These verses summarize what the writer said previously about irrevocable loss through disobedience, unbelief, apostasy, and contempt for New Covenant privileges. The fearful warning about Esau brings these earlier warnings to an awesome head.
12:14 We need to live peaceably with all people as much as we can (cf. Matt. 5:9; Mark 9:50; Rom. 12:18; 14:19) because peaceful interpersonal relationships foster godliness (James 3:18). However this writer's emphasis was more on the objective reality that results from Christ's death than on our subjective enjoyment of peace. Since we will one day see the Lord, and since no sin can abide in His presence, we must pursue holiness in our lives now. A better translation than "sanctification"here is "holiness"(Gr. hagiasmon; cf. hagiatetosin v. 10, and hagiasomenoiin 10:10).409As with peace, holiness is our present state, and we need to continue to manifest it by remaining faithful when tempted to depart from the Lord.
This statement may seem at first to contradict the fact that Satan saw God and appeared in His presence in Job 1 and 2. While Satan did and probably still does have access to God's presence, that will not be his permanent privilege. The writer of Hebrews spoke here of the permanent privilege of human beings.
12:15 Negatively the writer warned against neglecting God's grace (help). God's grace enables us to persevere (cf. 3:12), but here it is almost synonymous with the Christian faith. This neglect would result in unfaithfulness spreading as a poison among God's people (cf. Deut. 29:17-18). The writer pictured departure from the truth here as a root that produces bitter fruit in the Christian community. It results in the spiritual defilement of many other believers eventually. The writer was not implying that most of his readers were in danger of apostatizing but that the failure of only one individual can affect many other believers.
"Stubbornness, when it grows, produces the noxious fruit of apostasy, which is equivalent to excluding oneself from the grace of God. . . .
"The sin of one individual can corrupt the entire community when that sin is apostasy, because defilement is contagious. One who is defiled by unbelief and apostasy becomes a defiler of others."410
"The writer has just referred to the need for helping those who are weak and failing in their faith. It would be logical that this still is in reference to them, providing a more specific instance in which some are failing. It is a failing with reference to the grace of God, especially as it relates to seeking forgiveness for failure. It is uncalled for to take this reference and make it a general designation of the plan of salvation."411
12:16-17 Esau is a clear example of someone who apostatized; he despised his inheritance and forfeited it to satisfy his immediate desires. That is precisely what the writer warned his readers not to do in this letter. Esau could not regain his inheritance later when he repented. His decision had permanent consequences; he could not repent (cf. 4:1; 6:6).412His inability to repent was not a matter of forgiveness but of consequences.
"To take a very simple example--if a young man loses his purity or a girl her virginity, nothing can ever bring it back. The choice was made and the choice stands. God can and will forgive, but God Himself cannot turn back the clock and unmake the choice or undo the consequences."413
The writer warned against two things in verse 16: immorality (Gr. pornos) and being godless (bebelos) like Esau. The Old Testament makes no mention of Esau's immorality, so probably the writer understood this term metaphorically in the sense of "apostate."414Esau was "godless"in that he relinquished his covenant rights for the sake of immediate gratification.415He is "the prototype of all who throw away the heavenly reality for the sake of the earthly one."416
"Whether or not Esau was saved is not relevant to this discussion. The writer uses him as an illustration of the fact that the saved can lose their firstborn inheritance rights. His example is applied to those who have come to the church of the firstborn ones (Heb. 12:23).
"True Christians fully parallel the description of Esau. We are children of God and we are firstborn sons. Because of that we possess the rights of the firstborn. We do not have to earn these rights. They are given to us through the grace of God. However, we must value and keep these rights and are warned by Esau's example regarding the possibility of not doing so. But even though we cannot forfeit eternal life, we can forfeit our firstborn rights."417
"Esau's willingness to give up all that was his as the firstborn son reflected a contempt for the covenant by which his rights were warranted. By descriptive analogy, he is representative of apostate persons who are ready to turn their backs on God and the divine promises, in reckless disregard of the covenant blessings secured by the sacrificial death of Jesus. The immediate reference is to the objective blessings of peace' and holiness,' specified in v 14. With the example of Esau, apostasy is further defined as a decisive rejection of God's gifts."418
"There is an interesting, often overlooked parallel between the five warningsin the Book of Hebrews and the seven overcomers' promisesin the Book of Revelation. The warnings and the overcomers' promises both have the same end in view. The last warning has to do with the birthright(Heb. 12:14-17), and the last overcomers' promise has to do with the throne(Rev. 3:21). The successive thought in the warnings in the Book of Hebrews is that of Christians ultimately realizing their birthright--sonsexercising the rights of primogeniture. The great burden of Hebrews is bringing many sonsunto glory' (Heb. 2:10). And the successive thought in the overcomers' promises in the Book of Revelation is that of Christians ultimately ascending the throne--co-heirs, companions, exercising power with Christ. The great burden of Revelation, chapters two and three is that of placing equipped Christians upon the throne with Christ.
"In Jewish history, the birthright belonged to the firstborn son in a family simply by right of birth and consisted of three things: 1) rulerof the household under and for the father, 2) priestof the family, and 3) the reception of a double portionof all the father's goods. Although a firstborn son did nothing whatsoever to come into possession of the birthright, he could conduct his life in such a manner so as to forfeit the birthright. He could not forfeit his positionas firstborn in the family, but he could forfeit the rightsof the firstborn."419
