Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 6:2

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

2. of the doctrine of baptisms ] Perhaps rather, “of ablutions” (Heb 9:10; Mar 7:3-4), both (1) from the use of the plural (which cannot be explained either physically of “triple immersion,” or spiritually of the baptisms of “water, spirit, blood”); and (2) because baptismos is never used of Christian baptism, but only baptisma. If, as we believe, the writer of this Epistle was Apollos, he, as an original adherent “of John’s baptism,” might feel all the more strongly that the doctrine of “ablutions” belonged, even in its highest forms, to the elements of Christianity. Perhaps he, like Josephus ( Antt. xviii. 5, 2), would have used the word baptismos, and not baptisma, even of John’s baptism. But the word probably implies the teaching which enable Christian catechumens to discriminate beween Jewish washings and Christian baptism.

of laying on of hands ] For ordination (Num 8:10-11; Act 6:6; Act 13:2-3; Act 19:6, &c.), confirmation (Act 8:17), healings (Mar 16:18), &c. Dr Mill observes that the order of doctrines here enumerated corresponds with the system of teaching respecting them in the Acts of the Apostles Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Confirmation, Resurrection, Judgment.

and of resurrection of the dead ] These topics had been severally prominent in the early Apostolic teaching (Act 2:38; Act 3:19-21; Act 26:20). Even the doctrine of the resurrection belonged to Judaism (Luk 20:37-38; Dan 12:2; Act 23:8).

and of eternal judgment ] The doctrine respecting that sentence ( krima, “doom”), whether of the good or of the evil, which shall follow the judgment ( krisis) in the future life. This was also known under the Old Covenant, Dan 7:9-10. The surprise with which we first read this passage only arises from our not realising the Author’s meaning, which is this, your Christian maturity ( , Heb 6:1) demands that you should rise far above your present vacillating condition. You would have no hankering after Judaism if you understood the more advanced teaching about the Melchisedek Priesthood that is the Eternal Priesthood of Christ which I am going to set before you. It is then needless that we should dwell together on the topics which form the training of neophytes and catechumens, the elements of religious teaching which even belonged to your old position as Jews; but let us enter upon topics which belong to the instruction of Christian manhood. The verse has its value for those who think that “Gospel” teaching consists exclusively in the iteration of threadbare shibboleths. We may observe that of these six elements of catechetical instruction two are spiritual qualities repentance, faith; two are significant and symbolic acts washings and laying on of hands; two are eschatological truths resurrection and judgment.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Of the doctrine of baptisms – This is mentioned as the third element or principle of the Christian religion. The Jews made much of various kinds of washings, which were called baptisms; see the note on Mar 7:4. It is supposed also, that they were in the practice of baptizing proselytes to their religion; see the note on Mat 3:6. Since they made so much of various kinds of ablution, it was important that the true doctrine on the subject should be stated as one of the elements of the Christian religion, that they might be recalled from superstition, and that they might enjoy the benefits of what was designed to be an important aid to piety – the true doctrine of baptisms. It will be observed that the plural form is used here – baptisms. There are two baptisms whose necessity is taught by the Christian religion – baptism by water, and by the Holy Spirit; the first of which is an emblem of the second.

These are stated to be among the elements of Christianity, or the things which Christian converts would first learn. The necessity of both is taught. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; Mar 16:16. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, Joh 3:5. On the baptism of the Holy Spirit, see the Mat 3:11 note; Act 1:5 note; compare Act 19:1-6. To understand the true doctrine respecting baptism was one of the first principles to be learned then as it is now, as baptism is the rite by which we are initiated into the Church. This was supposed to be so simple that young converts could understand it as one of the elements of the true religion, and the teaching on that subject now should be made so plain that the humblest disciple may comprehend it. If it was an element or first principle of religion; if it was presumed that anyone who entered the Church could understand it, can it be believed that it was then so perplexing and embarrassing as it is often made now? Can it be believed that a vast array of learning, and a knowledge of languages and a careful inquiry into the customs of ancient times, was needful in order that a candidate for baptism should understand it? The truth is, that it was probably regarded as among the most simple and plain matters of religion; and every convert was supposed to understand that the application of water to the body in this ordinance, in any mode, was designed to be merely emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit.

And of laying on of hands – This is the FourTH element or principle of religion. The Jews practiced the laying on of hands on a great variety of occasions. It was done when a blessing was imparted to anyone; when prayer was made for one; and when they offered sacrifice they laid their hands on the head of the victim, confessing their sins; Lev 16:21; Lev 24:14; Num 8:12. It was done on occasions of solemn consecration to office, and when friend supplicated the divine favor on friend. In like manner, it was often done by the Saviour and the apostles. The Redeemer laid his hands on children to bless them, and on the sick when he healed them; Mat 19:13; Mar 5:23; Mat 9:18. In like manner the apostles laid hands on others in the following circumstances:

1. In healing the sick; Act 28:8.

(2)In ordination to office; 1Ti 5:22; Act 6:6.

1. In imparting the miraculous influences of the Holy Spirit; Act 8:17, Act 8:19; Act 19:6.

The true doctrine respecting the design of laying on the hands, is said here to be one of the elements of the Christian religion. That the custom of laying on the hands as symbolical of imparting spiritual gifts, prevailed in the Church in the time of the apostles, no one can doubt. But on the question whether it is to be regarded as of perpetual obligation in the Church, we are to remember:

(1) That the apostles were endowed with the power of imparting the influences of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous or extraordinary manner. It was with reference to such an imparting of the Holy Spirit that the expression is used in each of the cases where it occurs in the New Testament.

(2) The Saviour did not appoint the imposition of the hands of a bishop to be one of the rites or ceremonies to be observed perpetually in the Church. The injunction to be baptized and to observe his supper is positive, and is universal in its obligation. But there is no such command respecting the imposition of hands.

(3) No one now is intrusted with the power of imparting the Holy Spirit in that manner There is no class of officers in the Church, that can make good their claim to any such power. What evidence is there that the Holy Spirit is imparted at the rite of confirmation?

(4) It is liable to be abused, or to lead persons to substitute the form for the thing; or to think that because they have been confirmed, that therefore they are sure of the mercy and favor of God.

Still, if it be regarded as a simple form of admission to a church, without claiming that it is enjoined by God, or that it is connected with any authority to impart the Holy Spirit, no objection can be made to it any more than there need be to any other form of recognizing Church membership. Every pastor has a right, if he chooses, to lay his hands on the members of his flock, and to implore a blessing on them; and such an act on making a profession of religion would have much in it that would be appropriate and solemn.

And of resurrection of the dead – This is mentioned as the fifth element or principle of the Christian religion. This doctrine was denied by the Sadducees Mar 12:18; Act 23:8, and was ridiculed by philosophers; Act 17:32. It was, however, clearly taught by the Saviour, Joh 5:28-29, and became one of the cardinal doctrines of his religion. By the resurrection of the dead, however, in the New Testament, there is more intended than the resurrection of the body. The question about the resurrection included the whole inquiry about the future state, or whether man would live at all in the future world; compare the Mat 22:23 note; Act 23:6 note. This is one of the most important subjects that can come before the human mind, and one on which man has felt more perplexity than any other. The belief of the resurrection of the dead is an elementary article in the system of Christianity. It lies at the foundation of all our hopes. Christianity is designed to prepare us for a future state; and one of the first things, therefore, in the preparation, is to assure us there is a future state, and to tell us what it is. It is, moreover, a unique doctrine of Christianity. The belief of the resurrection is found in no other system of religion, nor is there a ray of light shed upon the future condition of man by any other scheme of philosophy or religion.

And of eternal judgment – This is the sixth element or principle of religion. It is, that there will be a judgment whose consequences will be eternal. It does not mean, of course, that the process of the judgment will be eternal, or that the judgment day will continue forever; but that the results or consequences of the decision of that day will continue for ever. There will be no appeal from the sentence, nor will there be any reversal of the judgment then pronounced. What is decided then will be determined forever. The approval of the righteous will fix their state eternally in heaven, and in like manner the condemnation of the wicked will fix their doom forever in hell. This doctrine was one of the earliest that was taught by the Saviour and his apostles, and is inculcated in the New Testament perhaps with more frequency than any other; see Matt. 25; Act 17:31. That the consequences or results of the judgment will be eternal, is abundantly affirmed; see Mat 25:46; Joh 5:29;; 2Th 1:9; Mar 9:45, Mar 9:48.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 2. Of the doctrine of baptisms] “There were two things,” says Dr. Owen, “peculiar to the Gospel, the doctrine of it and the gifts of the Holy Ghost. Doctrine is called baptism, De 32:2; hence the people are said to be baptized to Moses, when they were initiated into his doctrines, 1Cor 11:2. The baptism of John was his doctrine, Ac 19:3; and the baptism of Christ was the doctrine of Christ, wherewith he was to sprinkle many nations, Isa 52:15. This is the first baptism of the Gospel, even its doctrine. The other was the communication of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, Ac 1:5; and this alone is what is intended by the laying on of hands; and then the sense will be the foundation of the Gospel baptisms, namely preaching and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.”

