This second half of the “how much more” comparison identifies three aspects of the same sin, not three separate sins. This sin is a deliberate turning away from faith in Christ (verse 26).
There are four possible ways to punctuate this verse, the first two of which are essentially the same. (a) Good News Translation makes three separate questions which are not linked by “and.” (b) The UBS Greek New Testament, like Revised Standard Version and several other translations, punctuates this sentence as a single question, “How much more…?” (c) Other editions and translations take it as a statement: Translator’s New Testament “Think how much severer punishment a man will deserve…”; or (d) an exclamation, as in Good News Translation. The choice between these possibilities depends on what is most natural in the receptor language. It makes little difference to the meaning, since the question, in any case, is rhetorical.
Despises is a nonfigurative translation of a vivid metaphor meaning “tramples underfoot.” In the Old Testament the phrase for “trample underfoot” is used literally, of cities, buildings (Isa 26.5), or even people (Dan 8.10); it is used also in the weakened metaphorical sense of “show great contempt for” (Micah 7.10; Mal 4.3; Psa 56.1-2). Good News Translation, probably correctly, understands “trample underfoot” to have a metaphorical sense here (compare Phillips “poured scorn on”; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch similarly). If the metaphor is common in the receptor language and has the same meaning as in Greek, it should be kept, as in many translations. Otherwise, the translator should consider using a different but equivalent metaphor, or a nonfigurative expression. The translator must decide how natural the metaphor sounds in his own language, and whether it will be understood as a metaphor. In some languages the equivalent figurative expression for “trample underfoot” is “to throw away,” “to cast aside,” or “to consider as rubbish.”
The Son of God: the thought recalls 6.6, but the wording of this verse is different.
The three rhetorical questions in verse 29 are incomplete in themselves. Even the first question, What, then, of the person who despises the Son of God? contains no main verb, and in some languages it is essential to fill out the question, “What then is likely to happen to the person who despises the Son of God?” It may then be possible to introduce the following two question fragments as essentially appositional to the first question; for example, “to the person who treats as a cheap thing…? to the person who insults the Spirit of grace?”
Who treats as a cheap thing the blood of God’s covenant which purified him from sin?: this second aspect of the “unforgivable sin” depends on the biblical distinction between what was “holy” or fit for use in worship, and what was “common” and therefore not to be used in worship, or even generally by the people of Israel, who were themselves a “holy” people. See comments on 3.1, and compare Acts 10.14. In some parts of the world, this distinction is not recognized. For this reason Good News Translation translates the expression for “thinks common” as treats as a cheap thing. Translations in other (especially non-Western) languages may be able to express more directly the distinction between what is ritually holy and what is common, even in a common language translation. It is necessary to avoid in translation any word for “holy” which implies belonging to an evil or destructive supernatural power. If one follows the meaning who treats as a cheap thing, one may employ an expression such as “who considers as worthless” or “who thinks of something as being of no value.”
The covenant is, of course, the new covenant. The blood is Christ’s sacrifice of himself. God’s is implied. See comments on covenant in 7.22. The relationship between the blood and God’s covenant may need to be made more explicit; for example, “the blood which was involved in establishing God’s covenant.” However, in languages in which blood cannot be used as a symbol for death, it may be possible to render the blood of God’s covenant as “the sacrificial death of Christ which established God’s covenant.”
The clause which purified him from sin is a reference to the blood, and it may be necessary to express this as a separate clause; for example, “the blood is what purified him from sin” or “Christ’s sacrificial death caused him to be free from guilt.”
Insults may be expressed as “to speak against” or “to say bad words against.” Most languages have a number of words for verbal insulting.
Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch makes explicit the probable meaning of the Spirit of grace: “the Spirit from whom he received grace,” or more literally “the Spirit to whom he is indebted for grace.” On (Holy) Spirit, see comments on “wind” and “spirit” in 1.7; on grace, see comments on 2.9. The Spirit of grace may be rendered as “the Spirit that shows us loving kindness.”
In view of the fact that punishment is so often expressed as a verb, the final statement of verse 29 may be rendered as “Just think how much more that person will deserve to be punished,” “Just consider how much more that person deserves to have God punish him,” or “… cause him to suffer.”
Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .