Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 6:6
If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.
6. if they shall fall away ] This is one of the most erroneous translations in the A.V. The words can only mean “ and have fallen away ” (comp. Heb 2:1, Heb 3:12, Heb 10:26; Heb 10:29), and the position of the participle gives it tremendous force. It was once thought that our translators had here been influenced by theological bias to give such a rendering as should least conflict with their Calvinistic belief in the “indefectibility of grace” or in “Final Perseverance” i.e. that no converted person, no one who has ever become regenerate, and belonged to the number of “the elect” can ever fall away. It was thought that, for this reason, they had put this clause in the form of a mere hypothesis. It is now known however that the mistake of our translators was derived from older sources (e.g. Tyndale and the Genevan) and was not due to bias. Calvin was himself far too good a scholar to defend this view of the clause. He attempted to get rid of it by denying that the strong expressions in Heb 6:4-5 describe the regenerate. He applies them to false converts or half converts who become reprobate a view which, as we have seen, is not tenable. The falling away means apostasy, the complete and wilful renunciation of Christianity. Thus it is used by the LXX. to represent the Hebrew mal which in 2Ch 29:19 they render by “ apostasy ”
to renew them again unto repentance ] The verb here used ( anakainizein) came to mean “to rebaptise.” If the earlier clauses seemed to clash with the Calvinistic dogma of the “indefectibility of grace,” this expression seemed too severe for the milder theology of the Arminians. Holding and rightly that Scripture never closes the door of forgiveness to any repentant sinner, they argued, wrongly, that the “impossible” of Heb 6:4 could only mean “very difficult,” a translation which is actually given to the word in some Latin Versions. The solution of the difficulty is not to be arrived at by tampering with plain words. What the author says is that “when those who have tasted the heavenly gift have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them to repentance.” He does not say that the Hebrews have so fallen away; nor does he directly assert that any true convert can thus fall away; but he does say that when such apostasy occurs and a point of extreme importance which is constantly overlooked so long as it lasts (see the next clause) a vital renewal is impossible. There can, he implies, be no second “Second Birth.” The sternness of the passage is in exact accordance with Heb 10:26-29 (comp. 1Pe 2:20-21); but “the impossibility lies merely within the limits of the hypothesis itself.” See our Article xvi.
seeing they crucify ] Rather, “while crucifying,” “ crucifying as they are doing.” Thus the words imply not only an absolute, but a continuous apostasy, for the participle is changed from the past into the present tense. While men continue in wilful and willing sin they preclude all possibility of the action of grace. So long as they cling deliberately to their sins, they shut against themselves the open door of grace. A drop of water will, as the Rabbis said, suffice to purify a man who has accidentally touched a creeping thing, but an ocean will not suffice for his cleansing so long as he purposely keeps it held in his hand. There is such a thing as “doing despite unto the spirit of grace” (Heb 10:29).
to themselves ] This is what is called “the dative of disadvantage” “to their own destruction.”
We see then that this passage has been perverted in a multitude of ways from its plain meaning, which is, that so long as wilful apostasy continues there is no visible hope for it. On the other hand the passage does not lend itself to the violent oppositions of old controversies. In the recognition that, to our human point of view, there does appear to be such a thing as Divine dereliction this passage and Heb 10:26-29, Heb 12:15-17 must be compared with the passages which touch on the unpardonable sin, and the sin against the Holy Ghost (1Jn 5:16; Mat 12:31-32; comp. Isa 8:21). On the other hand it is as little meant to be “a rock of despair” as “a pillow of security.” He is pointing out to Hebrew Christians with awful faithfulness the fatal end of deliberate and insolent apostasy. But we have no right to suppose that he has anything in view beyond the horizon of revealed possibilities. He is thinking of the teaching and ministry of the Church, not of the Omnipotence of God. With men it is impossible that a camel should go through the eye of a needle, but “with God all things are possible,” (Mat 19:26; Mar 10:20-27; Luk 18:27). In the face of sin above all of deliberate wretchlessness we must remember that “God is not mocked” (Gal 6:7), and that our human remedies are then exhausted. On the other hand to close the gate of repentance against any contrite sinner is to contradict all the Gospels and all the Epistles alike, as well as the Law and the Prophets.
and put him to an open shame ] Expose Him to scorn (comp. Mat 1:19 where the simple verb is used).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
If they shall fall away – literally, and having fallen away. There is no if in the Greek in this place – having fallen away. Dr. John P. Wilson. It is not an affirmation that any had actually fallen away, or that in fact they would do it; but the statement is, that on the supposition that they had fallen away, it would be impossible to renew them again. It is the same as supposing a case which in fact might never occur: as if we should say, had a man fallen down a precipice it would be impossible to save him, or had the child fallen into the stream he would certainly have been drowned. But though this literally means, having fallen away, yet the sense in the connection in which it stands is not improperly expressed by our common translation. The Syriac has given a version which is remarkable, not as a correct translation, but as showing what was the prevailing belief in the time in which it was made, (probably the first or second century), in regard to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. For it is impossible that they who have been baptized, and who have tasted the gift which is from heaven, and have received the spirit of holiness, and have tasted the good word of God, and the power of the coming age, should again sin, so that they should be renewed again to repentance, and again crucify the Son of God and put him to ignominy.
The word rendered fall away means properly to fall near by anyone; to fall in with or meet; and thus to fall aside from, to swerve or deviate from; and here means undoubtedly to apostatize from, and implies an entire renunciation of Christianity, or a going back to a state of Judaism, paganism, or sin. The Greek word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is material to remark here that the apostle does not say that any true Christian ever had fallen away. He makes a statement of what would occur on the supposition that such a thing should happen – but a statement may be made of what would occur on the supposition that a certain thing should take place, and yet it be morally certain that the event never would happen. It would be easy to suppose what would happen if the ocean should overflow a continent, or if the sun should cease to rise, and still there be entire certainty that such an event never would occur.
To renew them again – Implying that they had been before renewed, or had been true Christians. The word again – palin – supposes this; and this passage, therefore, confirms the considerations suggested above, showing that they were true Christians who were referred to. They had once repented, but it would be impossible to bring them to this state again. This declaration of course is to be read in connection with the first clause of Heb 6:4, It is impossible to renew again to repentance those who once were true Christians should they fall away. I know of no declaration more unambiguous than this. It is a positive declaration. It is not that it would be very difficult to do it; or that it would be impossible for man to do it, though it might be done by God; it is an unequivocal and absolute declaration that it would be utterly impracticable that it should be done by anyone, or by any means; and this, I have no doubt, is the meaning of the apostle. Should a Christian fall from grace, he must perish. he never could be saved. The reason of this the apostle immediately adds.
Seeing – This word is not in the Greek, though the sense is expressed. The Greek literally is, having again crucified to themselves the Son of God. The reason here given is, that the crime would be so great, and they would so effectually exclude themselves from the only plan of salvation, that they could not be saved. There is but one way of salvation. Having tried that, and then renounced it, how could they then be saved? The case is like that of a drowning man. If there was but one plank by which he could be saved, and he should get on that and then push it away and plunge into the deep, he must die. Or if there was but one rope by which the shore could be reached from a wreck, and he should cut that and cast it off, he must die. Or if a man were sick, and there was but one kind of medicine that could possibly restore him, and he should deliberately dash that away, he must die. So in religion. There is but one way of salvation. If a man deliberately rejects that, he must perish.
They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh – Our translators have rendered this as if the Greek were – anastaurountas palin – crucify again, and so it is rendered by Chrysostom, by Tyndale, Coverdale, Beza, Luther, and others. But this is not properly the meaning of the Greek. The word anastauroo – is an intensive word, and is employed instead of the usual word to crucify only to denote emphasis. It means that such an act of apostasy would be equivalent to crucifying him in an aggravated manner. Of course this is to be taken figuratively. It could not be literally true that they would thus crucify the Redeemer. The meaning is, that their conduct would be as if they had crucified him; it would bear a strong resemblance to the act by which the Lord Jesus was publicly rejected and condemned to die. The act of crucifying the Son of God was the great crime which outpeers any other deed of human guilt. Yet the apostle says that should they who had been true Christians fall away and reject him, they would be guilty of a similar crime. It would be a public and solemn act of rejecting him. It would show that if they had been there they would have joined in the cry crucify him, crucify him. The intensity and aggravation of such a crime perhaps the apostle meant to indicate by the intensive or emphatic ana in the word anastaurountas. Such an act would render their salvation impossible, because:
(1) The crime would be aggravated beyond that of those who rejected him and put him to death – for they knew not what they did; and,
(2) Because it would be a rejection of the only possible plan of salvation after they had had experience of its power and known its efficacy.
The phrase to themselves, Tyndale readers, as concerning themselves. Others, as far as in them lies, or as far as they have ability to do. Others, to their own heart. Probably Grotius has suggested the true sense. They do it for themselves. They make the act their own. It is as if they did it themselves; and they are to he regarded as having done the deed. So we make the act of another our own when we authorize it beforehand, or approve of it after it is done.
And put him to an open shame – Make him a public example; or hold him up as worthy of death on the cross; see the same word explained in the notes on Mat 1:19, in the phrase make her a public example. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Their apostasy and rejection of the Saviour would be like holding him up publicly as deserving the infamy and ignominy of the cross. A great part of the crime attending the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, consisted in exhibiting him to the passing multitude as deserving the death of a malefactor. Of that sin they would partake who should reject him, for they would thus show that they regarded his religion as an imposture, and would in a public manner hold him up as worthy only of rejection and contempt. Such, it seems to me, is the fair meaning of this much-disputed passage – a passage which would never have given so much perplexity if it had not been supposed that the obvious interpretation would interfere with some prevalent articles of theology. The passage proves that if true Christians should apostatize, it would be impossible to renew and save them. If then it should be asked whether I believe that any true Christian ever did, or ever will fall from grace, and wholly lose his religion, I would answer unhesitatingly, no! (compare the Joh 10:27-28 notes; Rom 8:38-39 notes; Gal 6:4 note.) If then it be asked what was the use of a warning like this, I answer:
(1) It would show the great sin of apostasy from God if it were to occur. It is proper to state the greatness of an act of sin, though it might never occur, in order to show how it would be regarded by God.
(2) Such a statement might be one of the most effectual means of preserving from apostasy. To state that a fall from a precipice would cause certain death, would be one of the most certain means of preserving one from falling; to affirm that arsenic would be certainly fatal, is one of the most effectual means of preventing its being taken; to know that fire certainly destroys, is one of the most sure checks from the danger. Thousands have been preserved from going over the Falls of Niagara by knowing that there would be no possibility of escape; and so effectual has been this knowledge that it has preserved all from such a catastrophe, except the very few who have gone over by accident. So in religion. The knowledge that apostasy would be fatal, and there could be no hope of being of the danger than all the other means that could be used. If a man believed that it would be an easy matter to be restored again should he apostatize, he would feel little solicitude in regard to it; and it has occurred in fact, that they who suppose that this may occur, have manifested little of the care to walk in the paths of strict religion, which should have been evinced.