I am afraid, with all this great man’s learning, he has not hit the meaning of the apostle. As teaching is the means by which we are to obtain the gifts of the Holy Ghost, surely the apostle never designed to separate them, but to lead men immediately through the one to the possession of the other. Nor is the word baptism mentioned in the passage in Deuteronomy which he quotes; nor, indeed, any word properly synonymous. Neither , baptism, , sprinkling, nor any verb formed from them, is found in the Septuagint, in that place. But the other proofs are sufficiently in point, viz. that by baptism in the other places referred to, doctrine or TEACHING is meant; but to call TEACHING one baptism, and the gifts of THE HOLY GHOST another baptism, and to apply this to the explanation of the difficulty here, is very far from being satisfactory.

I am inclined to think that all the terms in this verse, as well as those in the former, belong to the Levitical law, and are to be explained on that ground.

Baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, sprinklings, and washings, were frequent as religious rites among the Hebrews, and were all emblematical of that purity which a holy God requires in his worshippers, and without which they cannot be happy here, nor glorified in heaven.

Laying on of hands] Was also frequent, especially in sacrifices: the person bringing the victim laid his hands on its head, confessed his sins over it, and then gave it to the priest to be offered to God, that it might make atonement for his transgressions. This also had respect to Jesus Christ, that Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

The doctrine also of the resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment, were both Jewish, but were only partially revealed, and then referred to the Gospel. Of the resurrection of the dead there is a fine proof in Isa 26:19, where it is stated to be the consequence of the death and resurrection of Christ, for so I understand the words, Thy dead shall live; with my dead body shall they arise: awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead. The valley of dry bones, Eze 37:1, c., is both an illustration and proof of it. And Daniel has taught both the resurrection and the eternal judgment, Da 12:2: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Now the foundation of all these doctrines was laid in the Old Testament, and they were variously represented under the law, but they were all referred to the Gospel for their proof and illustration. The apostle, therefore, wishes them to consider the Gospel as holding forth these in their full spirit and power. It preaches,

1. Repentance, unto life.

2. Faith in God through Christ, by whom we receive the atonement.

3. The baptism by water, in the name of the holy Trinity; and the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

4. The imposition of hands, the true sacrificial system; and, by and through it, the communication of the various gifts of the Holy Spirit, for the instruction of mankind, and the edification of the Church.

5. The resurrection of the dead, which is both proved and illustrated by the resurrection of Christ.

6. The doctrine of the eternal or future judgment, which is to take place at the bar of Christ himself, God having committed all judgment to his Son, called here , eternal or ever during judgment, because the sentences then pronounced shall be irreversible.

Some understand the whole of the initiation of persons into the Church, as the candidates for admission were previously instructed in those doctrines which contained the fundamental principles of Christianity. The Hebrews had already received these; but should they Judaize, or mingle the Gospel with the law, they would thereby exclude themselves from the Christian Church, and should they be ever again admitted, they must come through the same gate, or lay a second time, , this foundation. But should they totally apostatize from Christ, and finally reject him, then it would be impossible to renew them again to repentance – they could no more be received into the Christian Church, nor have any right to any blessing of the Gospel dispensation; and, finally rejecting the Lord who bought them, would bring on themselves and their land swift destruction. See the 4th and following verses, and particularly the notes on verses 8 and 9. “Heb 6:8“; “Heb 6:9“

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Of the doctrine of baptisms: the third fundamental doctrine in which these Hebrews were initiated was, the doctrine of baptisms; containing in it the doctrine which baptism teacheth, as that of the covenant of grace, of which it is a sign and seal, and of their entering into it who partake of it, which, as to its duties and privileges, is sealed and confirmed: and the doctrine in which baptisms are taught, as that of Christ by water and by the Spirit, Mat 3:6 Joh 3:5; and containing in it the doctrine of the seals of Gods testament, distinct from the other doctrines of faith; by the use of which, such who had solemnly professed their repentance, and faith and obedience to the gospel, were sealed and confirmed.

Baptisms, in the plural, raiseth the doubt, whether it immediately concern the initial seal of the covenant, which some say is so styled as a Hebraism, the plural number being put for the singular; or, from the numerous partakers of it at set times, which were called days of baptisms, or from divers administrators, and the baptisms of believers and their seed, and that so they were many. Others would make these to be Jewish baptisms, frequently used by these Hebrews, as elements to teach faith and repentance, and leading them to the further knowledge of Christ. And the more they suspect this, because these baptisms are used but four times in the New Testament, and always signifying Jewish ones, as Heb 9:10, and Mar 7:4,8.

And of laying on of hands: the fourth fundamental doctrine, or principle, was, the imposition of hands, which by Christ and his apostles were used either for healing diseases, Mar 6:5; Luk 4:40; Act 28:8, or communication of blessing, Mat 19:13,15, or for the communication of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, to such who were separated for Christs service in his church, Act 6:6; 8:17; 8:3; 19:5,6; and so take in all the saving fruits of the Holy Ghost, by which they are renewed, increased, strengthened, and built up into everlasting life. Others would make this a primitive rite of confirming the baptized grown up, on the confession of their faith, and renewing their covenant with God, which was made for and with them in their infancy, and so was a preparatory admission of them to communicate with the church in the Lords supper. If other places of Scripture did concur with it, it would be more clear and satisfactory. Some look on them, as baptisms before, to be Jewish rites, which should here lead them to Christ; but, on their neglect of him, became beggarly elements, and such as they are called from here unto higher attainments in Christ.

And of resurrection of the dead: the fifth fundamental principle and doctrine of Christianity, in which they were initiated, is, the doctrine of resurrection from the dead. This, as to the propriety and fulness of it, is at the last day; yet the entrance into this is begun in a new life effected by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Joh 5:25-29; Rom 6:3-13. From this entrance are they called to make out to the full resurrection of the just, as the apostle did himself, Phi 3:10-12. This article of the gospel doctrine all Christians were to be founded in, and especially these Hebrews, because it was denied by the Sadducees among them, Mat 22:23; Act 23:6-8, derided by the Athenian philosophers, Act 17:18,31,32, and perverted by heretics, 2Ti 2:17,18; and is therefore particularly asserted, as described by this apostle, 1Co 15:1-58.

And of eternal judgment; the sixth fundamental doctrine and principle of Christianity, into which they were to be initiated, was that of the general judgment, finally determining the believers of it to their rewards, the deniers of it to their eternal punishment, because the one hath observed, the other violated, the covenant of grace. These Hebrews had begun to reach this truth, by being reconciled to their Judge, and therefore are to proceed to perfect their work to the Lords glorious appearance, Heb 9:27,28; Ac 17:31; 2Pe 3:7,10,15; Jude 1:6,14,15; Re 20:11-15.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. the doctrine of baptismspairedwith “laying on of hands,” as the latter followed onChristian baptism, and answers to the rite of confirmation inEpiscopal churches. Jewish believers passed, by an easy transition,from Jewish baptismal purifications (Heb9:10, “washings”), baptism of proselytes, and John’sbaptism, and legal imposition of hands, to their Christian analogues,baptism, and the subsequent laying on of hands,accompanied by the gift of the Holy Ghost (compare Heb6:4). Greek, “baptismoi,” plural,including Jewish and Christian baptisms, are to bedistinguished from baptisma, singular, restricted toChristian baptism. The six particulars here specified had been, as itwere, the Christian Catechism of the Old Testament; and suchJews who had begun to recognize Jesus as the Christ immediately onthe new light being shed on these fundamental particulars, wereaccounted as having the elementary principles of the doctrineof Christ [BENGEL]. Thefirst and most obvious elementary instruction of Jews would be theteaching them the typical significance of their own ceremoniallaw in its Christian fulfilment [ALFORD].

resurrection, &c.heldalready by the Jews from the Old Testament: confirmed with clearerlight in Christian teaching or “doctrine.”

eternal judgmentjudgmentfraught with eternal consequences either of joy or of woe.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Of the doctrine of baptisms,…. Some read this divisively, “baptism and doctrine”, as the Ethiopic version; as if the one respected the ordinance of baptism, and the other the ministry of the word; but it is best to read them conjunctively: and by which most understand the Gospel ordinance of water baptism, so called by a change of number, the plural for the singular, as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions, who render it baptism; or because of the different persons baptized, and times of baptizing, as some; or because of the trine immersion, as others; or because of the threefold baptism of spirit, blood, and water, which have some agreement with each other; or because of the baptism of John, and Christ, though they are one and the same; or because of the inward and outward baptism, the one fitting and qualifying for the other; and so the doctrine of it is thought to respect the necessity, use, and end of it; but since there is but one baptism, and the above reasons for the plural expression are not solid, and sufficiently satisfying, it is best to interpret this of the divers baptisms among the Jews, spoken of in Heb 9:10 which had a doctrine in them, to that people; teaching them the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ, and leading them to it, to wash in for sin, and for uncleanness; but now, since this blood was shed, they were no more to teach nor learn the doctrine of cleansing by the blood of Christ this way; nor any more to be led unto it through these divers baptisms, ablutions, and purifications.

And of laying on of hands; the foundation of this was to be no more laid, nor the doctrine of it to be any longer taught and learned in the way it had been; for not the rite, but the doctrine of laying on of hands is here intended; and it has no reference to the right of laying on of hands by the apostles, either in private persons, or officers of churches; for what was the doctrine of such a rite, is not easy to say; but to the rite of laying on of hands of the priests, and of the people, upon the head of sacrifices; which had a doctrine in it, even the doctrine of the imputation of sin to Christ, the great sacrifice. It was usual with the Jews g to call the imposition of hands upon the sacrifice, simply, , “laying on of hands”; and they understood by it the transferring of sin from the persons that laid on hands, to the sacrifice, on which they were laid; and that hereby, as they express it, sins were separated from them, and, as it were, put upon the sacrifice h; but now believers were no longer to be taught and learn the great doctrine of the imputation of sin, by this rite and ceremony, since Christ has been made sin for them, and has had sins imputed to him, and has bore them in his own body on the tree:

and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment: articles of faith, which distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles, who were greatly strangers to a future state, the resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come: these are doctrines of pure revelation, and were taught under the Old Testament, and were believed by the generality of the Jews, and are articles which they hold in common with us Christians; yet the believing Hebrews were not to rest in the knowledge of these things, and in the smaller degrees of light they had in them, under the former dispensation; but were to go on to perfection, and bear forward towards a greater share of knowledge of these, and other more sublime doctrines of grace; since life and immortality are more clearly brought to light by Christ through the Gospel.

g Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 8. & Bartenora in ib. h R. Levi ben Gersom in Exod. fol. 109. 1. & in Lev. fol. 117. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

The other four items are qualitative genitives with (, , , ). The plural “by itself does not mean specifically Christian baptism either in this epistle (9:10) or elsewhere (Mr 7:4), but ablutions or immersions such as the mystery religions and the Jewish cultus required for initiates, proselytes, and worshippers in general” (Moffatt). The disciples of the Baptist had disputes with the Jews over purification (Joh 3:25). See also Ac 19:2. “The laying on of hands” seems to us out of place in a list of elementary principles, but it was common as a sign of blessing (Mt 19:13), of healing (Mr 7:32), in the choice of the Seven (Ac 6:6), in the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6), in separation for a special task (Ac 13:3), in ordination (1Tim 4:14; 1Tim 5:22; 2Tim 1:6). Prayer accompanied this laying on of the hands as a symbol. The resurrection of the dead (both just and unjust, John 5:29; Acts 24:15) is easily seen to be basal (cf. 1Co 15) as well as eternal judgment (timeless and endless).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Doctrine of baptisms [ ] . 192 Not laying again as a foundation the teaching [] of baptisms. baptismov only here, ch. 9 10, and Mr 7:4. The common form is baptisma. Neither word in LXX or Class. The meaning here is lustral rites in general, and may include the baptism of John and Christian baptism. The teaching would cover all such rites, their relations and comparative significance, and it would be necessary in the case of a Jewish convert to Christianity who might not perceive, for example, any difference between Jewish lustrations and Christian baptism.

Laying on of hands. See on 1Ti 4:14. A Jewish and a Christian practice.

Resurrection – eternal judgment. Both resurrection and future judgment were Jewish tenets requiring exposition to Jewish converts as regarded their relations to the same doctrines as taught by Christianity. The resurrection of Christ as involving the resurrection of believers would, of itself, change the whole aspect of the doctrine of resurrection as held by a Few. jAiwniou eternal certainly cannot here signify everlasting. It expresses rather a judgment which shall transcend all temporal judgments; which shall be conducted on principles different from those of earthly tribunals, and the decisions of which shall be according to the standards of the economy of a world beyond time. See additional note on 2Th 1:9. The phrase eternal judgment N. T. o. Comp. krima to mellon the judgment to come, Act 24:25.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Of the doctrine of baptism,” (baptismon didasches) “Of teaching regarding (of) baptisms,” of total washings that symbolized cleansing in Jewish Law, Mar 1:44; Luk 5:14, as the burial-washing of church baptism symbolizes the total gospel picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, personal faith in or through which one is saved, Rom 1:16; 1Co 15:1-4.

2) “And of laying on of hands,” (epitheseos te cheiron) “And of (the) laying on of hands,” in ordination, as a symbol of committed trust to a special service, or purpose, Lev 1:4; Num 8:10-11; Act 13:2-3. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles, for a limited time, that ceased with completion of the New Testament, by which special spiritual Gifts of the Holy Spirit were conferred, Act 8:13-21; Act 19:6; 1Ti 5:22.

3) “And of resurrection of the dead,” (anastaseos nekron) “Of a resurrection of dead bodies,” of people who have died, Joh 5:18; Joh 5:29; Act 17:31-32; The resurrection of the bodies of the righteous dead is such an established fact or truth, a case made out, that controversy or doubt should not linger about it, Act 23:8; 1Co 15:12; Luk 14:14; Joh 11:24; Act 24:15.

4) “And of eternal judgement,” (kai krimatos aioniou) “And of an eternal judgement; Act 24:15; Rom 2:16. These six things named or stated above are declared to be beginning, foundation, or elementary principles of the teachings of Christ; beyond which children should soon mature, and go on in greater comprehension of Divine principles and practical service to the Lord, thru the church, the house of God which Jesus built and is building, enlarging even today, Heb 3:1; Heb 3:6; Mat 16:18; Mar 13:34-37; 1Ti 3:15; Eph 2:19-22.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, etc. Some read them separately, “of baptisms and of doctrine;” but I prefer to connect them, though I explain them differently from others; for I regard the words as being in apposition, as grammarians say, according to this form, “Not laying again the foundation of repentance, of faith in God, of the resurrection of the dead, which is the doctrine of baptisms and of the laying on of hands.” If therefore these two clauses, the doctrine of baptisms and of the laying on of hands, be included in a parenthesis, the passage would run better; for except you read them as in apposition, there would be the absurdity of a repetition. For what is the doctrine of baptism but what he mentions here, faith in God, repentance, judgment, and the like?

Chrysostom thinks that he uses “baptisms” in the plural number, because they who returned to first principles, in a measure abrogated their first baptism: but I cannot agree with him, for the doctrine had no reference to many baptisms, but by baptisms are meant the solemn rites, or the stated days of baptizing.

With baptism he connects the laying on of hands; for as there were two sorts of catechumens, so there were two rites. There were heathens who came not to baptism until they made a profession of their faith. Then as to these, these, the catechizing was wont to precede baptism. (96) But the children of the faithful, as they were adopted from the womb, and belonged to the body of the Church by right of the promise, were baptized in infancy; but after the time of infancy, they having been instructed in the faith, presented themselves as catechumens, which as to them took place after baptism; but another symbol was then added, the laying on of hands.

This one passage abundantly testifies that this rite had its beginning from the Apostles, which afterwards, however, was turned into superstition, as the world almost always degenerates into corruptions, even with regard to the best institutions. They have indeed contrived the fiction, that it is a sacrament by which the spirit of regeneration is conferred, a dogma by which they have mutilated baptism for what was peculiar to it, they transferred to the imposition of hands. Let us then know, that it was instituted by its first founders that it might be an appointed rite for prayer, as Augustine calls it. The profession of faith which youth made, after having passed the time of childhood, they indeed intended to confirm by this symbol, but they thought of nothing less than to destroy the efficacy of baptism. Wherefore the pure institution at this day ought to be retained, but the superstition ought to be removed. And this passage tends to confirm pedobaptism; for why should the same doctrine be called as to some baptism, but as to others the imposition of hands, except that the latter after having received baptism were taught in the faith, so that nothing remained for them but the laying on of hands?

(96) Calvin has followed some of the fathers in his exposition of these two clauses, who refer to a state of things which did not exist in the Church for a considerable time after the Apostolic age.

What is here said comports with the time of the Apostles, and with that only more particularly. “Baptisms,” being in the plural number, have been a knotty point to many; but there is an especial reason for this in an Epistle to the Hebrews; some of them had no doubt been baptized by John, such were afterwards baptized only in the name of Christ, Act 19:5, but those who not so baptized, were doubtless baptized in the name of Trinity. “The laying on of hands” on the baptized was an Apostolic practice, by which the miraculous gift of tongues was bestowed. Act 8:15.

To understand the different things mentioned in the first two verses, we must consider the particulars stated in the 4 th and the 5 th verses; they are explanatory of each other. The penitent were “the enlightened;” “faith towards God” was “the heavenly gift;” the baptized, who had hands laid on them, were those who were “made partakers of the Holy Ghost;” the prospect and promise of a “resurrection,” was “the good word of God;” and “eternal judgment,” when believed made them to feel “the powers (or the powerful influences) of the word to come.” Thus the two passages illustrate one another. Such is the meaning which Schleusner gives δυνάμεις in this passage, which Scott and Bloomfield have adopted. — Ed

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(2) Of the doctrine of baptisms.The meaning of these words has been much controverted. The order of the Greek has been thought to require the rendering baptisms of doctrine (or, teaching); and it has been believed that the writer in this manner seeks to characterise Christian baptism as contrasted with the Jewish lustrations. Mat. 28:19, baptising them . . . teaching them, is often quoted in favour of this view. The whole question of baptism amongst the Jews of the Apostolic age is full of difficulty, since the first references to the rite in connection with proselytes belong to a much later date. But, waiving this, we must surely regard it as most unlikely that the baptism specifically Christian would be marked as baptism of teaching. Teaching would rather be the point of resemblance than the point of contrast between the Jewish and the Christian rite. We must, therefore, adhere to the ordinary view. The word doctrine, or teaching, seems to be introduced in order to avoid the ambiguity which would lie in the words, a foundation of repentance, faith, baptism, &c.; not a doctrine, but the repetition of a rite might seem to be intended. But what are we to understand by teaching regarding baptisms? Both the word itself and the use of the plural are remarkable. The word (which is not the ordinary term baptisma, but baptismus) occurs in Heb. 9:10, Mar. 7:4, in the plural, and in Col. 2:12 in the singular; in the last of these passages it denotes Christian baptism, but in the others the ceremonial washings of the Jews. We must not forget the importance which of right belonged to these washings in the Levitical law, as one of the appointed modes of removing that uncleanness which excluded from every sacred place. The baptism of John attached itself to passages in the Scriptures in which this symbol was taken up by the prophets with profound spiritual application (Ezekiel 36, et al.). Both Johns baptism and that of Christ, therefore, would, from the Hebrew point of view, be washings; and the teaching which every new convert must receive would include instruction on the symbolical purifications of the Old Covenant and the New. (See the very interesting Notes in Vol. II. on Act. 18:24-25; Act. 19:4.)

And of laying on of hands.This ceremony is repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament, and also in the New. Besides the sacrificial use of the symbol, we find imposition of hands connected with blessing (Gen. 48:14; Mat. 19:13, et al.); with works of healing (2Ki. 5:11; Mar. 8:23; Mar. 16:18, et al.); with ordination (Num. 27:18; Deu. 34:9; 1Ti. 4:14, et al.); and with the gift of the Holy Spirit (Act. 8:17; Act. 19:6). In every case the figure denotes either a transfer, or the communication of a gift from (or, through the medium of) the person who lays his hands upon another. Neither transfer of guilt, nor blessing, nor miracle can be in point here; nor is it conceivable that ordination could be referred to in such a context. As the passages quoted from the Acts of the Apostles agree with this in closely connecting the rite with baptism, we can have little doubt that the meaning in all is substantially the same. The believers in Samaria had been baptised by Philip; when Peter and John came, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. In the second case, which in other respects is similar (whether Paul himself baptised, or not, we are not informed), there is reference to the special gifts of the Holy Ghost which were bestowed: they spake with tongues and prophesied. There seems no reason for believing that there was a designed connection between the imposition of hands and the bestowal of miraculous powers; such imposition was rather the recognised symbol of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, in whatever manner the Spirit might be pleased to work in those who received His influence. The early Church naturally retained the rite, making it the complement or adjunct of baptism; whilst the one symbolised the putting away of sin, the other was the emblem of the reception of new spiritual life. Historical testimonies extend as far back as Tertullian (A.D. 200): Then the hand is laid on, calling for and inviting the Holy Spirit. To trace the relation between this imposition of hands and the later practice of confirmation would lead us beyond our limits.

The two points which remain do not require an extended notice. We know (Act. 23:8) that, though the Sadducees denied that there was any resurrection of the dead (and the Alexandrian philosophy seems to have held only the immortality of the soul), yet by the most influential amongst Jewish teachers this doctrine was held and enforced, as indeed it was plainly taught in their Scriptures (Dan. 12:2). On the nature and extent of the resurrectionwhether it would be universal, and whether it would precede or follow the Messianic agevarying opinions prevailed. Nor were the Pharisees less clear in their teaching of a future judgment, the reward of which should be eternal bliss for the godly, punishment for the sinners in Israel and for Israels enemies. These doctrines, then, would place no obstacles in the way of a convert to the Christian faith. Instead of vagueness and discordant opinion he now received a clear statement of truth: the Messiah, Jesus, in whom he has placed his trust, will judge the world; and of this God has given a pledge in that He hath raised Him from the dead (Act. 17:31). It is noteworthy that, of the four particulars which are mentioned after repentance and faith, two relate to the commencement and two to the last things of the Christian life.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2. Of Foundation is understood before this of. The doctrine, or teaching, is understood before each of the four of s in the verse.

Baptisms Washings. The Greek word for Christian baptism is baptisma, this word is baptismos, and genetically includes all ritual lustrations, baptism included. The plural here is used, not, as some think, to indicate trine immersion, (which was not a New Testament practice;) nor to include the baptism of water and of the Spirit; nor to imply the baptizing of many individuals; but because by Jewish doctrine there were many lustrations, while by Christian doctrine there is but one, namely, baptism. Closely coupled (by a conjunctive , which is a tighter connexion than , and) with baptisms is the laying on of hands. The laying on of hands was, therefore, retained as distinctively a Christian institute, taught as Christian doctrine. Under the old dispensation it was a mode of blessing and of conferring office. Num 8:10; Num 27:18; Num 27:23; Deu 34:9. By it, under the new, the Holy Ghost was imparted after baptism, and office was conferred. Act 8:17; Act 19:6; Act 6:6; Act 13:3 ; 1Ti 4:14; 1Ti 5:22. In regard to this last purpose it seems, from the New Testament and the practice of the primitive Church, that before the polity of the Church crystallized into form under the new effusion of the Spirit, a great variety of persons exercised their various gifts, (Eph 4:11-12,) but that there gradually emerged three grades of ministry. And hence the episcopal form of government; initially represented by James at Jerusalem, by Timothy, and by Titus, being divinely sanctioned but not enjoined, became early prevalent in most Churches, and before the close of the second century universal in Christendom. The laying on of hands here, closely coupled with baptism, drawn from the original manual impartation of the sensible gift of the Holy Ghost, seems to have become an established institute, symbolizing that impartation of the Spirit by which the candidate was individualized as one in the individual body of Christ. Delitzsch maintains, with good show of argument, that the institute of imposition of hands has still a rightful place in the Christian Church, as the final recognition of that ultimate incorporation into the Church of which baptism is the initial sign. The laying on of hands, in its twofold use as confirmation of the people and as ordination of the ministry, indicates the one, yet twofold, priesthood of both ministry and people, each in its own order. Hoffman, as quoted by Delitzsch, suggests that baptism is correlated to the judgment as laying on of hands to the resurrection. But the close connexion in the Greek by a of the resurrection with the imposition indicates just the converse. Baptism more properly represents the resurrection, and so emblematizes us as the final, glorified, new creature; while the imposition symbolizes the final judgment which forever confirms us into the Church of the glorified.

Resurrection of the dead Dead, without the article, and plural, deads. It does not, therefore, positively express the universal dead. See our note on Luk 20:35; 1Co 15:12. Probably the resurrection of the righteous is really what St. Paul here intends. The resurrection of the wicked has no symbol in baptism.

Judgment Rather meaning the sentence than the process of judging; and the sentence is eternal in its force and effect, being irreversible and final. These six fundamental points of Christianity, in comparison with the Jewish foundation, are selected specimens, not an exhaustive enumeration. The Lord’s supper, based on the passover, and the Christian Lord’s day, based on the old sabbath, are omitted.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Heb 6:2. The doctrine of baptisms, Dr. Sykes and many others think the reason why the sacred writer speaks of baptisms in the plural number to be this: He writes to the Hebrews, who had not only several sorts of baptisms enjoined in and by the law, but who had had John, whom all looked upon and acknowledged, baptizing into the belief of one who was to come after him, and into a baptism of repentance. When a Jew was converted, he was baptized into the profession of Jesus’s being the Messiah, he already believing in the other great preparative doctrines. When John made use of the rite of baptism to all such as became believers in the Messiah, who was soon to appear, he declared repentance to be necessary, as a preparatory work for all the blessings of the gospel: after this, our Saviour coming, declared the same, and baptized disciples in his own name, as being the Messiah himself actually come. When a Jewish disciple therefore was to be baptized, he was particularly to be instructed in the difference between the Jewish and Christianbaptisms; and hence the apostle speaks here of the doctrine of baptisms. Lord Barrington understands this of the baptism of water, and the effusion of the Holy Spirit, by which the first disciples amongthe Jews, and the first converts among the devout and idolatrous Gentiles were initiated. He also explains the laying on of hands, as referring to the immediate communication of the spiritual gifts by means of the apostles. These he thinks were first principles, as baptism was the first entrance into the church, and laying on of hands the great evidence of it; and so repentance and living faith include the whole of Christianity; and a resurrection and eternal judgment are the great motives leading men under the grace of God to embrace it. Of laying on of hands must be understood as if he had said what was the use and purport of this practice; for anciently they were wont to lay on hands as soon as the persons were baptized, to give them the Holy Ghost; Act 8:17; Act 19:5-6. Sometimes they used this ceremony to appoint persons to offices; Act 6:6; Act 13:3 sometimes to heal, as Act 9:12; Act 9:17. This custom then being so variously applied to such different purposes, it was explained to the person to be initiated by baptism.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 6:2 . ] We have not to divide by a comma, with Cajetan, Luther, Hyperius, Sykes, Semler, Morus, Heinrichs, Schulz, de Wette, Conybeare, and others [after the Syriac], in such wise that and are each separately enumerated as a particular subject for elementary instruction in Christianity. must in this case mean the elementary instruction in Christianity connected with baptism, imparted either before or after the same. But since, at the close of the verse, the and the are mentioned, while the treatment of these subjects for teaching belonged equally to the first stage of instruction in Christianity, it is not easy to perceive why, in addition to that , these two points, presupposed in the same, should be brought into special relief by the author. Then there is the consideration that all the particulars which are mentioned before and after as constituent parts of the , are designated by a double expression. Seeing the care bestowed by the author upon the symmetrical proportions of his discourse, we should therefore naturally be led to regard as a corresponding double expression. But even as thus apprehended the expression is capable of a twofold explanation. The question, namely, is whether the author is speaking of or of a . In the first case baptisms with a view to doctrine are meant, in the second instruction concerning baptisms . In the first acceptation the term is taken by Bengel, Michaelis, Maier, Kurtz, as also Winer, Gramm. , 7 Aufl. p. 181 (less decidedly, 5 Aufl. p. 217); in the last, by Bleek and the majority. Against the first view pleads, on the one hand, the fact that the addition would be something too little characteristic, almost unmeaning, since a Christian baptism, not preceded, accompanied, of followed by instruction in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, would be something inconceivable; on the other hand, that in this way the erroneous secondary meaning would arise, that there were, in addition to the Christian baptisms with a view to doctrine, also other Christian baptisms. We follow, therefore, the second mode of interpretation. In connection with this the plural still presents some difficulty. Gerhard, Dorscheus, Ernesti, M‘Lean Stuart, and others arbitrarily set aside this difficulty, in that they suppose just the plural to be placed for the singular But neither is the plural to be explained by the assumption that respect is had to the proneness of the Hebrews for often repeating the Christian baptism, in conformity with the many in Judaism (Oeoumenius, Theophylact), or, at the same time, to the outward and inner baptism (Grotius, Whitby, Braun, Brochmann; Reuss: la diffrence du baptme d’eau et du baptme d’esprit). Just as little by the supposition that reference is made to a plurality of baptismal candidates or baptismal acts (Theodoret, Primasius, Beza, Er. Schmid, Owen, Heinrichs, al .), or to a repeated immersing of the candidate. Most in its favour has the opinion of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schttgen, Wolf, and others, in which more recently also Bhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 724), Alford, and Moll have concurred; namely, that the author is thinking not so much of Christian baptism a itself, or exclusively, as along with it at the same time of the relation of the same to the Jewish lustrations, and perhaps also to the baptism of John. This view appears at least to acquire a point of support from Heb 9:10 , according to which the readers still continued to esteem the washings enjoined by the Mosaic law as of importance for Christians too. Yet it seems to be precarious, with Jac. Cappellus, Bleek, and others, to urge in favour of this acceptation the distinction that in the N. T. only is used for Christian baptism in the proper sense of the term, , on the other hand, being in the N. T. a word of wider signification (Heb 9:10 ; Mar 7:4 ); precarious, because the expression not occurring at all with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews [as also Josephus designates the rite of John only by , the action by , Antiq . xviii. 5. 2], with regard to his usage in this respect thus nothing can be determined.

In close inner connection with the stands the . As therefore the readers ought no longer to be in need of teaching concerning the nature of the former (and concerning its pre-eminence over the kindred institutions of Judaism), so was it also to be reasonably expected that they should experience a necessity for being instructed concerning the nature of the latter (and concerning the eminent blessings which attend thereon). The reference is to that laying on of hands by which those previously baptized were fully received into the communion, and through which the reception of the Holy Ghost was wont to be vouchsafed to them. Comp. Act 8:17 ff; Act 19:6 . From this close inner connectedness of the with the results that, also as regards the external arrangement of words, the genitive does not depend immediately upon , but like upon . But, moreover, even the following genitives, and , are, as rightly apprehended by Storr, Bhme, Ebrard, Bisping, [78] Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and Woerner, governed by . For not by the resurrection of the dead, and the everlasting judgment itself, since these facts will first unfold themselves in the future, but only by the doctrine thereof can the foundation be laid in Christianity. It would, however, be arbitrary to assign to the words and in themselves signification which they can only have in combination with the foregoing . A grammatical harshness (de Wette) is not to be discovered in this construction, on account of the close connection of the last clauses by means of and ; any more than de Wette is right in regarding , in the mode of interpretation above followed, as an unnatural trajection without an example the writings of our author; for is preposed because the emphasis rests on that word, and an analogon in our epistle is already afforded by the , Heb 2:4 .

] Two dogmas already belonging to the Jews theology, which obtained by means of Christianity only their more definite, concrete signification. The expression in both these clauses is used quite generally. We have therefore no warrant for limiting, with Estius, Schlichting, Schttgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and others, the to the godly, the to the ungodly. On the contrary, both have reference to the pious or believers, and the ungodly or unbelievers in common.

[78] Wrongly, however, is it supposed by Bisping (as before his time by Gennadius in Oecumenius, and Klee) that and , ver. 1, already dependent upon . Just as wrongly would Calvin, who is followed by Piscator and Owen, enclose , within a parenthesis, “ut sit appositio hoc sensu. Non jacientes rursun fundamentum poenitentiae, fidei in Deum, mortuorum resurrectionis, quae doctrina est baptismi et impositionis manuum Nisi enim appositive legas, hoc erit absurdi, quod bis idem repetet. Quae enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi quam hic recenset de fide in Deum, de poenitentia et de judici similibus?” Both views are deprived of their support by the reflection that and , ver. 1, denote not a doctrine , but an act [against Stuart].

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Ver. 2. Doctrine of baptisms ] Inward and outward. Flaminis et fluminis, of water and of the Spirit, that “washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost,” Tit 3:5 . Calvin thinks the apostle meaneth the solemn rites or set days of baptizing. Others, the doctrine of both the sacraments; one being figuratively put for both, and the mention of the Lord’s supper omitted, because the doctrine thereof was not anciently propounded to the catechumeni, or young Christians; neither were they suffered to see it administered.

And of laying on of hands ] Hereby is meant the whole ministry and order of Church government, as prescribed by the word. The Scripture is to be taken in the largest sense, if nothing hinder, neither matter, phrase, nor scope. (Wilson’s Theol. Rules.)

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 .] of the doctrine of washings (not baptisms : is generally the N. T. word for both Christian baptism and that of John. In reff., the word is used as here of washing, or lustration with water. On the meaning, see below. Our first question is, respecting the construction. The words are taken in two other ways besides that given above. 1. Some have taken and as two distinct genitives: so Chrys, (apparently, for he says, , . . .), an interp. given in c., ; . . .: and so Cajetan, Luther, Semler, Michaelis, al., and De Wette. But this seems very improbable. The rhythm of the sentence, which in all the other cases has two substantives in a clause, seems to forbid insulating the two words and forming a clause out of each: besides which, a double objection arises from the words themselves; that thus the plural would not be accounted for, and that thus also would have to bear a meaning which it is very doubtful if it can bear. 2. The two substantives being taken together, is made the genitive dependent on , those baptisms which were accompanied with , in distinction from those other washings, which were not so accompanied. This view is taken by Bengel (“ . . erant baptismi quos qui suscipiebant, doctrin sacr Judorum sese addicebant; itaque adjecto distinguuntur a lotionibus cteris leviticis”), Winer (making however the distinction between Christian and Jewish baptism, 30. 3, Rem. 4, edn. 6), Michaelis, al. Still it cannot be denied that this would be a very strange expression, and that thus the plur. would be more unaccountable than ever, seeing that it would apply to one kind of baptism only, viz. the Christian. As regards the plur. , it has been very variously taken: by some as put for the singular, in which number the Syr. translates it: by Chrys. (to whom Calv. assents), as implying the repetition of baptism involved in the , ; , . . . , , , , : by Thl. and c. as pointing to a practice among the Hebrews of frequently repeating baptism ( , Thl.): by others, as referring to the threefold immersion in baptism: by Grot., al., “de duplice baptismo, interiore et exteriore:” by Thdrt. of the plurality of the recipients, : so Primas., Beza, Erasm. Schmid. But none of these seem to reach the point so well as that given above, which includes in the idea those various washings which were under the law, the baptism of John and even Christian baptism also perhaps included, the nature of which, and their distinctions from one another, would naturally be one of the fundamental and primary objects of teaching to Hebrew converts. This meaning, which is that of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schttg., Wolf, al., and Bhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Tholuck, al., is strongly combated by Lnemann, and the insecurity of the consideration arising from the different form of and – is urged on the ground that the Writer never uses : but against this we may fairly allege that he does use again (ch. Heb 9:10 ), and in the ordinary sense of Jewish washings, not in that of Christian baptism. When it is objected to the view (as e. g. by Stuart) that the doctrine of Jewish washings would have had nothing to do with the elements of Christian teaching, we may fairly say that such objection is brought in mere thoughtlessness. The converts being Jews, their first and most obviously elementary instruction would be, the teaching them the typical significance of their own ceremonial law in its Christian fulfilment. It is obvious from what has been above said, that we must not, as Erasm., Calv., Beza, Schlichting, al., understand “the teaching given as introductory to baptism :” Calvin identifying it with the other genitive terms of the sentence: “Qu enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi quam hic recenset de fide in Deum, de pnitentia et de judicio, ac similibus?”) and of laying on of hands (first, it is almost necessary, on account of the transposed place of , and the coupling by , to understand as gen. after , and not after (of the succeeding genitives, see below). And thus the doctrine of laying on of hands, like that of washings, not being confined to any one special rite, will mean, the reference and import of all that imposition of hands which was practised under the law, and found in some cases its continuance under the gospel. By laying on of hands, the sick were healed, Mar 16:18 ; Act 9:12 ; Act 9:17 ; Act 28:8 ; cf. 2Ki 5:11 ; Mat 9:18 al.; officers and teachers of the Church were admitted to their calling, Act 6:6 ; Act 13:3 , 1Ti 4:14 ; 1Ti 5:22 ; Num 8:10 ; Num 27:18 ; Num 27:23 ; Deu 34:9 ; converts were fully admitted into the Christian Church after baptism, Act 8:17 ; Act 19:6 :2Ti 1:6 . And there can be little doubt that it is mainly to this last that the attention of the readers is here called, as the Writer is speaking of the beginning of Christian teaching: so Chrys., : and Thdrt., . Some have thought that the principal reference is to the laying of hands on the scapegoat as a type of our Lord’s taking our sins upon Him: but this is unlikely) and of resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment (these words, as well as the foregoing clause, depend on . This would be evident, were it merely for the sense, seeing that it is not the facts themselves of the resurrection and the judgment which would be laid as the foundation of the , but the doctrine of these, that apprehension and recognition of them consequent on their being taught , as implies. And then notice, that these also were points of Jewish doctrine, confirmed and brought into clearer light by the Gospel. Some, as Est., Schlicht., Schttg., Michaelis, Storr, al., have supposed . to refer only to the righteous, as in Joh 6:39-40 ; Joh 6:44 ; Joh 6:54 , only to the wicked. But it is more probable, in a passage of such very general reference, that the Writer speaks generally, without any such distinction here in view, of the two doctrines: of the and the of Joh 5:29 . And it is probable that he uses in the same indefinite meaning. Cf. ref. Acts.

, properly the result of , gradually became in later Greek, as other substantives in – , confounded with the process in , and the two used convertibly. Our Writer has both: cf. ch. Heb 10:27 .

, probably as part of the proceedings of eternity, and thus bearing the character and stamp of eternal: or perhaps as Thl., , . So Erasm. (par.) and many others).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 6:2 . The next pair, “instruction regarding washings and laying on of hands”. “The historical sequence is followed in the enumeration”. Some interpreters make all three conditions directly dependent on , “foundation of baptisms, teaching, and laying on of hands”. Bengel makes dependent on . He says: “ erant baptismi , quos qui suscipiebant, doctrinae sacrae Judaeorum sese addicebant. Itaque adjecto doctrinae distinguuntur a lotionibus ceteris leviticis”. Similarly Winer ( Gramm. , p. 240): “If we render . . baptisms of doctrine or instruction , as distinguished from the legal baptisms (washings) of Judaism, we find a support for this designation, as characteristically Christian, in Mat 28:19 , ”. It is better to take the words as equivalent to . In N.T. is regularly used of Christian baptism or of John’s baptism, while is used of ceremonial washings as in Heb 9:10 and Mar 7:4 . [ Cf. Blass, Gramm. , p. 62. Josephus, ( Ant. , xviii. 5, 2) uses of John’s baptism.] Probably, therefore, “teaching about washings” would include instruction in the distinction between the various Jewish washings, John’s baptism and that of Christ ( cf. Act 19:2 ); and this would involve instruction in the cleansing efficacy of the Atonement made by Christ as well as in the work of the Holy Spirit. It was very necessary for a convert from Judaism to understand the difference between symbolic and real lustration. The reference of the plural must, therefore, not be restricted to the distinction of outward and inward baptism (Grotius), nor of water and spirit baptism (Reuss) nor of infant and adult baptism, nor of the threefold immersion nor, as Primasius, “pro varietate accipientium”. closely conjoined to the foregoing by because the “laying on of hands” was the accompaniment of baptism in Apostolic times. “As through baptism the convert became a member of the House of God, through the laying on of hands he received endowments fitting him for service in the house, and an earnest of his relation to the world to come (Heb 6:5 )” (Davidson, cf. Delitzsch). The laying on of hands was normally accompanied by prayer. Prayer was the essential element in the transaction, the laying on of hands designating the person to whom the prayer was to be answered and for whom the gift was designed. Cf. Act 19:1-6 ; Act 8:14-17 ; Act 13:3 ; Act 6:6 ; and Lepine’s The Ministers of Jesus Christ , p. 141 4. In Apostolic times baptism apparently meant that the baptised believed in and gave himself to Christ, while the laying on of hands meant that the Holy Ghost was conferred upon him. In baptism as now administered both these facts are outwardly represented. : “resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment,” “constituting the believer’s outlook under which he was to live” (Davidson). The genitives depend on , not on , as Vaughan. The phrase naturally includes all the dead both righteous and unrighteous (see Joh 5:29 and Act 24:15 . though properly the result of is not always distinguished from it, see Joh 9:39 ; Act 24:25 ; and cf. Heb 9:27 ). It is “eternal,” timeless in its results. These last-named doctrines, although not specifically Christian, yet required to be brought before the notice of a Jewish convert that he might disentangle the Christian idea from the Jewish Messianic expectation of a resurrection of Israel to the enjoyment of the Messianic Kingdom, and of a judgment on the enemies of Israel ( Cf. Weiss).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

doctrine = teaching,

baptisms = washings. App-115.

laying on, &c. See Act 8:18; &c.

resurrection. Greek. anastasis. App-178.

dead. App-139.

eternal. Greek. aionios. App-151.

judgment. Greek. krima. App-177. Of the six things enumerated, two are esoteric experiences, two exoteric rites, two eschatological facts, and all have to do with the dispensation of the kingdom. Compare App-70and App-140

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2.] of the doctrine of washings (not baptisms: is generally the N. T. word for both Christian baptism and that of John. In reff., the word is used as here of washing, or lustration with water. On the meaning, see below. Our first question is, respecting the construction. The words are taken in two other ways besides that given above. 1. Some have taken and as two distinct genitives: so Chrys, (apparently, for he says, , …), an interp. given in c., ; …: and so Cajetan, Luther, Semler, Michaelis, al., and De Wette. But this seems very improbable. The rhythm of the sentence, which in all the other cases has two substantives in a clause, seems to forbid insulating the two words and forming a clause out of each: besides which, a double objection arises from the words themselves; that thus the plural would not be accounted for, and that thus also would have to bear a meaning which it is very doubtful if it can bear. 2. The two substantives being taken together, is made the genitive dependent on ,-those baptisms which were accompanied with , in distinction from those other washings, which were not so accompanied. This view is taken by Bengel (. . erant baptismi quos qui suscipiebant, doctrin sacr Judorum sese addicebant; itaque adjecto distinguuntur a lotionibus cteris leviticis), Winer (making however the distinction between Christian and Jewish baptism, 30. 3, Rem. 4, edn. 6), Michaelis, al. Still it cannot be denied that this would be a very strange expression, and that thus the plur. would be more unaccountable than ever, seeing that it would apply to one kind of baptism only, viz. the Christian. As regards the plur. , it has been very variously taken: by some as put for the singular, in which number the Syr. translates it: by Chrys. (to whom Calv. assents), as implying the repetition of baptism involved in the ,- ; , . . . , , , , : by Thl. and c. as pointing to a practice among the Hebrews of frequently repeating baptism ( , Thl.): by others, as referring to the threefold immersion in baptism: by Grot., al., de duplice baptismo, interiore et exteriore: by Thdrt. of the plurality of the recipients, : so Primas., Beza, Erasm. Schmid. But none of these seem to reach the point so well as that given above, which includes in the idea those various washings which were under the law, the baptism of John and even Christian baptism also perhaps included, the nature of which, and their distinctions from one another, would naturally be one of the fundamental and primary objects of teaching to Hebrew converts. This meaning, which is that of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schttg., Wolf, al., and Bhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Tholuck, al., is strongly combated by Lnemann, and the insecurity of the consideration arising from the different form of and – is urged on the ground that the Writer never uses : but against this we may fairly allege that he does use again (ch. Heb 9:10), and in the ordinary sense of Jewish washings, not in that of Christian baptism. When it is objected to the view (as e. g. by Stuart) that the doctrine of Jewish washings would have had nothing to do with the elements of Christian teaching, we may fairly say that such objection is brought in mere thoughtlessness. The converts being Jews, their first and most obviously elementary instruction would be, the teaching them the typical significance of their own ceremonial law in its Christian fulfilment. It is obvious from what has been above said, that we must not, as Erasm., Calv., Beza, Schlichting, al., understand the teaching given as introductory to baptism: Calvin identifying it with the other genitive terms of the sentence: Qu enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi quam hic recenset de fide in Deum, de pnitentia et de judicio, ac similibus?) and of laying on of hands (first, it is almost necessary, on account of the transposed place of , and the coupling by , to understand as gen. after , and not after (of the succeeding genitives, see below). And thus the doctrine of laying on of hands, like that of washings, not being confined to any one special rite, will mean, the reference and import of all that imposition of hands which was practised under the law, and found in some cases its continuance under the gospel. By laying on of hands, the sick were healed, Mar 16:18; Act 9:12; Act 9:17; Act 28:8; cf. 2Ki 5:11; Mat 9:18 al.; officers and teachers of the Church were admitted to their calling, Act 6:6; Act 13:3, 1Ti 4:14; 1Ti 5:22; Num 8:10; Num 27:18; Num 27:23; Deu 34:9; converts were fully admitted into the Christian Church after baptism, Act 8:17; Act 19:6 :2Ti 1:6. And there can be little doubt that it is mainly to this last that the attention of the readers is here called, as the Writer is speaking of the beginning of Christian teaching: so Chrys., : and Thdrt., . Some have thought that the principal reference is to the laying of hands on the scapegoat as a type of our Lords taking our sins upon Him: but this is unlikely) and of resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment (these words, as well as the foregoing clause, depend on . This would be evident, were it merely for the sense, seeing that it is not the facts themselves of the resurrection and the judgment which would be laid as the foundation of the , but the doctrine of these, that apprehension and recognition of them consequent on their being taught, as implies. And then notice, that these also were points of Jewish doctrine, confirmed and brought into clearer light by the Gospel. Some, as Est., Schlicht., Schttg., Michaelis, Storr, al., have supposed . to refer only to the righteous, as in Joh 6:39-40; Joh 6:44; Joh 6:54,- only to the wicked. But it is more probable, in a passage of such very general reference, that the Writer speaks generally, without any such distinction here in view, of the two doctrines: of the and the of Joh 5:29. And it is probable that he uses in the same indefinite meaning. Cf. ref. Acts.

, properly the result of , gradually became in later Greek, as other substantives in -, confounded with the process in , and the two used convertibly. Our Writer has both: cf. ch. Heb 10:27.

, probably as part of the proceedings of eternity, and thus bearing the character and stamp of eternal: or perhaps as Thl., , . So Erasm. (par.) and many others).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 6:2. ) is not put before ; for three pairs of chief particulars (heads) are enumerated, and the second particular (head) in every pair has the conjunction; but only the third pair is similarly connected: from which it is also evident, that and must not be separated. [39] were baptisms which were received by those who devoted themselves to the sacred doctrine of the Jews; therefore, by the addition of , they are distinguished from the other Levitical washings; ch. Heb 9:10.- ) of eternal judgment. See Mar 3:29, note.

[39] Bengel evidently understands these words, baptisms of or into doctrine, not as Engl. Vers., the doctrine of baptisms.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

the doctrine: Heb 9:10, Mar 7:4, Mar 7:8, Luk 11:38,*Gr: Mat 3:14, Mat 20:22, Mat 20:23, Mat 28:19, Mar 16:16, Luk 3:16, Luk 12:50, Joh 1:33, Joh 3:25, Joh 3:26, Joh 4:1, Joh 4:2, Act 2:38, Act 2:41, Act 8:12, Act 8:13, Act 8:16, Act 8:36-38, Act 10:47, Act 16:15, Act 16:33, Act 19:2-5, Rom 6:3, Rom 6:4, 1Co 1:12-17, 1Co 10:2, 1Co 12:13, Col 2:12, 1Pe 3:20, 1Pe 3:21

laying: Act 6:6, Act 8:14-18, Act 13:3, Act 19:6

resurrection: Heb 11:35, Isa 26:19, Eze 37:1-14, Dan 12:2, Mat 22:23-32, Luk 14:14, Joh 5:29, Joh 11:24, Joh 11:25, Act 4:2, Act 17:18, Act 17:31, Act 17:32, Act 23:6, Act 24:15, Act 24:21, Act 26:8, Rom 6:5, 1Co 15:13-57, Phi 3:21, 1Th 4:14-18, 2Ti 2:18

eternal: Ecc 12:14, Mat 25:31-46, Act 17:31, Act 24:25, Rom 2:5-10, Rom 2:16, 2Co 5:10, 2Pe 3:7, Jud 1:14, Jud 1:15, Rev 20:10-15

Reciprocal: Num 27:18 – lay Isa 30:26 – bindeth Mat 3:6 – were Joh 2:6 – after Joh 16:11 – judgment Act 8:17 – laid Act 9:17 – and putting 1Ti 5:22 – Lay 2Ti 1:6 – by the Heb 9:27 – but

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

BAPTISM AND CONFIRMATION

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands.

Heb 6:2

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews in giving his hasty review of fundamental religion, passes at once, and quite naturally, from repentancei.e. recognition of sin and human weakness, and of faith towards Godto the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands. In writing, as he does, to Jews, I would ask you to notice that he uses the plural, baptisms, because they would have to be taught to distinguish between their own baptismof proselytes, for instancewhich was symbolical, and St. Johns baptism, which was symbolical, and that of Christ, which conferred grace, grace of a particular kind suited to a particular need.

I. Christ Jesus emphasised, ordered under the most strict sanction, and laid it upon the Church as a fundamental obligation, that all who called upon His Name, all who were admitted to His society, should be baptized. That is to say, approach Him through an outward ordinance, which now for the first time gave what it symbolised, and effected that which it seemed to suggest. The Christian sacrament of baptism has equal power now in those who will accept it by repentance and faith; but we must be careful to regard it not as a charm acting automatically on all who receive it, so that in spite of themselves they are saved from the corruption that is in the world through sin. To say so would be to contradict experience. Not all baptized persons are even moral; and to say so would be equally contrary to the Word of God and to the testimony of His Church. Baptized persons are put into a state of salvation; a state in which, if they will, they may be saved, but are not mechanically saved in spite of their own will. Placed in the good ship of the Church, they may, if they will, navigate the rough waters of this troublesome world, but they may also cast themselves out and perish. But there is one thing that no thoughtful reader of the Bible can for one moment ignore, and it is this: the immense stress which is laid in the New Testament on the sacrament of baptism.

II. In the early days of the Church, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, it was customary for the Apostles to lay their hands on the newly baptized, and they received the Holy Ghost. There are few ordinances of the Church so misunderstood as Confirmation, or more unpopular with those who just now are seeking to impose a mutilated form of Christianity on the nation in the education of our children. Confirmation is not a mere renewing of baptismal vows by those who come to this ordinance. It is only, so to speak, by accident that this renewal of vows has anything to do with Confirmation at all. It has only been made part of our Confirmation Service in the Church of England since the seventeenth century, and it is not so used in any other part of the Church, and really only serves to emphasise that most important side of all Gods means of grace: the preparation of and the willing participation of the recipients. A child is in a condition to receive Gods grace if from his heart he can renew his baptismal vows. Confirmation, the laying on of hands, is something far different. It is an ordinance of strengthening, again as we believe, designed by Him Who being Man knew what man needednamely, Divine strength. Here is a child just going out into the world. The world lies before him, in all its seductive temptations. And it is strength the Church offers him in a special ordinance, in a special way, through the laying-on of apostolic hands, that he may continue Gods child for ever, and daily increase in Gods Holy Spirit more and more until He come to His everlasting kingdom.

Rev. Canon Newbolt.

Illustration

The history of the actor is well known who in the days of Imperial Rome was set to parody this sacrament of baptism on the stage; and in submitting to be baptized before the jeering heathen audience, he, by the grace of God, you will remember, experienced the full force of that sacrament which he had set himself to deride. In and through that sacrament God met him, and he declared himself as indeed a Christian, and received the crown of martyrdom.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Heb 6:2. Baptisms is from the Greek word BAPTISMOS which Thayer defines “A washing, purification effected by means of water.” It refers to the washing of animals prescribed by the Mosaic law. (See Exo 29:4 Exo 29:17 : Lev 1:9 Lev 9:14.) The word is never used for the ordinance o f Christian baptism. Laying on o f hands. Under the Mosaic system the priests or others laid their hands on the animals that were to be offered in the service (Lev 3:2 Lev 4:4 Lev 4:13 Lev 16:21). Resurrection of the dead . . . eternal judgement. These p h r as e s must be considered together, for they are connected with one of the erroneous theories that were maintained in those days, and were shared in by the Jews. The theory was false but Jesus never bothered about exposing it in His day. However, when the apostles came to induce the Jews to accept the Gospel, it was necessary to tell them they must give up such notions; that they must do “repentance from” such errors. The false theory referred to is known in historical literature as “Transmigration of sou1s,” T h e doctrine taught that when a man dies his soul passes into the body of another, thus enabling him to live again or experience a resurrection. If the person had been unrighteous, he would be punished by being sent into some other being who was afflicted, or into an abnormal child then being born. (See Joh 9:1-3.) If necessary this form of punishment or judgement would be repeated again and again. (a form of “eternal judgement”) as here expressed.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Still our apostle pursues his metaphor, in comparing Christianity to a building, and the first rudiments of principles of the Christian religion to a foundation which supports the superstructure. Next he summarily declares what these fundamental doctrines, and first principles of the Christian religion are, namely, these six.

1. Repentance, or a turning from all singul works, called dead works, because they end in death; dead, because deadly; they proceed from death spiritual, and end in death eternal.

2. Faith towards God, or faith in God; that is, in the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Particularly, faith in the first original promise of God, to send Christ into the world to save us from our sins, and granting remission of sins by him.

Here not, How closely repentance and faith are united and knit together; where the one is, there is the other; and where either is not, there is neither. He repenteth not, who hath not faith towards God, who repenteh not.

3. The doctrine of baptisms: that is, of both the Christian sacraments, as also of the covenant of grace, of which the sacraments are seals. Persons admitted into the church by baptism, ought to be well instrusted, as soon as capable of it, in the nature, use, and end of the sacraments; acquainting them not only with the nature of the outward sign, but with the necessity of the inward grace.

4. The doctrine of laying on of hands, to confirm the baptized persons in the faith, and to oblige and enable them to keep the covenant they entered into with God, when they were baptized; which was done before their admission to the Lord’s table.

Imposition, or laying on of hands, was on ancient and veverable rite, used in the primitive church upon several occasions; particularly, in ordination, in absolution of penitents, in healing the sick, in conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost, Act 8:17.

And lastly, in confirmation, when baptized persons were brought before the church to acknowledge, confirm, and renew their baptismal covenant with God; and to receive the benefit of public prayer and episcopal benediction, in order to the further endowments of grace to perform their vows, adorn their profession, and be admitted to the Lord’s table, as complete members of the visible church of Christ.

5. The ressurection of the dead, a doctrine denied by the Sadducees, derided by the Athenian phiposophers, and perverted by heretics; but is a fundamental principle of the gospel; the faith whereof is indispensibly necessary unto our consolation, and has a peculiar influence upon our obedience. This is the animating principle of gospel-obedience, because we are assured that our services shall not only be remembered, but rewarded also.

6. The eternal judgement, which wiil doom men to everlasting rewards and punishments in a future state. The ministers of the gospel ought to dwell much upon this fundamental principle of religion, to represent the dread and terror of that eternal day to all men, to the intent they may be excited and stirred up to take effectual care that they fall not under the vengeance of that fatal day.

These six principles being laid down by the apostle, he tells them his resolution, to endeavour the carrying of them on to a more perfect degree and measure of knowledge in the mysteries of the gospel; in order to their becoming skillful in the word of righteousness; “Leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; which we will do, if God permit.”

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Verse 2

Laying on of hands; the ceremony by which the Holy Spirit was conferred upon new converts. (Acts 8:14-17,19:6.)

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

They did not need further instruction in four other subjects either. "Washings" evidently refers to the doctrine of spiritual cleansing. The Greek word translated "washings" is baptismos that refers to Jewish ceremonial washings whenever it occurs in the New Testament (Mar 7:4; Mar 7:8; Heb 9:10). A different Greek word (baptisma) describes Christian baptism. This means the writer here referred not to baptism but to spiritual cleansing.

The "laying on of hands" in Judaism was part of the sacrificial ritual (Lev 1:4; Lev 3:2; Lev 4:4; Lev 8:14; Lev 16:21; et al.) and commissioning for public office (Num 27:18; Num 27:23; Deu 34:9; cf. Act 6:6; Act 13:3). In the early church the imparting of the Holy Spirit sometimes accompanied this practice (Act 8:17-18; Act 19:6; cf. Heb 6:4; Heb 2:4; Heb 10:29).

The Old Testament taught the resurrection of the dead (Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2) and eternal judgment (Gen 18:25; Isa 33:22).

"We are responsible people, and one day we shall rise from the dead and give account of ourselves to God. This must have been of importance to new converts in a time when many people thought of death as the end of everything." [Note: Morris, p. 54.]

The writer presented the six foundational teachings in Heb 6:1-2 in three pairs: (1) repentance from dead works, and faith toward God (Heb 6:1), (2) instruction about washings, and laying on of hands (Heb 6:2 a), and (3) instruction about the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment (Heb 6:2 b). The structure of this sentence in Greek suggests that the last two pairs explain the first pair. Laying the foundation of repentance and faith consists of instruction regarding washings, sortilege (laying on hands), resurrection, and judgment. The first pair points God-ward, the second man-ward, and the third forward into the future.

Each of these teachings was foundational in Judaism as well as in Christianity. Most of the original readers would have come to believe these truths even before they became Christians. They are very basic.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)