Hebrews 6

[GrayPilgrim]

Lets get things started, with what will probably be a very lively debate--

What does Hebrews 6 say? Please limit discussion to exegetical (i.e. textual) arguments only, and not theological arguments. For a theological discussion of this passage please go to theology 101 or 102 depending on which ever it belongs to.

I will presume that Jaltus will probably be an early poster on this one.

[Jaltus]

Let us first look at the phrases used to describe the people mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-5 that you agree can (or did) fall away (I'll even use the KJV).

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Once enlightened: The only parallel within the book of Hebrews is 10:32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
Nobody denies that this refers to saved people. Outside of Hebrews, the Greek root can refer to both saved and unsaved, but these are the only two uses in Hebrews and the only two uses of the passive participle in the entire canon, the passive showing that they were illuminated by someone other than themselves, namely God.

Have tasted the heavenly gift: Hebrews 2:9 refers to Christ "tasting" death, showing how He actually died. Tasting often means more than just barely touching, rather it means imbibing a small portion. In our context, that would mean being a Christian though only for a little while.

Made partakers of the Holy Ghost: This one is by far my strongest claim, for the ONLY parallel in the entire Bible that fits the structure and word usage happen to be Hebrews 3:14 For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Notice how this too seems to stress the evils of turning from belief, not just the evils of unbelief. Again, nobody denies that "partakers of Christ" refers to Christians. If we are truly Trinitarian, then how can we deny that being a partaker of the Spirit is being a Christian? You cannot, and remain a Trinitarian.

Have tasted the good word of God: This is another example of "tasted," though word here does not refer to Christ (the Greek is rhema not logos). This would mean the actual words of God, then, refering to doctrine or a paragraph of scripture. In other words, this phrase is really hard to nail down, and thus kind of a wash for both sides.

Having tasted...the powers of the world to come: This is one that OBVIUSLY refers to the coming of the Kingdom and to our eschatological hope. How can someone doubt that this refers to people who were saved? Who else but the saved could ever taste the coming kingdom?

In conclusion to this section, I would say that all of the above references (with the one exception) unambiguously point toward people who are saved. Every parallel within the book of Hebrews points that way, and a majority of the parallels from outside Hebrews would point that way as well. Who else could partake of the Holy Spirit but the saved? Who else could taste the future kingdom (not past, so there is no way this could refer to a past time such as Numbers 14)?

Therefore, Hebrews 6:4-6 teach that salvation can be lost. However, if it is lost, it can never be regained.

I am sure you are saying to yourself (or your computer, if you talk to yours like I do mine) that this is a hard teaching. But look at how this section is introduced:
Hebrews 5:13ff.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

KJV Hebrews 6:1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.

This section, Hebrews 6:4-6, is introduced by the author telling us that this will be harder teaching, not milk but solid meat! Of course it is a hard saying, it is meant to be.

God bless.

(this is pasted from another post somewhere else, hence the KJV)

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Originally posted by Jaltus

In conclusion to this section, I would say that all of the above references (with the one exception) unambiguously point toward people who are saved. Every parallel within the book of Hebrews points that way, and a majroity of the parallels from outside Hebrews would point that way as well. Who else could partake of the Holy Spirit but the saved? Who else could taste the future kingdom (not past, so there is no way this could refer to a past time such as Numbers 14)?

Therefore, Hebrews 6:4-6 teach that salvation can be lost. However, if it is lost, it can never be regained.

The thing about Hebrews 6 that grabs my attention is that "salvation" itself is not even mentioned until verse nine. And when it is mentioned, it seems to be set up as a kind of antithesis to all that has gone before---specifically all the things Jaltus so eloquently explored above, which we have been accustomed to equate with salvation.

But what if we don't assume that "tasting" is enough? What if we define "salvation" a bit differently? I must say emphatically that I am not making the common Calvinistic rejoinder to Arminianism here. Jaltus is right in affirming that everything in these verses remains integral to salvation, IMHO. But perhaps he assumes too readily that the conglomeration of "tasting" experiences here ennumerated actually equal salvation. To me, the whole passage including verse 9 strongly implies that salvation involves more than the "tasting" experiences themselves; salvation involves their continuance. Salvation involves the entire ordo salutis which culminates in glorification, as seen from the divine vantage point rather than the human.

