Hebrews 6:4-6

Hello all.

Most everyone should be somewhat familiar with this passage, with all of the variations of interpreting, translating etc. It is so quickly quoted by most semi-pelagians as though it is an "end-all" to the OSAS (once saved/always saved) doctrine.

Specifically on the reformed side, I have heard many different highly qualified men giving completely opposite interpretations in order to sustain the OSAS position. The majority of these I found to be unsuitable in the context. After jumping around through all of these different views, I just had to sit back and accept that I didn't have an answer to this text.

But I finally think that I have come to the correct understanding, and would like input from my Calvinist cohorts as to whether this satisfies the text.

Most would agree that the main idea of the book of Hebrews was to persuade the diaspora (dispersed Jews) that Jesus Christ truly was the Messiah in a systematic fashion, and that He was the perfect and final atoning sacrifice, higher than angels, a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, etc. Obviously, this must be established first before trying to interpret the passage, yet so many try to interpret Hebrews 6 in a 21st century Christian mindset.

Here goes:

Hbr 6:4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
Hbr 6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
Hbr 6:6 and {then} have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

My view is this: that those in verse 4 are the recipients of the letter, and even generally, all of Israel, in history, back to the giving of the law and the promises; the Jews. It quite easily follows that the Jews as a people:

1. Have been enlightened (they had spiritual understanding, were given the law, had prophets among them, etc.)
2. Tasted of the heavenly gift
3. Partook of the Holy Spirit
4. Tasted of the good word of God
5. Tasted of the powers of the age to come (were promised a future kingdom, an heir to the throne of David)

So, if indeed it is given that those in verse 4 are the Jewish people, then, to continue on, if they "fall away", it is impossible to renew them to repentance. That is, if the Jews who are receiving the letter reject Jesus, and go back to their old rituals under the old covenant, then it is impossible for them to ever be saved, since they then sacrifice Christ again and again, similar to their currently inadequate sacrificial system, making him less than a perfect and final sacrifice.

To support, I appeal to Hebrews 10-

Hbr 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
Hbr 10:27 but a terrifying expectation of judgment and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES.

So, as it was said in chapter 6 that it would be impossible to renew them if they reject Christ, here it is expounded upon. The Jews who go on sinning willfully (there is no sacrifice for intentionally committed sins) after rejecting Christ no longer have any sacrifice for their sin. This means their sacrificial offerings are worthless apart from Christ, as the writer makes clear-

Hbr 10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

The writer is saying to the Jews "accept Christ now, or else, expect a terrifying judgment (v. 27), because your old sacrificial system will never be able to save you."

I think this fits the context better than any interpretation I have heard. It still needs some work, but I think it fits for the most part.

Criticize it all you want, that's why I put it up. I want to see if it holds.

Thanks for the comments, guys.

I'm using the NASB...

the greek in 6:6 is "καὶ παραπεσόντας"

I'm not sure what case of "παραπίπτω" is used here. It is possible it could be conditional, however I doubt the NASB would render it "and have fallen away" if it was in fact conditional.

I'll look it up and get back to you.

Behe's Boy said:

After looking into it myself (a while ago) - I've found there is a lot of debate and disagreement among various theologians and Greek experts as to it being conditional or not. It is why (I think) different versions render it differently.

Click to expand...

Here is what I have on the word παραπίπτω, as per the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Gerhard Kittel, volume 6, pp. 170-172.

The word as a verb outside of the NT means

-to fall aside or aside
-to stumble on something by chance
-to be led somewhere or other
-to be led past, to go astray, to be mistaken
-to make a mistake (an accidental or pardonable mistake)

In the LXX, the verb occurs eight times, as well as a few times in apocryphal books. The majority of occurrences are in Ezra, and all mean "a mistake", or simply "sin". The noun form παράπτωμα occurs 19 times in the LXX. It is interesting to note that its Masoretic equivalent is used in Daniel 6:5 not in relation to a "mistake to God", but rather a mistake in official matters. In Job 36:9, παραπτώματα is used to refer to "transgressions", which although plural, can also denote it's use referring to one specific sin. A similar verse would be Ezekiel 14:11, in which παραπτώμασιν is used with פשע being its Hebrew equivalent.

The word group wasn't very significant among philosophy, the only interesting information I see is that its noun was used to mean "to befall".

For this part I will quote word for word:

The verb παραπίπτω occurs only in Heb. 6:6 : (6:4) Ἀδύνατον γὰρ τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας ... (6:6) καὶ παραπεσόντας πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν. Although the sense seems to be "fallen away", along the lines of ἀποστῆναι ἀπὸ θεοῦ ζῶντος in 3:12, παραπίπτω does not mean "to fall away", but "to offend," "to fall," "to sin," as in the LXX. In elucidation one may adduce Ἑκουσίως γὰρ ἁμαρτανόντων in the related Hb. 10:26, especially as the reference in both cases is not to specific offenses as such, but to these as the expression of a total attitude.

I have more on the noun used throughout the NT if anyone else would like to hear it... however I think the above paragraph helps a lot, especially in the idea that 6:6 should be conditional as Behe's Boy pointed out. Kittel says 10:26 uses similar wording, which is conditional; "For if we sin wilfully" (KJV), "For if we go on sinning willfully" (NASB).

heymikey80,

Can you get me that reference by Wuest as to his denial of a corporate address? I've got some of his word studies and books, if you don't wanna give me the exact quote let me know what book you got it from. Thanks

Ben johnson said:

"Fall", is participle; "and fall-ING" --- it's stated as a fact, not a hypothetical.

Click to expand...

No one said it was hypothetical, Ben.

Ben johnson said:

Now --- those who fall, were "metochos-partners" with the Holy Spirit. Metochos occurs also in Heb3:1 (partners in a heavenly calling), and 3:14 (partners in Christ). Please someone explain how "partaker/partner" can be only a "superficial" (not indwelt) experience (especially when the other occurrences clearly indicate "saved").

Thanx in advance...

Click to expand...

The word μέτοχος refers to "cooperation with" or "coming along side". It does not in any way require that one be "indwelt".

I can get a detailed summary on μέτοχος if you wish, Ben.

My assertion was that the Hebrew people (as a collective) partook of the Spirit. There obviously many examples of Jewish people having relations with the HS in the OT, David being one. The Jewish people "cooperated" with His work, yet, were not indwelt permanently by Him, which seems to be the idea here.

So it's not "superficial". At least, the view I am proposing.

packermann said:

I am afraid you seem to be trying to drive a square peg into a round hole. They may have been Jews, but they are Jews who already converted to Christ. Only a Christian can be enlightened to spiritual things. Only a true, born-again Christian could have tasted the heavenly gift, could have partaken of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the powers to come. If this was about Jews who never became Christians, it cannot be said that they ever partook of the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

The whole premise of your argument is built on this one idea.

Are you telling me that Israel, as an elect nation (in the OT), never "partook" of the Spirit, that is, enjoyed the blessings of His workings through the prophets and through the giving of the writings? Are you also saying that they have never tasted of the powers of the age to come, although they were promised a kingdom, and a king to rule from the throne of David? And further, are you saying that they haven't tasted of the heavenly gift, that is, salvation?

Apparently these are all misconceptions...

heymikey80 said:

Sure. The book is fairly old, "Golden Nuggets from the Greek New Testament": p. 20-22, "The 'Falling Away' of Hebrews 6":

There is but one sin spoken of in the Book of Hebrews, namely, the act of a First Century Jew who has left Judaism, ... has identified himself with the visible Christian church, and ...now is in danger of renouncing that faith and going back ....

Here is the case of Jews who professed faith in Christ, who going along with the Holy Spirit in His pre-salvation work, had been brought into a place of repentance, to the very threshold of salvation. They had made a contract so to speak with the Spirit, willingly being led along by Him. Now, should they refuse the proffered faith and return to Judaism, they would be breaking their contract which they made with the Spirit.

... this was apostasy, a most serious sin. These Jews had been made partakers, "partners", see Luke 5:, same Greek word, of the Holy Ghost, going along with Him in His pre-salvation work. Now to reject His further ministrations, was a most serious thing from which act there was no recovery.
​

Clearly I don't hold his exact view. I don't feel that Heb 6:4-6 is so limited in application, and I found Wuest's view artificial at first, and his idea that it's hypothetical, I don't think that. But I think your expansion makes his view more understandable and plausible.

I agree with you that the Book of Hebrews is a corporate address in point of fact. That's quite clear. But I see the Apostle calling out personal distinctives -- in fact he may be talking directly about people who have actually taken this path. His words are so specific and direct. "in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and have fallen away" If we were in the congregation listening to these words, my guess is we would recall specific people who left. The description is concrete, palpable, visible. I don't consider it hypothetical. So I'd have to agree with Bruce and Wuest that this describes people -- not principles.

Well, Wuest to an extent. Wuest points out that "and falling away" could grammatically be hypothetical (something Bruce disagrees with). And it is an odd abstract participle on the heels of this concrete string of attributes. But that could be more attributed to the Apostle not wanting to stick his fingers in stinging wounds. To actually say what these people did, could have been horrendous, humiliating to God, and leaving the congregation stunned again by their actions. So there's alternate reasoning why the "falling away" is so abstract.

I still tend toward the view that this verse isn't deciding the person's internals of faith -- about which only God knows certainly -- but deciding on externals. He's treating the one falling away based on what they saw, as falling away. The consideration of his prior partnership with the Spirit is that it's exhaustive. And to me that's critical. Even partnering with God's Spirit -- all the things we would see accompany salvation, these have been exhausted on the one falling away. And so there's only one road left to follow with this person: treat him according to his visible defiance.

He's fallen away from the congregation, though -- because we're not evaluating "internals", we can't demand that this is about salvation (even though it's strongly related). To project that into falling from salvation is to assume things we don't know, things about faith. Do we know he's faithless and not just a coward? No, we don't. But then, the Apostle keeps that door propped open by his equivocal language, "near cursing, headed for burning" and even "but beloved we're persuaded of better things concerning you".

We're limited. We have to go on limited appearances. And really this is a corporate instruction to those who have continued on with Christ, how to understand or evaluate people who have fallen away from these specific partnerships and gifts of the Spirit. That much is explicitly stated in Heb 6:4-6. In fact the Apostle takes pains to say he's not warning the people he's addressing -- cf. 6:9. He's talking about people who have fallen away from the congregation, gifts and partnership with the Spirit.

Click to expand...

Very good. I never thought of it that way. I'll have to look into it some more...

I've got Wuest's "Bypaths of the Greek New Testament", but not "Gold Nuggets". I'll have to check my Father's library, I'm sure he has it.

Thank you very much for this.

Achilles6129 said:

"22Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of ?" Isa. 2:22



Your interpretation of Heb. 6:4-6 is way off the mark, as has been the interpretation of the established modern christian church for HUNDREDS OF YEARS. It is talking about something quite deep and impossible to explain in five minutes. However, as proof that your interpretation is totally incorrect, look here:

"20For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning." 2 Pet. 2:20

This is talking about the exact same idea as in Heb. 6:4-6, except that Peter is talking about FALSE TEACHERS, not Jews, here.

"21For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them." 2 Pet. 2:21

I'll show you something else:

"20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." Rev. 3:20

Those in Heb. 6:4-6 and in 2 Pet. 2:20-21 LEAVE THE DOOR SHUT. They don't OPEN THE DOOR. And, by the way, don't trust the modern christian interpretation of Rev. 3:20, because their interpretation of it is an utter and total farce. Good luck.

Click to expand...

Posts like this don't really help me.

Your refutation of my proposed interpretation is questionable at best.

Give some more information... like maybe more than 5 minutes?