:9 tells us that others “did not repent of their sins and turn to God and give him glory,” the Greek literally reads “ou metenoēsan dounai autō doxan”; “not did they repent (in order) to give Him glory.” In this light, it’s reasonable to understand 11:13 as implying that this subgroup did repent and thereby “gave glory to” God.
I am leaning towards the theory that the mRNA injection is a part of the mark.
I don’t think that once it’s fully installed and implemented that those who received it will be able to make any decisions other than what the “beast” prescribes. Last paragraph of this article says it better than I can. https://open.substack.com/pub/jimychanga/p/meet-the-fockers?r=pr2e8&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
Worshipping the beast comes before the acceptance of the mark. The majority of the population will worship the beast before the mark is imposed on them so theoretically they could possibly be saved up to that point.