I've always thought it very significant that both Calvinists and Arminians are functionally in the same boat with respect to how salvation is perceived from the timebound human point of view. Though doctrinally they are worlds apart, doesn't experimenatal predestinarianism look very similar to "loss" of salvation, humanly speaking? However, if we define salvation holistically with respect to time, as a whole from start to finish (whether one believes in general or particualar redemption), then such a move better accomodates verse 9, IMHO.

Sorry GP; I did get theological. But I didn't see any way around it. I suspect the whole matter turns upon verse 9 and how "salvation" is defined theologically with respect to time, distinguishing the human from the divine perspective....



[I fixed a tag--GP]

[GrayPilgrim]

Per--

It is okay to get into theological takes and ideas, I just want to make sure that we stay on subject of dealing with the text. Part of that will invariably lead to theological concepts, but I want to avoid theological discussions of OSAS or the like.

GP

[smilax]

Jaltus, what did you say to Solly's structural outline? In any case, let's try another approach.

Hebrews vi, 1-3: "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit."

Repentance from dead works: this is the foundation on which "the doctrine of Christ" stands.

Faith toward God: the means of salvation since the beginning, as shown from Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham...

Baptisms: this word baptismos (rather than the Christian baptisma) refers to ritual purity in the Mosaic law. The other uses are found in Mark vii, 4, 8, and Hebrews ix, 10, in each case appearing to refer to purification by actual water.

Hebrews ix, 8-10: "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; for it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

Laying on of hands: as described in Leviticus iv, 15: "And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD: and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD." This, of course, foreshadowed Christ, who bore our sins on Himself.

Resurrection of the dead: seen by Abraham, (Hebrews xi, 19,) in Ezekiel's vision of the dry bones, and even in Job xix, 25-27. The Pharisees had this one down, which was the source of their dispute with the Sadducees in the first place.

Eternal judgment: typologically seen in verses like II Kings xxii, 17, Isaiah xxxiv, 10, and lxvi, 24.

Contextually, this appears to be speaking about those who rely on the law for merit-based salvation, which would fit the context of Hebrews as describing the law as merely a shadow of the better things to come.

In light of this, Hebrews vi, 4-6: "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened [by the law,] and have tasted of the heavenly gift [of God's word,] and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost [who moved Moses to write,] and have tasted the good word of God [in the old testament,] and the powers of the world to come [in the promises of the law,] if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance [after they have repented from dead works;] seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh [by repeating the sacrifices in contrast to Christ the high priest whose single sacrifice ended them all,] and put him to an open shame, [and will likewise be denied by God.]"

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines parapipto as follows:

1) to fall beside a person or thing
2) to slip aside
a) to deviate from the right path, turn aside, wander
b) to error
c) to fall away (from the true faith): from worship of Jehovah

Contextually, to deviate from the course the law points to (namely Christ) and to continue to rely on oneself for salvation is what this falling away seems to indicate.

[GrayPilgrim]

Where can one find Solly's structural outline? Solly would you mind putting it here and explaining your take on it?

[Dark Knight]

Jaltus,

You are obviously a man of great insight in the things of God!

God will indeed send those to hell who fall away; And until they get there, I will execute justice on this planet!

The DARK KNIGHT has spoken!

[smilax]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
Where can one find Solly's structural outline? Solly would you mind putting it here and explaining your take on it?

Found it... Stolen from the distant past of another forum:

Originally posted by Solly
Remember what this thread was about?

A few thoughts for Gavin.

5.12-14 Better things expected
6.1-3 Let us go on, God permitting
6.4-8 Let us be careful.
6.9-12 Let us go on, God remembering
6.13-20 There is a better expectation.

My take on all this is that Hebrews is obviously known as the epistle of warning, and seeks the right balance in our Christian life based on God's work and promises, and the avoidance either of antinomian complacancy and sloth, or a fearful drawing back under pressure.

The writer harks back to Israel's history, in a similar way to Paul in 1 Cor 10 for instance. The way is before us, let us have confidence in God and his provisions for us.

The writer castigates the readers for their sluggishness in 5.12-14; they are not growing, not feeding on the word and becoming teachers of it. This is a bad state to be in, for whatever reason they have got there. He urges them to move on, and points to God as the one who will lead them, in 6.1-3. Then he warns them. I am with Schreiner in "Race" that to ask whether this is primarily referring to loss of salvation, and who the people written to are, is to miss the point; it seems to me that the writer is positing the fact of falling away in the context of the aforementioned Israel's history. He quite distinctly does not say "For if you should fall away." He seems to be making a general point, and hoping they will get it, because their sluggishness is a serious cause for concern with him, and he wants them to recognise the fact. In 6.9-12 he shows that he does not think it of them, because they have brought forth fruit as evidence of the being God's people, and that God is watching over them to keep them, and this should be a spur to diligence, not sluggishness. He points them to a better hope in 6.13-20, one that is outside of themselves, lest they faint in the way, the LJC in heaven and God's promises - the foundation of our salvation is sure and certain, and in heaven; there is no need to lose heart, and get sluggish, or presumptuous; there is every reason to press on, Php 1.12,13. The important point being, that though we seek to lay hold on the anchor, and maintain our hold, it is his hold on us that keeps us.

As one wrote, which I found in looking into this, "The antidote to spiritual apathy and apostasy is the renewal of hope". That is what the Hebrews needed - that connection again - and what the writer provides, not a doctrine of apostasy.

We have had this argument elsewhere: the preservation of the saints should not lead to antinomianism or presumption, because, as Schreiner points out, and Arminian reiterated, quoting McKnight, there is a future aspect to our salvation as well as the present aspet, and the past aspect (and I concede that Calvinists have too often dwelt on the past aspect to the exclusion of the other two in seeking to formulate the doctrine). Here the past is the promise of God and the work of Christ, the future is our entering into the blessing of the promised land. The present is our pilgrimage here and now, opposing sin, seeking love and righteousness. The moment one says, Soul, thou hast much goods [grace] laid up for many years, that moment he is in trouble.

Anyway, you might not like this, but I'm preaching it this Lord's Day.

Comments:

It's funny how those chiastic structures suddenly appear, and then it all makes sense. Let Arminian and Jerry argue about greek tenses as much as they like, for me the idea of the writer drawing on Israel's recorded history as his background seems to make more sense, esp as the readers were probably converted Jews. I do not think he was making a case for apostasy as such, but just drawing on the warnings of such events as the spies, which they would certainly know. In the face of persecution, etc, let them not draw back, but go on, God willing. I find it significant that he does not say "If you should fall away."

I see 6.1-3 as a combination of what they already knew as Jews, and how it had been revised for them as Christians, but very much the ABC of their faith, from which they should have moved on; eating strong meat, they would be fit enough to overcome the obstacles before them - of persecution by the Gentile community, and the rejecting Jewish community.

Solly, hope you don't mind that I posted those.

[Jaltus]

I will not have time for this thread until Wednessday or Thursday at the earliest.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I would be very interested to see this thread continue beyond the preliminaries. Though I'm not really looking for a polemical exchange, I'd love to hear everyone's take on the matter as I think it could become productive. Anybody have any further thoughts or comments?

[Jaltus]

Yeah, I'll be back to this when I finish my paper.

[smilax]

Oh, Jaltus, you tease. And here I was, thinking that you had actually formulated a monstrously brilliant reply.

[Jaltus]

Per,

The problem with your take, that salvation is not mentioned until 6:9, misses the context of the passage. salvation is in fact mentioned in 5:9, which is the precursor to the text in question!

Hebrews 5:8-14
8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered
9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
10 and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
11 We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.
12 In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.
14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

Please note that each of these verse is clearly related, and that 6 is tied to this section by "therefore" (OUN). 6 is logically connected to salvation. Just because the word does not appear does not mean the concept is not present. The word for salvation only occurs (I believe) 8 times in Hebrews AT ALL, but most would argue that this is exactly what much of the book is about.

In terms of vantage point, I tend to agree with you. I think from a human standpoint we can lose salvation, from a divine one we cannot.

Smilax,

With respect to Solly's argument, he is making a few errors.

First, BAPTISMOS does not refer to just ceremonial washings, as Paul makes clear in Col 2:2. That is just a lexical fallacy.

Second, his concept of laying on of hands completely misses the NT usage of the phrase, which is much more diverse than he allows for (such as healing, praying, commissioning, etc).

Third, your argument for the meaning of PARAPIPTW is faulty, as definition 6 would fit. Also, you neglect what is specifically mention that they are falling away from and what the consequences are of the falling away.

The problem with the chiasm that Solly draws is that he lumps 4-6 with 7-8, but there is a break between 6 and 7! That means Solly's structure does not work (especially since it is based on the notion that this cannot be falling away, and it also neglects the connection between 5:11 and 12).

Of course, the response to this is to put 7-8 parallel to 4-5, with 6 as the swing verse, but then you have to make more decisions about what 6 means in light of the rest.

In what way, then, can they not return?

[smilax]

Jaltus:
In terms of vantage point, I tend to agree with you. I think from a human standpoint we can lose salvation, from a divine one we cannot.

Cool.

First, BAPTISMOS does not refer to just ceremonial washings, as Paul makes clear in Col 2:2. That is just a lexical fallacy.

That's mine, not his. And am I missing something? I don't see "baptismos" in Colossians ii, 2. As stated, it only shows up in Mark vii, 4, 8, and Hebrews ix, 10, and those are all ceremonial.

Second, his concept of laying on of hands completely misses the NT usage of the phrase, which is much more diverse than he allows for (such as healing, praying, commissioning, etc).

Mine again... I concede it is possible for it to refer to those, but when surrounded by those other things, it seems highly doubtful.

Third, your argument for the meaning of PARAPIPTW is faulty, as definition 6 would fit. Also, you neglect what is specifically mention that they are falling away from and what the consequences are of the falling away.

Definition six? "Would fit" does not mean "best fit." It does not say what it is that they fall away from, which is why deviation makes more sense. The consequence of falling away, of course, is the impossibility "to renew them again unto repentance." So in any case, these people will not be saved. No problem here.

The problem with the chiasm that Solly draws is that he lumps 4-6 with 7-8, but there is a break between 6 and 7! That means Solly's structure does not work (especially since it is based on the notion that this cannot be falling away, and it also neglects the connection between 5:11 and 12).

Of course, the response to this is to put 7-8 parallel to 4-5, with 6 as the swing verse, but then you have to make more decisions about what 6 means in light of the rest.

Let me just throw this out and see what you think? Asterisks denote my additions.

* 5.6-11 Melchy and the fulfillment in Christ
5.12-14 Better things expected
6.1-3 Let us go on, God permitting
6.4-6 Let us be careful
* 6.7-8 Why we must be careful
6.9-12 Let us go on, God remembering
* 6.13-15 There is a better expectation
* 6.16-20 Melchy and the promise in Christ

I don't see any reason to make verse six the fulcrum, but even if it is, I don't see how it affects anything.

In what way, then, can they not return?

If we're using the deviation definition, "return" would simply mean staying on the right path to salvation. Unless you can show that verses one through three most definitely do not refer to the law, then what reason is there to suppose these people are saved to begin with? Context takes priority over diction.

[Jaltus]

Misprint, try Col. 2:12.

11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

As for the chaistic structure, if there is not a fulcrum in the middle, it means that the outside is what is important. However, 6:1-8 ARE swing verses (which can be told structurally from the Greek), so if the chiasm does not have a center in 6, then it is an illegitimate chiasm or else not important (or possibly not there).