(3) It may be added, that the means used by God to preserve his people from apostasy, have been entirely effectual. There is no evidence that one has ever fallen away who was a true Christian, (compare Joh 10:27-28, and 1Jo 2:19); and to the end of the world it will be true that the means which he uses to keep his people from apostasy will not in a single instance fail.
(This view seems not opposed to the doctrine of the saints perseverance. It professes indeed, to meet the objection usually raised from the passage, if not in a new mode, yet in a mode different from that commonly adopted by orthodox expositors. Admitting that true Christians are intended, it is asserted only, that if they should fall, their recovery would be impossible, It is not said that they ever have fallen or will fall. The apostle in thus giving judgment on the case, if it should happen, does not declare that it actually does. And as to the use of supposing a case which never can occur, it is argued that means are constantly used to bring about what the decree or determination of God had before rendered certain. These exhortations are the means by which perseverance is secured.
Yet it may be doubted, whether there be anything in the passage to convince us, that the apostle has introduced an impossible case. He seems rather to speak of what might happen, of which there was danger. If the reader incline to this view, he will apply the description to professors, and learn from it how far these may go, and yet fall short of the mark. But how would this suit the apostles design? Well. If professors may go so far, how much is this fact suited to arouse all to vigilance and inquiry. We, notwithstanding our gifts and apparent graces, may not be true Christians, may, therefore, not be secure, may fall away and sink, under the doom of him whom it is impossible to renew. And he must be a very exalted Christian indeed, who does not occasionally find need of inquiry, and examination of evidences. Certainly, the whole passage may be explained in perfect consistency with this application of it.
Men may be enlightened, that is, well acquainted with the doctrines and duties of the Christian faith; may have tasted of the heavenly gift, and been made partakers of the Holy Spirit in his miraculous influences, which many in primitive times enjoyed, without any sanctifying virtue; may have tasted the good word of God, or experienced impressions of affection and joy under it, as in the case of the stony ground hearers; may have tasted the powers of the world to come, or been influenced by the doctrine of a future state, with its accompanying rewards and punishments; – and yet not be true Christians. All these things, except miraculous gifts, often take place in the hearts and consciences of people in these days, who yet continue unregenerate. They have knowledge, convictions, fears, hope, joys, and seasons of apparent earnestness, and deep concern about eternal things; and they are endued with such gifts, as often make them acceptable and useful to others, but they are not truly humbled; they are not spiritually minded; religion is not their element and delight – Scott.
It should be observed, moreover, that while there are many infallible marks of the true Christian, none of these are mentioned in this place. The persons described are not said to have been elected, to have been regenerated, to have believed, or to have been sanctified. The apostle writes very differently when describing the character and privileges of the saints, Rom 8:27, Rom 8:30. The succeeding context, too, is supposed to favor this opinion.
They (the characters in question) are, in the following verses, compared to the ground on which the rain often falls, and beareth nothing but thorns and briars. But this is not so with true believers, for faith itself is an herb special to the enclosed garden of Christ. And the apostle afterward, discoursing of true belief, doth in many particulars distinguish them from such as may be apostates, which is supposed of the persons here intended. He ascribeth to them, in general, better things. and such as accompany salvation. He ascribes a work and labor of love, asserts their preservation, etc. – Owen.
Our author, however, fortifies himself against the objection in the first part of this quotation, by repeating and applying at Rom 8:7, his principle of exposition. The design, says he, is to show, that if Christians should be come like the barren earth, they would be cast away and lost.
Yet the attentive reader of this very ingenious exposition will observe, that the author has difficulty in carrying out his principles, and finds it necessary to introduce the mere professor ere he has done with the passage. It is not supposed, says he, commenting on the 8th verse, that a true Christian will fall away and be lost, but we may remark, that there are many professed Christians who seem to be in danger of such ruin. Corrupt desires are as certainly seen in their lives, as thorns on a bad soil. Such are nigh unto cursing. Unsanctified, etc., there is nothing else which can be done for them, and they must be lost. What a thought! Yet that the case of the professor in danger cannot very consistently be introduced by him, appears from the fact, that such ruin as is here described is suspended on a condition which never occurs. It happens only if the Christian should fall. According to the author, it is not here denounced on any other supposition. As then true Christians cannot fall, the ruin never can occur in any case whatever. From these premises we dare not draw the conclusion, that any class of professors will be given over to final impenitence.
As to what may be alleged concerning the apparent sense of the passage, or the sense which would strike the mass of readers; every one will judge according to the sense which himself thinks most obvious. Few perhaps would imagine that the apostle was introducing an impossible case. Nor does the connection stand much in the way of the application to professors. In addition to what has already been stated, let it be further observed, that although the appropriate exhortation to awakened, yet unconverted persons would be, to become converted; not to warn them of the danger of falling away; yet the apostle is writing to the Hebrews at large, is addressing a body of professing Christians, concerning whom he could have no infallible assurance that all of them were true Christians. Therefore, it was right that they should be warned in the way the apostle has adopted. The objection leaves out of sight the important fact that the exhortations and warnings addressed to the saints in Scripture are addressed to mixed societies, in which there may be hypocrites as well as believers.
Those who profess the faith, and associate with the church, are addressed without any decision regarding state. But the very existence of the warnings implies a fear that there may be some whose state is not safe. And all, therefore, have need to inquire whether this be their condition. How appropriate then such warnings. This consideration, too, will furnish an answer to what has been alleged by another celebrated transatlantic writer, namely, that whatever may be true in the divine purposes as to the final salvation of all those who are once truly regenerated. and this doctrine I feel constrained to admit, yet nothing can be plainer, than that the sacred writers have every where addressed saints in the same manner as they would address those whom they considered as constantly exposed to fall away and to perish forever. Lastly. The phraseology of the passage does not appear to remove it out of all possible application to mere professors.
It has already been briefly explained in consistency with such application. There is a difficulty, indeed, connected with the phrase, palin anakainizein eis metanoian, again to renew to repentance; implying, as is said, that they, to whom reference is made, had been renewed before. But what should hinder this being understood of reinstating in former condition, or in possession of former privilege; Bloomfield supposes, there may be an allusion to the non-reiteration of baptism, and Owen explains the phrase of bringing them again into a state of profession by a second renovation, and a second baptism, as a pledge thereof. The renewing he understands here externally of a solemn confession of faith and repentance, followed by baptism. This, says he, was their anakainismos, their renovation. It would seem then that there is nothing in the phrase to prevent its interpretation on the same principle that above has been applied to the passage generally.)
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. If they shall fall away] And having fallen away. I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: “The participles , who were enlightened, , have tasted, and , were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore, , being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, HAVE fallen away. Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, IF they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses.”
Dr. Macknight was a Calvinist, and he was a thorough scholar and an honest man; but, professing to give a translation of the epistle, he consulted not his creed but his candour. Had our translators, who were excellent and learned men, leaned less to their own peculiar creed in the present authorized version, the Church of Christ in this country would not have been agitated and torn as it has been with polemical divinity.
It appears from this, whatever sentiment may gain or lose by it, that there is a fearful possibility of falling away from the grace of God; and if this scripture did not say so, there are many that do say so. And were there no scripture express on this subject, the nature of the present state of man, which is a state of probation or trial, must necessarily imply it. Let him who most assuredly standeth, take heed lest he fall.
To renew them again unto repentance] As repentance is the first step that a sinner must take in order to return to God, and as sorrow for sin must be useless in itself unless there be a proper sacrificial offering, these having rejected the only available sacrifice, their repentance for sin, had they any, would be nugatory, and their salvation impossible on this simple account; and this is the very reason which the apostle immediately subjoins:-
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God] They reject him on the ground that he was an impostor, and justly put to death. And thus they are said to crucify him to themselves-to do that in their present apostasy which the Jews did; and they show thereby that, had they been present when he was crucified, they would have joined with his murderers.
And put him to an open shame.] . And have made him a public example; or, crucifying unto themselves and making the Son of God a public example. That is, they show openly that they judge Jesus Christ to have been worthy of the death which he suffered, and was justly made a public example by being crucified. This shows that it is final apostasy, by the total rejection of the Gospel, and blasphemy of the Saviour of men, that the apostle has in view. See the note on “Heb 6:4“.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If they shall fall away; a falling away, or apostatizing, in proportion like Adam, such a as his was, Rom 5:15-17, whereby they are totally unchristianed, as he was turned into a sinner; perfidiously revolting from all those supernatural workings of the Holy Ghost, whereby their natural spirit was elevated, but not changed, unto their old swinish and canine temper of spirit and course of life that they led before they professed themselves Christians, as 2Pe 2:18-22. They freely forsake their professed Christian state, and make shipwreck of all; Jud 1:4,10,16,18,19. Whether , again, ought to be referred to falling away, so as to denominate the apostate no Christian, as he was at first, before his profession, or to renewing following, it makes no difficulty, for it is a real truth in both parts; only interpreters generally refer it to the latter, as do ours, and so we shall consider it.
To renew them again unto repentance; they cannot renew and bring themselves to the same state they enjoyed, and from which they fell; nor can the Christian ministry do it by their exhortations or counsels, thunders or comforts; the offended, wronged Spirit withdraws, and will not assist or elevate theirs to act above nature again, Gen 6:3; Isa 63:10; but leaves them justly to themselves, so as he will neither by himself, nor by others, suffer it to be done having limited his power by his will in it. They shall neither have a new principle infused into them, nor their minds or hearts changed by him to repentance, because they have undervalued his lower operations and motions on their souls, revealing Christ to them through the gospel, and have by their sinful negligence not improved them to seek from him the better and higher ones which he mentions, Heb 6:9,10, and were to be effected by the exceeding greatness of his power.
Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh: that which renders this renovation of them impossible, is their ill treatment, by their apostacy, of their Redeemer, who was to bring them as children to glory, which they by the gospel knew, and by profession owned him ascended and sat down on the right hand of God, and who had, by the operation of his Spirit, elevated their natural principles so to discern him, and to confess him: by this their apostacy they look on him as an impostor and deceiver, as 2Pe 2:1; Jud 1:4, and deny him to be a Saviour to them, rejecting his sacrifice, and would, as much as in them lieth, dethrone him, and, if he were within their reach, would crucify him again, and tread him under their feet, as Heb 10:29, and actually do it to him in his members; as the apostate Julian did in former ages, and the papists do at this day.
And put him to an open shame; , making him a public shameful example, as the Jews did by the most cruel and ignominious death, with all their reproachful carriages to him then, which he despised, Heb 12:2, and in which his are to imitate him, Heb 13:13; so do these apostates verbally and practically blaspheme and disgrace him; in their esteem vilifying him, and by their apostacy put him to an open and public ignominy, and make him a spectacle of the vilest reproach, as if they could find no good in him, and therefore renounced him; and this to the condemning and destroying of themselves, since they cannot repent, Christ having not purchased it for, nor God promised it to, any such: so as by the law of his kingdom their sin is irremissible, the blood of Christ, that could only remove it, being profaned and trampled on by it, and so their final destruction unavoidable.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. IfGreek, “And(yet) have fallen away”; compare a less extreme fallingor declension, Ga 5:4, “Yeare fallen from grace.” Here an entire and wilful apostasy ismeant; the Hebrews had not yet so fallen away; but he warns them thatsuch would be the final result of retrogression, if, instead of”going on to perfection,” they should need to learn againthe first principles of Christianity (Heb6:1).
to renew them againTheyhave been “once” (Heb 6:4)already renewed, or made anew, and now they need to be”renewed” over “again.”
crucify to themselves the Sonof God“are crucifiying to themselves” Christ,instead of, like Paul, crucifying the world unto them by the crossof Christ (Ga 6:14). So inHeb 10:29, “trodden underfoot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith. . . sanctified, an unholy thing.” “The Son of God,”marking His dignity, shows the greatness of their offense.
put him to an openshameliterally, “make a public example of” Him, asif He were a malefactor suspended on a tree. What the carnal Israeldid outwardly, those who fall away from light do inwardly, theyvirtually crucify again the Son of God; “they tear him out ofthe recesses of their hearts where He had fixed His abode and exhibitHim to the open scoffs of the world as something powerless andcommon” [BLEEK inALFORD]. The Montanistsand Novatians used this passage to justify the lasting exclusion fromthe Church of those who had once lapsed. The Catholic Church alwaysopposed this view, and readmitted the lapsed on their repentance, butdid not rebaptize them. This passage implies that persons may be insome sense “renewed,” and yet fall away finally; for thewords, “renew again,” imply that they have been, insome sense, not the full sense, ONCERENEWED by the Holy Ghost; but certainly not that they are”the elect,” for these can never fall away, being chosenunto everlasting life (Joh 10:28).The elect abide in Christ, hear and continuously obey His voice, anddo not fall away. He who abides not in Christ, is cast forth as awithered branch; but he who abides in Him becomes more and more freefrom sin; the wicked one cannot touch him; and he by faith overcomesthe world. A temporary faith is possible, without one therebybeing constituted one of the elect (Mar 4:16;Mar 4:17). At the same time itdoes not limit God’s grace, as if it were “impossible” forGod to reclaim even such a hardened rebel so as yet to look onHim whom he has pierced. The impossibility rests in their havingknown in themselves once the power of Christ’s sacrifice, and yet nowrejecting it; there cannot possibly be any new means devisedfor their renewal afresh, and the means provided by God’s love theynow, after experience of them, deliberately and continuously reject;their conscience being served, and they “twice dead” (Jude12), are now past hope, except by a miracle of God’s grace. “Itis the curse of evil eternally to propagate evil” [THOLUCK].”He who is led into the whole (?) compass of Christianexperiences, may yet cease to abide in them; he who abides not inthem, was, at the very time when he had those objective experiences,not subjectively true to them; otherwise there would have beenfulfilled in him, “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and heshall have more abundance” (Mt13:12), so that he would have abided in them and not have fallenaway” [THOLUCK]. Sucha one was never truly a Spirit-led disciple of Christ (Ro8:14-17). The sin against the Holy Ghost, though somewhatsimilar, is not identical with this sin; for that sin may becommitted by those outside the Church (as in Mat 12:24;Mat 12:31; Mat 12:32);this, only by those inside.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If they shall fall away,…. This is not supposed of true believers, as appears from Heb 6:9 nor is it to be supposed of them that they may fall totally and finally; they may indeed fall, not only into afflictions and temptations, but into sin; and from a lively and comfortable exercise of grace, and from a degree of steadfastness in the Gospel; but not irrecoverably: for they are held and secured by a threefold cord, which can never be broken; by God the Father, who has loved them with an everlasting love, has chosen them in Christ, secured them in the covenant of grace, keeps them by his power, has given them grace, and will give them glory; and by the Son, who has undertook for them, redeemed and purchased them, prays and makes preparations in heaven for them, they are built on him, united to him, and are his jewels, whom he will preserve; and by the Holy Ghost, whose grace is incorruptible, whose personal indwelling is for ever, who himself is the earnest and seal of the heavenly inheritance, and who having begun, will finish the good work of grace: but falling away, so as to perish, may be supposed, and is true of many professors of religion; who may fall from the profession of the Gospel they have made, and from the truth of it, and into an open denial of it; yea, into an hatred and persecution of what they once received the external knowledge of; and so shall fall short of heaven, and into condemnation: for,
to renew them again unto repentance, is a thing impossible: by “repentance” is meant, not baptism of repentance; nor admission to a solemn form of public repentance in the church; nor a legal repentance, but an evangelical one: and so to be “renewed” unto it is not to be baptized again, or to be restored anew to the church by repentance, and absolution; but must be understood either of renovation of the soul, in order to repentance; or of the reforming of the outward conversation, as an evidence of it; or of a renewing of the exercise of the grace of repentance and to be renewed “again” to repentance does not suppose that persons may have true repentance and lose it; for though truly penitent persons may lose the exercise of this grace for a time, yet the grace itself can never be lost: moreover, these apostates before described had only a show of repentance, a counterfeit one; such as Cain, Pharaoh, and Judas had; and consequently, the renewing of them again to repentance, is to that which they only seemed to have, and to make pretensions unto; now to renew them to a true repentance, which they once made a profession of, the apostle says is a thing “impossible”: the meaning of which is not only that it is difficult; or that it is rare and unusual; or that it is unsuitable and improper; but it is absolutely impossible: it is impossible to these men to renew themselves to repentance; renovation is the work of the Holy Ghost, and not of man; and repentance is God’s gift, and not in man’s power; and it is impossible for ministers to renew them, to restore and bring them back, by true repentance; yea, it is impossible to God himself, not through any impotence in him, but from the nature of the sin these men are guilty of; for by the high, though outward attainments they arrive unto, according to the description of them, their sin is the sin against the Holy Ghost, for which no sacrifice can be offered up, and of which there is no remission, and so no repentance; for these two go together, and for which prayer is not to be made; see
Mt 12:32 and chiefly because to renew such persons to repentance, is repugnant to the determined will of God, who cannot go against his own purposes and resolutions; and so the Jews l speak of repentance being withheld by God from Pharaoh, and, from the people of Israel; of which they understand Ex 9:16 and say, that when the holy blessed God withholds repentance from a sinner, , “he cannot repent”; but must die in his wickedness which he first committed of his own will; and they further observe m, that he that profanes the name of God has it not in his power to depend on repentance, nor can his iniquity be expiated on the day of atonement, or be removed by chastisement:
seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh; who is truly and properly God, begotten of the Father, and of the same nature with him, in whom he greatly delights; this is Christ’s highest name and title; and it was for asserting himself to be the Son of God that he was crucified; and his being so puts an infinite virtue in his sufferings and death; and it heightens the sin of the Jews, and of these apostates, in crucifying him. He was once crucified, and it is both impossible and unnecessary that he should be, properly speaking, “crucified afresh”, or “again”; it is impossible, because he is risen from the dead, and will never die more; it is unnecessary, because he has finished and completed what he suffered the death of the cross for; but men may be said to crucify him again, when, by denying him to be the Son of God, they justify the crucifixion of him on that account; and when they lessen and vilify the virtue of his blood and sacrifice; and when both by errors and immoralities they cause him to be blasphemed, and evil spoken of; and when they persecute him in his members: and this may be said to be done “to themselves afresh”; not that Christ was crucified for them before, but that they now crucify him again, as much as in them lies; or “with themselves”, in their own breasts and minds, and to their own destruction. Now this being the case, it makes their renewal to repentance impossible; because, as before observed, the sin they commit is unpardonable; it is a denial of Christ, who gives repentance; and such who sin it must arrive to such hardness of heart as to admit of no repentance; and it is just with God to give up such to a final impenitence, as those, who knowingly and out of malice and envy crucified Christ, had neither pardon nor repentance; and besides, this sin of denying Christ to be the Son of God, and Saviour of men, after so much light and knowledge, precludes the way of salvation, unless Christ was to be crucified again, which is impossible; for so the Syriac version connects this clause with the word “impossible”, as well as a foregoing one, rendering it, “it is impossible to crucify the Son of God again, and to put him to shame”; and so the Arabic version. Christ was put to open shame at the time of his apprehension, prosecution, and crucifixion; and so he is by such apostates, who, was he on earth, would treat him in the same manner the Jews did; and who do traduce him as an impostor and a deceiver, and give the lie to his doctrines, and expose him by their lives, and persecute him in his saints.
l Maimon. Hilchot. Teshuba, c. 6. sect. 3. m Vid. R. David Kimchi in Isa. xxii. 14.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
It is impossible to renew them again ( ). The (impossible) comes first in verse 4 without (is) and there is no “them” in the Greek. There are three other instances of in Hebrews (Heb 6:18; Heb 10:4; Heb 11:6). The present active infinitive of (late verb, , , here only in the N.T., but , 2Cor 4:16; Col 3:10) with bluntly denies the possibility of renewal for apostates from Christ (cf. 3:12-4:2). It is a terrible picture and cannot be toned down. The one ray of light comes in verses 8-12, not here.
Seeing they crucify to themselves afresh ( ). Present active participle (accusative plural agreeing with … ) of , the usual verb for crucify in the old Greek so that – here does not mean “again” or “afresh,” but “up,” sursum, not rursum (Vulgate). This is the reason why renewal for such apostates is impossible. They crucify Christ.
And put him to an open shame ( ). Present active participle of , late verb from (example), to make an example of, and in bad sense to expose to disgrace. Simplex verb in this sense in Mt 1:19.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
If they shall fall away [ ] . Lit. and having fallen away. Comp. pesh fall, ch. 4 11. Parapiptein, N. T. o. It means to deviate, turn aside. Comp. LXX, Eze 14:13; Eze 14:8.
To renew them again [ ] . The verb N. T. o. Anakainoun to renew, 2Co 4:16; Col 3:10.
Seeing they crucify to themselves – afresh [ ] . In the Roman classical use of the word, ajna has only the meaning up : to nail up on the cross. Here in the sense of anew, an idea for which classical writers had no occasion in connection with crucifying. 195 Eautoiv for themselves. So that Christ is no more available for them. They declare that Christ ‘s crucifixion has not the meaning or the virtue which they formerly attached to it.
The Son of God. Marking the enormity of the offense.
Put him to an open shame [] . N. T. o. Rarely in LXX Comp. Num 25:4, hang them up. From para beside, deiknunai to show or point out. To put something alongside of a thing by way of commending it to imitation or avoidance. To make an example of; thence to expose to public disgrace. Deigma example, only Jude 1:7. Deigmatizein to make a public show or example, Mt 1:19; Col 2:15. See additional note at the end of this chapter.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “If they shall fall away,” (kai parapesontas) “Even (those) falling away,” or having fallen away, from going on to maturity, growing up to perfection, real usefulness as children of God; Time lost, opportunity lost, is gone forever; Such was the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and certain members of the Corinth church, Act 5:1-11; 1Co 11:29-30.
2) “To renew them again unto repentance,” (palin anakainizein eis metanoian) “To renew or restore them again to repentance;” No one can ever be saved a second time. The setting of this chapter context is that children of God should commit themselves to daily discipline of Divine obedience to God in growth in Spiritual things to which they are called, Heb 6:1-12; Repentance is to life, once for all, Act 3:19; 2Co 7:11, and to service.
3) “Seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh,” (ana staurountas heautous ton huion tou theou) “As they are crucifying to or for themselves (again) the Son of God,” simply living, existing in his fresh crucifixion, but refusing to confess him, serve him, follow him, as the resurrected Christ openly, as a soldier of truth and right, Eph 6:10; Eph 6:19; Every slothful, negligent, unserving child of God is a sinning crucifier of the Lord Jesus Christ, Heb 10:29; Mat 12:30.
4) “And put him to an open shame,” (kai paradeig matizontas) “Even putting (him) to open shame,” as a son or daughter would in refusing to honor or acknowledge his father or mother. Of such non-witnessing, non-serving, non-following, disobedient children, Jesus declared that he would be ashamed to acknowledge or confess them before the Father, at the judgement, Mar 8:38; that men might go on to Christian service and maturity, that they might not be ashamed at that hour, 1Jn 2:28.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. To renew them again into repentance, etc. Though this seems hard, yet there is no reason to charge God with cruelty when any one suffers only the punishment of his own defection; nor is this inconsistent with other parts of Scripture, where God’s mercy is offered to sinners as soon as they sigh for it, (Eze 18:27😉 for repentance is required, which he never truly feels who has once wholly fallen away from the Gospel; for such are deprived, as they deserve, of God’s Spirit and given up to a reprobate mind, so that being the slaves of the devil they rush headlong into destruction. Thus it happens that they cease not to add sin to sin, until being wholly hardened they despise God, or like men in despair, express madly their hatred to him. The end of all apostates is, that they are either smitten with stupor, and fear nothing, or curse God their judge, because they cannot escape from him. (99)
In short, the Apostle warns us, that repentance is not at the will of man, but that it is given by God to those only who have not wholly fallen away from the faith. It is a warning very necessary to us, lest by often delaying until tomorrow, we should alienate ourselves more and more from God. The ungodly indeed deceive themselves by such sayings as this, — that it will be sufficient for them to repent of their wicked life at their last breath. But when they come to die, the dire torments of conscience which they suffer, prove to them that the conversion of man is not an ordinary work. As then the Lord promises pardon to none but to those who repent of their iniquity, it is no wonder that they perish who either through despair or contempt, rush on in their obstinacy into destruction. But when any one rises up again after falling, we may hence conclude that he had not been guilty of defection, however grievously he may have sinned.
Crucifying again, etc. He also adds this to defend God’s severity against the calumnies of men; for it would be wholly unbecoming, that God by pardoning apostates should expose his own Son to contempt. They are then wholly unworthy to obtain mercy. But the reason why he says, that Christ would thus be crucified again, is, because we die with him for the very purpose of living afterwards a new life; when therefore any return as it were unto death, they have need of another sacrifice, as we shall find in the tenth chapter. Crucifying for themselves means as far as in them lies. For this would be the case, and Christ would be slandered as it were triumphantly, were it allowed men to return to him after having fallen away and forsaken him.
(99) Some render the verb “renew” actively, in this way, — “For it is impossible as to those who have been once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of holy spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to renew them again unto repentance, since they crucify again as to themselves to Son of God, and expose him to open shame.”
This is more consistent with the foregoing, for the Apostle speaks of teaching. It is as though he had said “It is impossible for us as teachers;” as they had no commission. To “renew” may be rendered to “restore.” It is only found here, but is used by the Sept. for a verb which means renewing in the sense of restoring. See Psa 103:5; Lam 5:21. Josephus applies it to the renovation or restoration of the temple. The “crucifying” was what they did by falling away; for they thereby professed that he deserved to be crucified as an imposter, and thus counted his blood, as it is said in Heb 10:29, “unholy,” as the blood of a malefactor; and they thus also exhibited him as an object of public contempt. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) If they shall fall away.Rather, and (then) fell away. There is no doubt that the ordinary translation is altogether incorrect, the Greek admitting of one rendering only. At the same time, the suspicion sometimes expressed that this is one of the (very few) instances in which our translators have been misled by dogmatic bias seems altogether unfounded. On tracing back the translation we find it due, not to the Genevan versions, in which the influence of Calvin and Beza is predominant, but to Erasmus, Luther, and Tyndale. The contrast with the preceding description is presented in the fewest possible words. The successive clauses have shown that all the marks of the divine working in and with His word (Heb. 2:4) have been found in these men, who, notwithstanding, fell away.
To renew them again.A second time to make the old into a new man. In this place renew is distinctly used in reference to the action of man. Similarly, by the side of 1Pe. 1:3, God . . . who hath begotten us, we may set St. Pauls words to the Corinthians, In Christ Jesus I have begotten you; so also St. Paul can say, Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit; and St. James can speak of a mans saving a soul from death. In these and the many other examples of a similar kind there is no thought of human power acting by itself, but of the human appropriation of divine power, in accordance with the laws of the kingdom of God. The verse before us is often read as an assertion that men who have thus fallen cannot be renewed; and therefore it is the more necessary to lay stress on the simple meaning of the words, as relating neither to the absolute power of God, nor to the efforts of the Christian teacher in unassisted human strength, but to the economy of Gods spiritual kingdom, in which Christs servants achieve every great result by claiming and obtaining the fellow-working of their Lord.
Seeing they crucify.The apostasy was indicated by a single word; these added clauses describe the depth of the fall, whilst they explain the futility of all effort towards recovering the fallen. Both the writer and his readers knew well what was involved in falling away in such a case as this. To go back to Judaism implied an acceptance of all that Jews had said and done against the Son of God, a return to the bitter hate cherished by the falling nation against the Crucified, a repetition in spirit of all that Pharisees had done, and without the palliation of ignorance; for the highest evidence for Christianitythat of true and deep Christian experiencehad been given to them. Again, the words used clearly describe a continuing state. Not the punishment for a past act, but the hopelessness of an existing state, is brought before us here. It is therefore of those who, with a distinct conviction of the divine mission of Jesus, have deliberately joined His foes, unite in denouncing Him as a deceiver (Mat. 27:63), rejoice in His shame, and thus for themselves crucify a second time the Son of God, that the writer says, It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.
That this impossibility relates to the action of man is shown very clearly by the writers words in Heb. 6:3, This will we do if God permit; . . . . for it is impossible. He is ready to lead his readers on with himunless, indeed, he is addressing any whom no man can thus lead. In that case the means which God has appointed have no application; such wilful and persistent hardening of heart must be left with Him.
The perplexity and trouble of mind to which these verses have given rise will furnish an apology for the length of these remarks. It is a true Christian instinct that has protested against the misuse of this passage by men who have doubted whether those who, after receiving the knowledge of the truth, fall under temptation, can again receive forgiveness; but the difficulty has been met by hazardous expedients. Some have denied that Heb. 6:4-5 necessarily describe real Christian experience. By others it has been held that impossible was not intended to express more than the great difficulty of the attempt; others, again, have believed that in Heb. 6:6 the writer brings before us a supposed case only, one that cannot really occur. The passage, together with Heb. 10:26-29, Mat. 12:32, 1Jn. 5:16 (see the Notes), occupied an important place in early controversies, as those of the Montanists and Novatians, who refused absolution to those who, after baptismor, in the language of the early Church, after illumination (Heb. 6:4)fell into heinous sin.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. If they shall fall away A sad mistranslation. There is no if in the original, and no future tense, and no contingent supposition. It is the “historic tense,” and describes a fall that has already taken place, as our translation above indicates.
Fall away Of course they could not fall if they did not once stand. And that stand was a state of salvation in which, did they stand and not fall, they would have been safe. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” Away, means from the previous state of renewal in which the warning requires them to stand. It was not a fall from a state of condemnation, but from a state of salvation. And this fall away is the central thought of the whole epistle. To warn his readers by the fatal example of others is its entire purpose. See notes on Heb 3:7 to Heb 4:13.
Renew them Bring them back to their once renewed, unfallen state.
Again Correlative with once, in Heb 6:4. They were once renewed, but it is impossible to renew them again. There was a blessed once to which they can never be reclaimed again. And this very word again means they were once renewed.
Repentance The great, sure condition of salvation.
Seeing they Words not in the Greek, and which should not be in the English. See our translation on p. 78.
Crucify afresh Re-crucify, repeat the crucifixion. Their apostasy, as we have repeatedly intimated, arose from a disgust at the humiliation of the Messiah. Hence, “the hanged man” was the Jewish epithet for Jesus. Hence the apostatizing He brews were induced to represent Jesus to themselves in conception as a real impostor and malefactor. They approved his crucifixion, and thereby, in thought, recrucified him. The phrase to themselves, is, then, by no means, pleonastic, as it is often, as in the phrase “away with yourself.” The conceptual re-crucifixion within the imagination and heart has its outward antithesis in the open shame, the public exhibition. The Greek single word translated, put him to an open shame, , is used in the Septuagint, Num 25:4: “Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun.” As counterpart to the subjective conceptual, crucifying to themselves, this word here seems to indicate some public exposure. This probability is strikingly illustrated in a chalked caricature belonging to the first century, lately discovered at Rome, in which the figure of a man with the head of an ass is suspended on a cross, with a reverent worshipper before him, and an inscription underneath, “Alexamenos worshipping his god.” Perhaps the public exhibition by these apostates consisted in offering a public temple sacrifice, with open profession that it was an act of rejection of the true Sacrifice. It is true, the Pentecostal Church continued to attend the ordinary sacrifices in the temple, but there seems full indication (xiii, 10) that before this epistle was written a separation between the temple and the Church had now taken place. And such open self-commitment, with the attendant temper, self-interest, and exclusive association likely to follow, may account for the impossible of their being renewed unto repentance.
Those, however, who take the extreme view of this impossibility of recovery do not thereby weaken the argument of the possibility of apostasy. They only maintain a very fearful view of the nature of this apostasy. Note on Heb 10:26. And even if this particular set of apostates had apostatized irrecoverably, that irrecoverabillty is predicated of that set alone. Irrecoverability is not laid down as a universal law of apostasy.
‘It is impossible to renew them again to repentance, seeing that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.’
But their action of apostasy in the light of all the blessing that had been theirs would be a considered denial of all that they had seen and experienced. This was not just a falling into sin. That could be repented of. Their apostasy would reveal that their hearts were totally hardened. That while they had outwardly ‘repented’, turning to some extent from their old ways, it had not resulted in saving faith, and it had thus only hardened them. They had not truly known Christ, for had they done so they could not turn away. And after such a turning away there could be no way of repentance open to them for they would have received, and deliberately and knowingly rejected, the light shining fully on them over a long period of time, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which had included the evidence of the casting out of evil spirits, and they would have declared it all false. They would have blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
Having themselves professed to serve the crucified One over a long period of time, if they now publicly rejected Him, they would thereby be declaring that His crucifixion was what He deserved, and that He had not been fit to live. By their attitudes they would in their own minds, by having fallen away (aorist tense), be crucifying Him afresh, and that continually (present tense), and continually putting Him to open shame in the eyes of the world. In the light of such determined rejection and hardening of heart, they would be like Israel in their murmuring in the wilderness, continually disobedient after so many wonders. God would say of them ‘they shall not enter into my rest’.
‘They continually crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh.’ Note the title used, not ‘Jesus’ but ‘the Son of God’. Their crime is worse than that of the Jewish leaders and Pilate, for they know with Whom they have to do. They have for a long time declared Him to be the Son of God. But now they will be declaring Him fit only to be crucified again. In their minds they take up a continuing position in their minds that it was right that He should be crucified. They pass the same verdict as their predecessors, and continue to maintain it, but with even less excuse. The title also brings out the depths of their crime. In intent they will crucify not only Jesus but ‘the Son’.
‘It is impossible to renew them again to repentance.’ To such people there is no point in reiterating the need for repentance or to attempt to seek to enlighten them as to the Gospel. They know all about it, possibly more than the evangelist. Thus to spend time teaching them the fundamentals that they already know would be to cast pearls before swine. The evangelist would be essaying a useless task, and the writer does not intend to attempt it. (Had it said ‘for them to be renewed’ it would have been stronger, for then it would have included God in the exclusion. But it does not).
We have all experienced situations where there is no point in talking to people any longer, because we recognise that in their present state nothing will move them. But this is not necessarily saying that people that we consider to be in such a state cannot repent even if they want to, and must therefore be rejected even if they give the appearance of repenting. If they want to repent it in fact shows that they are not in such a state, and we must therefore seek to help them, trusting that it is genuine.
Nor does it state that even God could not do it, although we may certainly suggest that God will not do it without repentance on their side. It is never for us to say what God can or cannot do. What the writer is concerned basically to say is that they have gone beyond anything that we can hope to remedy, and that we may therefore decide not to waste any more of our precious time on them, but to leave them in the hands of God. (Such people can take up too much of a godly man’s time, resulting in more worthy recipients of their message losing out).
To any who fear that they might be in this sad situation we can only say that the very fact that you fear it suggests that you are not in it. So not be afraid. If you truly repent God will receive you, for by it you will have demonstrated that your repentance is not unrenewable.
Heb 6:6. If they shall fall away, Two things are here to be observed; First, That the apostle speaks of such as not only fell away or apostatized from the genuine experience of the Christian, but also from the very profession of Christianity. This appears, from what he presently adds, to set forth the aggravation of their guilt,that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. It is therefore very unreasonable, for persons to give way to despair themselves, or to drive others to it, by applying this text to other, and even the grossest sins, when it only relates to the case of an absolute and complete apostacy. Secondly, As the same thing is spoken of again, ch. Heb 10:26, &c. it cannot be improper to compare the two places together, in order to a complete understanding of the apostle’s design; and therefore from the other place we may explain this if: If they shall , WILFULLY fall away. We may observe further, that the word here used, not only signifies falling away, but “all sinning;” that is, all departing from the rule which ought to have been followed: and accordingly, the substantive is commonly used for trespass or lapse. Here it signifies a total falling away from Christ; deserting the brethren, and withdrawing from religion in times of difficulty;crimes hinted at toward the close of this epistle. To renew them to repentance, means inwardly to convince them again of the truth, and bring them afresh to an inward change and new birth. See Col 3:10. The apostle adds, seeing they crucify to themselves, &c. That is, “They treat Christ, as if they thought he deserved the sentence executed upon him; and thus they expose him to an open shame, and act as if they thought he deserved to be treated as he was.” It may be inquired, why the apostle speaks so severely of the condition of such apostates. Now the reason of this may be taken, partly from the nature of the evidence which they rejected: the fullest and clearest evidence that God ever designed to give of the truth of Christianity, was the miraculous operations of the Spirit; and when men not only experienced the genuine power of Christianity, but were eye witnesses of the miracles wrought in those primitive times, and were themselves empowered to work them, and yet rejected all this evidence, they could have no further or higher means whereby they should be convinced; so that their case must in that respect be absolutely desperate. And, finally, this may be resolved into the righteous judgment of God against such men, for the heinous aggravated wickedness of which they are guilty. If, where men have not had the advantage of this highest evidence, but barely have rejected the love of the truth which they once enjoyed, God may, in many given cases, justly send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; there certainly must be much stronger reason for such a judicial proceeding of God against those who apostatized in the apostolic age, seeing their sin was so very great: and our author grounds this severe sentence upon the greatness of their sin, because they crucified the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame; and in the other place, because they do despight unto the Spirit of grace. See Parkhurst on the word .
Heb 6:6 . ] and (in spite of this) have fallen, i.e. have fallen away again from Christianity.
] belongs to . The taking of the same with (Heinsius, Alting, Peirce, and others) has the position of the word against it. A pleonasm, however (Grotius), is not produced by along with the in . For marks out the becoming new as a change ensuing, in opposition to the preceding state of the old man; whereas has reference to the fact that the class of men described have already experienced that change, namely, at their first conversion.
] to renew , to fashion inwardly new. To supplement an to the verb (Erasmus, Vatablus, al .), according to which the preceding accusatives of the object would be changed into accusatives of the subject, is arbitrary.
] not equivalent to (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zeger, Corn, a Lapide), but under the form of conception of the result : in such wise that change of mind or repentance should arise therefrom.
. . .] since they , etc. Note of cause to . The impossibility of the renewal is explained by the magnitude of the culpability. By their action such men bear witness that the Son of God is in their estimation a transgressor and deceiver who has been justly crucified.
The compound form occurs with classic writers only in the sense of “nailing up to the cross.” Comp. L. Bos, Exercitatt. , and Wetstein ad loc . In itself, however, the explanation is equally admissible: “crucify afresh.” Thus it is accordingly taken without questioning by the Greek interpreters, and probably was so meant by the author.
] Dativus incommodi: to their own judgment . Vatablus: in suam ipsorum perniciem. Too weak, Bleek, to whom Delitzsch, Riehm ( Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 769), and Alford give in their adhesion, “they crucify Him to themselves, in so far as, by that crucifying again, they rob Him of themselves, who were in His possession.” False is the interpretation of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Bhme, Bisping: as much as in them lies , ; Heinrichs: each one for himself ; Schulz: by themselves [by their own act]; Grotius, Abresch, Tholuck, explaining by the supposition of the so-called Dativus localis: in themselves ; Hofmann: as regards their own persons ; Klee: to their contentment ; Stengel: to the joy and pleasure of their obdurate heart ; Kurtz: to the gratification of their hatred or their enmity against Him . Over refinedly Bengel and Delitzsch: sibi , as an opposition to , ostentantes, sc. aliis .
] A more palpable manifestation of the enormity of the crime than would have been the case had he written or . Comp. Heb 10:29 .
] to expose to scorn and insult; here, inasmuch as the death of the cross was a shameful one. stronger than the simple , Mat 1:19 .
Concluding remarks on Heb 6:4-6 .
The declaration of Heb 6:4-6 has been of importance for the controversy of the early church, as to the question whether those who relapsed from the gospel renounced for ever the hope of salvation, or whether by means of sincere repentance they might once more attain to a state of salvation. The rigoristic view was especially maintained by the Montanists and Novatianists; and already Tertullian, de Pudicitia , c. 20, appeals to our passage in favour thereof. In opposition to this view, another sense was universally put upon the passage in the orthodox church from the time of the fourth century. The words were interpreted of an impossibility of imparting a second time the baptism once administered, and the consequent condemnable character of such an act, in that according to a later usus loguendi (first met with in Justin Martyr, Apol . i. 62, 65) they took to be a designation of baptism, referred to the repetition of baptism, and in . . . found the indication of that which such repetition would produce or involve. (Comp. e.g . Theodoret: , , -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- . -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- , -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- . -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- , -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- . -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- . -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- . -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- , -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- . -g0- -g0- -g0- , -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- , -g0- -g0- -g0- , -g0- -g0- -g0- . -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- , -g0- -g0- -g0- -g0- .) That this interpretation, which is still followed among later expositors by Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, and Calmet, is a wrong one, is now generally admitted. The justification, however, of this passage, which furnished to Luther a determining reason for denying to the epistle canonicity in the narrower sense (see the Introduction, p. 18), is afforded by the fact that as is also pointed out, Heb 10:26-31 the author is speaking not of a falling away in general, but of a clearly defined falling away, i.e. , as is rightly urged by Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Hofmann ( Schriftbew . II. 2, p. 341 f. 2 Aufl.), Maier, and others, those Christians are described who commit the sin against the Holy. Ghost (Mat 12:31 f.; Mar 3:28 f.; Luk 12:10 ), or the (1Jn 5:16 ). For Christians are described who fall away, not, e.g. , from mere weakness, from a mere wavering of conviction, but in spite of a better knowledge, and in spite of having experienced the treasures of grace in Christianity; Christians who, according to the parallel passage, Heb 10:26 ff., against their better consciousness and conscience, tread under foot the Son of God as though He were a deceiver, brand His blood shed for redemption as the blood of a transgressor, and scoff at the Spirit of grace as a spirit of falsehood. In regard to men of this kind, the is employed in its full right, since with them there must be inwardly wanting every kind of receptiveness or receptibility for the . The reference of the declaration to the sin against the Holy Ghost is, moreover, so much the more unquestionable, inasmuch as the author by no means says that the readers have already committed it, but, on the contrary, only sets at once before their eyes as a terrible warning the extreme length to which their conduct may lead them.
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Ver. 6. If they shall fall away ] Totally and finally, as Judas and Julian did, and as Mr John Glover thought he had done, and did therefore eat his meat against his appetite, only defer the time of his damnation, which, by mistake of this text, he thought he could not possibly avoid. But God, who comforteth those that are cast down, did not only at last rid him out of all his fears, but also framed him to such mortification of life, as the like lightly hath not been seen, saith Mr Fox, who knew it.
And put him to an open shame ] As if they had not found him the same that they took him for. In those that have wilfully resisted divine truths made known to them, and after taste, despised them, a persuasion that God hath forsaken them (set on strongly by Satan) stirs up a hellish hatred against God; carrying them to a revengeful desire of opposing whatsoever is God’s, though not always openly (for then they should lose the advantage of doing hurt), yet secretly and subtlely, and under pretence of the contrary, as one well observeth.
6 .] and have fallen away (the classical usage of is very different, as will be seen from the following examples: Herod. viii. 87, , i. e. impinging, coming into collision: Plato, Phileb. p. 14 C, ( ), “eum sermonem qui nobis se obtulit:” Legg. iii. p. 686, , “Grcis accidisse.” We first find trace of our present meaning in Xenophon, Hell. i. 6. 4, . . . Polyb. uses it frequently in this sense, but commonly with a gen. of that from which: so iii. 54. 5, : xii. 7. 2, : viii. 13. 8, : and xviii. 19. 6 absolutely, . In the LXX it occurs often (reff.) in the ethical sense, and the cognate noun often in the N. T. It is used here, as , ch. Heb 10:26 , and , ch. Heb 3:12 , see also ch. Heb 10:29 , and ch. Heb 2:1 , as pointing out the sin of apostasy from Christ: and the case supposed is very similar to that of the Galatians, to whom St. Paul says, [ ] , , Gal 5:4 ; and ib. Gal 3:3 , ; The fear was (see Prolegg. iv. 1) lest these Hebrew converts should cast away their confidence in Christ, and take up again that system of types and shadows which He came to fulfil and abrogate: and nearly connected with this peril was their small progress in the doctrine of Christ. While speaking therefore of that, and exhorting them to be advancing towards maturity, he puts in this solemn caution against the fearful result to which their backwardness might lead), again ( does not belong to , but to : the usual place of , and the unvarying place in this Epistle, being before the verb to which it belongs) to renew (them) to repentance (there is no pleonasm, as Grotius thought, in . For the would be the regenerating in any case, and the ., the renewal of it. Even in the first case, man : in the second case, . As to the word, it is found, after Isocr. as in reff., in Appian, Lucian, Josephus (Antt. ix. 8. 2, ), Philo (Legat. ad Cai. 11, vol. ii. p. 558, , , , ), and freq. in LXX. Observe St. Paul’s usage in reff. The usage of the word, as Bleek remarks, is without reference to any previous existence of the state into which the renewal takes place: e. g. we cannot say here that the perfect state of man before the fall was in the Writer’s mind. The verb is active, and implies a subject. This by some is made to be the foregoing accusatives, and is supplied after : so Origen cites it (in Joann. tom. xx. 12, vol. iv. p. 322, in some mss., in others): so vulg. (“ renovari ”), and Erasmus, Vatabl., al. But it is far better, as in the translation, and usually, to make the subject indefinite: “it is impossible to” &c. “Instead of , one would expect or , inasmuch as in full measure can only be brought about by , and must therefore be preceded by it. But on the other side, itself, the change of disposition, may be considered as the result of the renewal of the man having taken place: and so it is here: to renew to , i. e. so to form anew, that entire change of disposition precedes.” Bleek. On the very general ancient reference of this to renewal of baptism, see below.
It is really marvellous, that such a note as this of Dr. Burton’s could have been written in England in the present century: “ , once more to make them new creatures by baptism , , upon their repentance . Even if they repent, there is no power to readmit them by baptism”), crucifying as they do (“ seeing they crucify ” as E. V. well. The ratiocinative force is given by the omission of the article before the participle, as the demonstrative would be by its insertion. Some ancient Commentators, especially those who refer the foregoing clause to the repetition of baptism, join these participles closely to the verb , as epexegetical of it; as indicating, that is, what such a . would be: that it would amount to a new crucifying and putting to shame the Son of God: and they refer to St. Paul’s declaration, that in baptism is symbolized the crucifixion of the old man with Christ (Rom 6:3 ff.), and understand it thus, that if baptism be repeated, Christ also would appear to be crucified anew. So Chrys., Thdrt., Eulogius (Phot. Bibl. 280, ed. Bekk. p. 538 a), Phot. (in c.), c. ( , , , , . , , ; , , , , . , . , , ), Schol. Matthi, Thl., and similarly Faber Stapulensis, Erasm. (par.), Clarius. And so Calvin takes the connexion, even though he does not understand the foregoing of the repetition of baptism: that it is impossible that they should again be renewed to repentance, and their fall from Christ be forgiven them, for that thus God would be again crucifying His Son and putting Him to shame. This Beza also mentions as an alternative (giving it indeed his approval, “quam sententiam si amplectamur, uti sane probabilis et commoda mihi videtur, tum pro ‘ut qui rursum crucifigant,’ scribendum erit, ‘rursum crucifigendo, et ad ignominiam exponendo’ ”). “But besides that which Seb. Schmidt adduces against the Greek Commentators, that they wrongly assume Christ to be crucified in baptism, whereas it is only our old man that is crucified, the whole construction is, grammatically speaking, very unnatural; and only tolerable, if the men spoken of, whose renewal is said to be impossible, were not the object but the subject, if, that is, instead of we had a passive, or it could be taken intransitively. And since this cannot be done, it is only possible, grammatically, to take the participles as a close specification of the foregoing object, an emphatic setting forth of the grievous offence of which they have become guilty by their apostasy, and on account of which it has become impossible to renew them again to repentance.” Bleek) afresh (it has been questioned by Lambert Bos, Exercitt., whether can bear this meaning. He, and others who have taken his view, adduce multitudes of instances of the use of the word in the simple sense of ‘to crucify,’ the being merely ‘ up ,’ as in , , , &c. So in Herod. vi. 30, . , and thus in Thucyd., Xen., Polyb., also in Plato, Plut., Diod. Sic., lian, Herodian, Galen, Lucian, Josephus. But it has been well answered by Bleek, and others, 1. that in composition is not unfrequently found with the double meaning of again , or back , and also up : as e. g. in , which signifies both to look up , and to recover-sight ; so of , , , , , , , , , &c.: 2. considering, . that the classical writers never had any occasion for the idea of recrucifying, and, . that our Writer could have used the word, however to be rendered, with no other idea here, it is very probable that the reiterative force of is the right one to be adopted: 3. the consensus of the Greek interpreters is of great weight, in a question simply affecting the meaning of a Greek compound. Chrys., : Thdrt., c., , , : Phot., . : Thl. and Schol. Matth., . . .: Syr., “denuo erucifigunt:” vulg., “ rursum crucifigentes :” D-lat., “ recrucientes :” Tert [32] , “ refigentes cruci .” Jerome’s testimony also is remarkable: “Pro rursus crucifigentes melius unum verbum compositum in Grco est , quod nos interpretari possumus recrucifigentes ”) to themselves ( is not, as some of the Fathers, e. g. c., Thl., , nor by their means , as Schulz: but is that kind of ‘dativus commodi’ which approaches very nearly to mere reference, though there never is, properly speaking, a dative of mere reference. So in ref. Gal., . Christ was their possession by faith: this their possession they took, and recrucified to themselves: deprived themselves of all benefit from Him, just as did the unbelieving Jews who nailed Him to the tree. Vatablus’s “ in suorum perniciem ,” approved by Lnemann, is too strong. The ‘dativus incommodi’ is only in fact a fine irony on the ‘dativus commodi,’ and its edge must not be turned by too rough use. Bengel’s characteristic antithesis, “ , sibi , facit antitheton ad , ostentantes,” is in this case more fanciful than real) the Son of God (for solemnity, to shew the magnitude of the offence), and putting ( Him ) to open shame (so in ref. Matt.: in ref. Num., the word is used of the actual hanging up on a tree: “Take all the heads of the people, .” See other examples in Bleek. Here the word continues the action of the former participle: they crucify Him anew, and as at his former crucifixion, put Him to shame before all: as Bleek strikingly says, they tear Him out of the recesses of their hearts where He had fixed his abode, and exhibit Him to the open scoffs and reproach of the world, as something powerless and common: cf. ch. Heb 10:29 , , , ). It would be quite beyond the limits of mere annotation, to give any satisfactory analysis of the history of interpretation of this passage, and of the conflicts which have sprung up around it. Such accounts will be found admirably given in several of the Commentators, among whom I would especially mention Bleek and Tholuck; and for the English reader, Owen, who treats it at great length and very perspicuously. I will only mention the most notable points, and set down a few landmarks of the exegesis. 1. The passage was used by the Montanists and the Novatians, in ancient times, to justify the irrevocable exclusion from the Church, of those who had lapsed. Tertullian, de Pudicitia, 20, vol. ii. p. 1021, cites it as the testimony of Barnabas, and adds, “Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit, nunquam mcho et fornicatori secundam pnitentiam promissam ab apostolis norat.” See other testimonies in Bleek i. 53, and h. 1. But, 2. in the Catholic Church this view was ever resisted, and the Fathers found in the passage simply a prohibition against the repetition of baptism. So Athanasius expressly, Eph 4 , ad Serap. 13, vol. i. (ii. Migne) p. 563, , , . And so all the ancients who have noticed the passage, and some of the moderns: see above on . 3. In later times, the great combat over our passage has been between the Calvinistic and the Arminian expositors. To favour their peculiar views of indefectibility, the former have endeavoured to weaken the force of the participial clauses as implying any real participation in the spiritual life. So Calvin himself (“Hoc (the elect only being truly regenerate) obstare nego quominus reprobos etiam gustu grati sur adspergat, irradiet eorum mentes aliquibus lucis su scintillis, afficiat eos bonitatis su sensu, verbumque suum utrumque animis eorum insculpat”), Beza (“Aliud est vere credere aliud vero gustum aliquem habere ”): so Owen (“The persons here intended are not true and sincere believers:. for, 1) in their full and large description there is no mention of faith or believing,” &c.), and recently Tait, Exposition of Epistle to the Hebrews. But all this is clearly wrong, and contrary to the plainest sense of the terms here used. The Writer even heaps clause upon clause, to shew that no such shallow tasting, no “primoribus tantum labris gustasse” is intended: and the whole contextual argument is against the view, for it is the very fact of these persons having veritably entered the spiritual life, which makes it impossible to renew them afresh if they fall away. If they have never entered it, if they are unregenerate, what possible logic is it, or even common sense at all, to say, that their shallow taste and partial apprehension makes it impossible to renew them: what again to say, that it is impossible persons in whose case no has ever taken place? If they have never believed, never been regenerated, how can it be more difficult to renew them to repentance, than the heathen, or any unconverted persons? One landmark of exegesis then must be, to hold fast the simple plain sense of the passage, and recognize the fact that the persons are truly the partakers of the spiritual life regenerate by the Holy Spirit. Elect of course they are not, or they could not fall away, by the very force of the term: but this is one among many passages where in the Scripture, as ever from the teaching of the Church, we learn that ‘ elect ’ and ‘ regenerate ’ are not convertible terms. All elect are regenerate: but all regenerate are not elect. The regenerate may fall away, the elect never Song of Son 4 . Again, the word has been weakened down to “ difficile ” by the ancient Latin version in D, and thus explained by a-Lapide, Le Clerc, Limborch, Pyle, and many others. The readers of this commentary will not need reminding, that no such sense can be for a moment tolerated. And this is our second landmark of exegesis: stands immoveable . But let us see where, and how, it stands. It is the strongest possible case, which the Writer is putting. First there is considerable advance in the spiritual life , carefully and specifically indicated. Then there is deliberate apostasy : an enmity to Him whom they before loved, a going over to the ranks of His bitter enemies and revilers, and an exposing Him to shame in the sight of the world. Of such persons, such apostates from being such saints, the Writer simply says that it is impossible to bestow on them a fresh renewal to repentance. There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin than that one which they have gone through and rejected: they are in the state of crucifying the Son of God: the putting Him to shame is their enduring condition. How is it possible then to renew them to repentance? It is simply impossible, from the very nature of the case. The question is not, it seems to me, whether man’s ministry or God’s power is to be supplied as the agent, nor even whether the verb is active or passive: the impossibility lies merely within the limits of the hypothesis itself. Whether God, of His infinite mercy and almighty power, will ever, by judgments or the strong workings of His Spirit, reclaim the obdurate sinner, so that even he may look on Him whom he has pierced, is, thank Him, a question which neither this, nor any other passage of Scripture, precludes us from entertaining. There is no barring here of God’s grace, but just as I have observed above, an axiomatic preclusion by the very hypothesis itself, of a renewal to repentance of those who have passed through, and rejected for themselves, God’s appointed means of renewal. 5. Another dispute over our passage has been, whether the sin against the Holy Ghost is in any way brought in here. Certainly we may say that the fall here spoken of cannot be identical with that sin: for as Bleek has well remarked, that sin may be predicated of persons altogether outside the Christian Church, as were those with reference to whom our Lord uttered His awful saying on it. It is true, the language used in the parallel place, ch. Heb 10:29 , does approach that sin, where he says, : but it is also clear that the impossibility here spoken of cannot depend on the fact of such sin having been committed, by the very construction of the participles, and , which themselves render the reason for that impossibility.
[32] Tertullian , 200
Heb 6:6 . , “and fell away,” i.e. , from the condition depicted by the preceding participles; “grave verbum subito occurrens” (Bengel). The word in classical Greek has the meaning “fall in with” or “fall upon”; in Polybius, “to fall away from,” “to err,” followed by . , . , . ; also absolutely “to err”. In the Greek fathers the lapsed are called or . The full meaning of the word is given in of Heb 10:39 . The translation of the A.V. and early English versions “if they shall fall away,” although accused of dogmatic bias, is justifiable. It is a hypothesis that is here introduced. Thus far the writer has accumulated expressions which present the picture of persons who have not merely professed the Christian faith but have enjoyed rich experience of its peculiar and characteristic influence, but now a word is introduced which completely alters the picture. They have enjoyed all these things, but the last thing to be said of them is that they have “fallen from” their former state. The writer describes a condition which he considers possible. And of persons realising this possibility he says , “it is impossible to renew [them] again to repentance,” “impossible,” not “difficult” [as in the Graeco-Latin Codex Claromontanus, “difficile”]; impossible not only to a teacher, but to God, for in every case of renewal it is God who is the Agent. [Bengel says “hominibus est impossibile, non Deo,” and that therefore the ministers of God must leave such persons to Him and wait for what God may accomplish “per singulares afflictiones et operationes”. But cf. Heb 10:26-31 .] , is not pleonastic, but denotes that those who have once experienced cannot again have a like experience. It suggests that the word . involves, or naturally leads on to, all that is expressed in the participles under from to of Heb 6:5 . A renewed person is one who is enlightened, tastes the heavenly gift, and so on. But as the first stone in the foundation was (Heb 6:1 ), so here the first manifestation of renewal is in . The persons described cannot again be brought to a life-changing repentance a statement which opens one of the most important psychological problems. The reason this writer assigns for the impossibility is given in the words , “crucifying [or “seeing that they crucify”] to themselves the Son of God, and putting Him to open shame”. Edwards understands these participles as putting a hypothetical case, and renders “they cannot be renewed after falling away if they persist in crucifying, etc.”. This, however, reduces the statement to a vapid truism, and, although grammatically admissible, does not agree with the of the parallel passage in Heb 10:26 . The mitigation of the severity of the statement is rather to be sought in the enormity and therefore rarity of the sin described, which is equivalent to the deliberate and insolent rejection of Christ alluded to in Heb 10:26 ; Heb 10:29 , and the suicidal blasphemy alluded to in Mar 3:29 . On the doctrine of the passage, see Harless, Ethics , c. 29. In classical and later Greek the word for “crucify” is not (of which Stephanus cites only one example, and that from Polybius), but , so that the does not mean “again” or “afresh,” but refers to the lifting up on the cross, as in or . In the N.T. no doubt is uniformly used, but never in this Epistle; and it was inevitable that a Hellenist would understand . in its ordinary meaning. There is no ground therefore for the translation of the Vulg. “rursum crucifigentes,” although it is so commonly followed. Besides, any crucifixion by the Hebrews [ ] must have been a fresh crucifixion , and needs no express indication of that feature of it. The significance of seems to be “so far as they are concerned,” not “to their own judgment” or “to their own destruction”. The apostate crucifies Christ on his own account by virtually confirming the judgment of the actual crucifiers, declaring that he too has made trial of Jesus and found Him no true Messiah but a deceiver, and therefore worthy of death. The greatness of the guilt in so doing is aggravated by the fact that apostates thus treat . , cf. Heb 10:29 . , the verb is found in Num 25:4 , where it implies exposing to ignominy or infamy, such as was effected in barbarous times by exposing the quarters of the executed criminal, or leaving him hanging in chains. Archilochus, says Plutarch ( Moral. , 520), rendered himself infamous, ., by writing obscene verses. The verb is therefore a strong expression; “put Him to open shame” excellently renders it. “This was the crime the Hebrew Christians were tempted to commit. A fatal step it must be when taken; for men who left the Christian Church and went back to the synagogue became companions of persons who thought they did God service in cursing the name of Jesus” (Bruce).
If, &c. = And fall away. Greek. parapipto. Only here.
renew. Greek. anakainizo. Only here.
unto. Greek. eis. App-104.
seeing, &c. = crucifying (as they do), &c. Greek. anattcuroo. Only here.
Son of God. App-98.
put, &c. = putting (as they do) Him to an open shame. Greek. paradeigmatizo Only here and Mat 1:19 (where the texts read deigmatizo). Compare Col 2:15. The warning is that if, after accepting Jesus the Nazarene as Messiah and Lord, they go back to Judaism, they cut themselves off (see Gal 1:5, Gal 1:4), as there is no other Messiah to be looked for, and by rejecting Him they put Him to open shame. Though the interpretation is for apostates who go back to Judaism, the application remains a solemn warning to all who profess to “believe”.
6.] and have fallen away (the classical usage of is very different, as will be seen from the following examples: Herod. viii. 87, , i. e. impinging, coming into collision: Plato, Phileb. p. 14 C, (), eum sermonem qui nobis se obtulit: Legg. iii. p. 686, , Grcis accidisse. We first find trace of our present meaning in Xenophon, Hell. i. 6. 4, … Polyb. uses it frequently in this sense, but commonly with a gen. of that from which: so iii. 54. 5, : xii. 7. 2, : viii. 13. 8, : and xviii. 19. 6 absolutely, . In the LXX it occurs often (reff.) in the ethical sense, and the cognate noun often in the N. T. It is used here, as , ch. Heb 10:26, and , ch. Heb 3:12,-see also ch. Heb 10:29, and ch. Heb 2:1,-as pointing out the sin of apostasy from Christ: and the case supposed is very similar to that of the Galatians, to whom St. Paul says, [] , , Gal 5:4; and ib. Gal 3:3, ; The fear was (see Prolegg. iv. 1) lest these Hebrew converts should cast away their confidence in Christ, and take up again that system of types and shadows which He came to fulfil and abrogate: and nearly connected with this peril was their small progress in the doctrine of Christ. While speaking therefore of that, and exhorting them to be advancing towards maturity, he puts in this solemn caution against the fearful result to which their backwardness might lead), again ( does not belong to , but to : the usual place of , and the unvarying place in this Epistle, being before the verb to which it belongs) to renew (them) to repentance (there is no pleonasm, as Grotius thought, in . For the would be the regenerating in any case, and the ., the renewal of it. Even in the first case, man : in the second case, . As to the word, it is found, after Isocr. as in reff., in Appian, Lucian, Josephus (Antt. ix. 8. 2, ), Philo (Legat. ad Cai. 11, vol. ii. p. 558, , , , ), and freq. in LXX. Observe St. Pauls usage in reff. The usage of the word, as Bleek remarks, is without reference to any previous existence of the state into which the renewal takes place: e. g. we cannot say here that the perfect state of man before the fall was in the Writers mind. The verb is active, and implies a subject. This by some is made to be the foregoing accusatives, and is supplied after : so Origen cites it (in Joann. tom. xx. 12, vol. iv. p. 322, in some mss., in others): so vulg. (renovari), and Erasmus, Vatabl., al. But it is far better, as in the translation, and usually, to make the subject indefinite: it is impossible to &c. Instead of , one would expect or , inasmuch as in full measure can only be brought about by , and must therefore be preceded by it. But on the other side, itself, the change of disposition, may be considered as the result of the renewal of the man having taken place: and so it is here: to renew to , i. e. so to form anew, that entire change of disposition precedes. Bleek. On the very general ancient reference of this to renewal of baptism, see below.
It is really marvellous, that such a note as this of Dr. Burtons could have been written in England in the present century: , once more to make them new creatures by baptism, , upon their repentance. Even if they repent, there is no power to readmit them by baptism), crucifying as they do (seeing they crucify as E. V. well. The ratiocinative force is given by the omission of the article before the participle, as the demonstrative would be by its insertion. Some ancient Commentators, especially those who refer the foregoing clause to the repetition of baptism, join these participles closely to the verb , as epexegetical of it; as indicating, that is, what such a . would be: that it would amount to a new crucifying and putting to shame the Son of God: and they refer to St. Pauls declaration, that in baptism is symbolized the crucifixion of the old man with Christ (Rom 6:3 ff.), and understand it thus, that if baptism be repeated, Christ also would appear to be crucified anew. So Chrys., Thdrt., Eulogius (Phot. Bibl. 280, ed. Bekk. p. 538 a), Phot. (in c.), c. ( , , , , . , , ; , , , , . , . , , ), Schol. Matthi, Thl., and similarly Faber Stapulensis, Erasm. (par.), Clarius. And so Calvin takes the connexion, even though he does not understand the foregoing of the repetition of baptism: that it is impossible that they should again be renewed to repentance, and their fall from Christ be forgiven them, for that thus God would be again crucifying His Son and putting Him to shame. This Beza also mentions as an alternative (giving it indeed his approval, quam sententiam si amplectamur, uti sane probabilis et commoda mihi videtur, tum pro ut qui rursum crucifigant, scribendum erit, rursum crucifigendo, et ad ignominiam exponendo ). But besides that which Seb. Schmidt adduces against the Greek Commentators, that they wrongly assume Christ to be crucified in baptism, whereas it is only our old man that is crucified,-the whole construction is, grammatically speaking, very unnatural; and only tolerable, if the men spoken of, whose renewal is said to be impossible, were not the object but the subject, if, that is, instead of we had a passive, or it could be taken intransitively. And since this cannot be done, it is only possible, grammatically, to take the participles as a close specification of the foregoing object, an emphatic setting forth of the grievous offence of which they have become guilty by their apostasy, and on account of which it has become impossible to renew them again to repentance. Bleek) afresh (it has been questioned by Lambert Bos, Exercitt., whether can bear this meaning. He, and others who have taken his view, adduce multitudes of instances of the use of the word in the simple sense of to crucify, the being merely up, as in , , , &c. So in Herod. vi. 30, . , and thus in Thucyd., Xen., Polyb., also in Plato, Plut., Diod. Sic., lian, Herodian, Galen, Lucian, Josephus. But it has been well answered by Bleek, and others, 1. that in composition is not unfrequently found with the double meaning of again, or back, and also up: as e. g. in , which signifies both to look up, and to recover-sight; so of , , , , , , , , , &c.: 2. considering, . that the classical writers never had any occasion for the idea of recrucifying, and, . that our Writer could have used the word, however to be rendered, with no other idea here, it is very probable that the reiterative force of is the right one to be adopted: 3. the consensus of the Greek interpreters is of great weight, in a question simply affecting the meaning of a Greek compound. Chrys., : Thdrt., c., , , : Phot., . : Thl. and Schol. Matth., …: Syr., denuo erucifigunt: vulg., rursum crucifigentes: D-lat., recrucientes: Tert[32], refigentes cruci. Jeromes testimony also is remarkable: Pro rursus crucifigentes melius unum verbum compositum in Grco est , quod nos interpretari possumus recrucifigentes) to themselves ( is not, as some of the Fathers, e. g. c., Thl., ,-nor by their means, as Schulz: but is that kind of dativus commodi which approaches very nearly to mere reference, though there never is, properly speaking, a dative of mere reference. So in ref. Gal., . Christ was their possession by faith: this their possession they took, and recrucified to themselves: deprived themselves of all benefit from Him, just as did the unbelieving Jews who nailed Him to the tree. Vatabluss in suorum perniciem, approved by Lnemann, is too strong. The dativus incommodi is only in fact a fine irony on the dativus commodi, and its edge must not be turned by too rough use. Bengels characteristic antithesis, , sibi, facit antitheton ad , ostentantes, is in this case more fanciful than real) the Son of God (for solemnity, to shew the magnitude of the offence), and putting (Him) to open shame (so in ref. Matt.: in ref. Num., the word is used of the actual hanging up on a tree: Take all the heads of the people, . See other examples in Bleek. Here the word continues the action of the former participle: they crucify Him anew, and as at his former crucifixion, put Him to shame before all: as Bleek strikingly says, they tear Him out of the recesses of their hearts where He had fixed his abode, and exhibit Him to the open scoffs and reproach of the world, as something powerless and common: cf. ch. Heb 10:29, , , ). It would be quite beyond the limits of mere annotation, to give any satisfactory analysis of the history of interpretation of this passage, and of the conflicts which have sprung up around it. Such accounts will be found admirably given in several of the Commentators, among whom I would especially mention Bleek and Tholuck; and for the English reader, Owen, who treats it at great length and very perspicuously. I will only mention the most notable points, and set down a few landmarks of the exegesis. 1. The passage was used by the Montanists and the Novatians, in ancient times, to justify the irrevocable exclusion from the Church, of those who had lapsed. Tertullian, de Pudicitia, 20, vol. ii. p. 1021, cites it as the testimony of Barnabas, and adds, Hoc qui ab apostolis didicit et cum apostolis docuit, nunquam mcho et fornicatori secundam pnitentiam promissam ab apostolis norat. See other testimonies in Bleek i. 53, and h. 1. But, 2. in the Catholic Church this view was ever resisted, and the Fathers found in the passage simply a prohibition against the repetition of baptism. So Athanasius expressly, Ephesians 4, ad Serap. 13, vol. i. (ii. Migne) p. 563, , , . And so all the ancients who have noticed the passage, and some of the moderns: see above on . 3. In later times, the great combat over our passage has been between the Calvinistic and the Arminian expositors. To favour their peculiar views of indefectibility, the former have endeavoured to weaken the force of the participial clauses as implying any real participation in the spiritual life. So Calvin himself (Hoc (the elect only being truly regenerate) obstare nego quominus reprobos etiam gustu grati sur adspergat, irradiet eorum mentes aliquibus lucis su scintillis, afficiat eos bonitatis su sensu, verbumque suum utrumque animis eorum insculpat), Beza (Aliud est vere credere aliud vero gustum aliquem habere ): so Owen (The persons here intended are not true and sincere believers:. for, 1) in their full and large description there is no mention of faith or believing, &c.), and recently Tait, Exposition of Epistle to the Hebrews. But all this is clearly wrong, and contrary to the plainest sense of the terms here used. The Writer even heaps clause upon clause, to shew that no such shallow tasting, no primoribus tantum labris gustasse is intended: and the whole contextual argument is against the view, for it is the very fact of these persons having veritably entered the spiritual life, which makes it impossible to renew them afresh if they fall away. If they have never entered it, if they are unregenerate, what possible logic is it, or even common sense at all, to say, that their shallow taste and partial apprehension makes it impossible to renew them: what again to say, that it is impossible persons in whose case no has ever taken place? If they have never believed, never been regenerated, how can it be more difficult to renew them to repentance, than the heathen, or any unconverted persons? One landmark of exegesis then must be, to hold fast the simple plain sense of the passage, and recognize the fact that the persons are truly the partakers of the spiritual life-regenerate by the Holy Spirit. Elect of course they are not, or they could not fall away, by the very force of the term: but this is one among many passages where in the Scripture, as ever from the teaching of the Church, we learn that elect and regenerate are not convertible terms. All elect are regenerate: but all regenerate are not elect. The regenerate may fall away, the elect never Song of Solomon 4. Again, the word has been weakened down to difficile by the ancient Latin version in D, and thus explained by a-Lapide, Le Clerc, Limborch, Pyle, and many others. The readers of this commentary will not need reminding, that no such sense can be for a moment tolerated. And this is our second landmark of exegesis: stands immoveable. But let us see where, and how, it stands. It is the strongest possible case, which the Writer is putting. First there is considerable advance in the spiritual life, carefully and specifically indicated. Then there is deliberate apostasy: an enmity to Him whom they before loved, a going over to the ranks of His bitter enemies and revilers, and an exposing Him to shame in the sight of the world. Of such persons, such apostates from being such saints, the Writer simply says that it is impossible to bestow on them a fresh renewal to repentance. There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin than that one which they have gone through and rejected: they are in the state of crucifying the Son of God: the putting Him to shame is their enduring condition. How is it possible then to renew them to repentance? It is simply impossible, from the very nature of the case. The question is not, it seems to me, whether mans ministry or Gods power is to be supplied as the agent, nor even whether the verb is active or passive: the impossibility lies merely within the limits of the hypothesis itself. Whether God, of His infinite mercy and almighty power, will ever, by judgments or the strong workings of His Spirit, reclaim the obdurate sinner, so that even he may look on Him whom he has pierced, is, thank Him, a question which neither this, nor any other passage of Scripture, precludes us from entertaining. There is no barring here of Gods grace, but just as I have observed above, an axiomatic preclusion by the very hypothesis itself, of a renewal to repentance of those who have passed through, and rejected for themselves, Gods appointed means of renewal. 5. Another dispute over our passage has been, whether the sin against the Holy Ghost is in any way brought in here. Certainly we may say that the fall here spoken of cannot be identical with that sin: for as Bleek has well remarked, that sin may be predicated of persons altogether outside the Christian Church, as were those with reference to whom our Lord uttered His awful saying on it. It is true, the language used in the parallel place, ch. Heb 10:29, does approach that sin, where he says, : but it is also clear that the impossibility here spoken of cannot depend on the fact of such sin having been committed, by the very construction of the participles, and , which themselves render the reason for that impossibility.
[32] Tertullian, 200
Heb 6:6. , and who have fallen away) A word of weighty import, suddenly occurring, strikes us with just terror. It is thus the LXX. translate the Hebrew . He does not merely speak of those relapsing into their former condition, but of those falling away (prterlapsos, lapsing aside) from that entire state of highest glory, and at the same time from faith, hope, and love, into a new species of ruin, Heb 6:10, etc.; and that, too, of their own accord; ch. Heb 10:26. A fall such as this may be separated from the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but yet the bitter state of their soul is nearly the same; comp. ch. Heb 10:29, note. The apostle does not say, that they to whom he is writing are such as these, but he hints that they may become so. The egg which held and lost the stamina of the chicken is not even fit to be eaten: the man who has lost his faith is in a more deplorable condition than he who never believed.- , to form anew [renew] again) A renewal (a forming anew) had been already made; therefore , again, is added, and it corresponds to the , once, Heb 6:4. But we must particularly observe, that , to make anew or renew, is used in the active voice; it is impossible for men, not for GOD. Therefore the apostle undertook the doing of this which he is doing, on this very condition, if GOD permit; Heb 6:3, note; Mat 19:26. [There is a similar admonition, Heb 10:26.-V. g.] Men, ministers, have already done for such persons what they could; Tit 3:11. Ministers have a certain measure, and those obstinate persons have gone beyond it in their opposition: it remains for ministers to leave them to GOD, and (whether they in the meantime admonish them more or less, and entertain hopes concerning them) to wait what GOD will give, 2Ti 2:25, by means of special afflictions and operations. The Grco-Latin copy, Claromontanus, has in this place , difficile.[40]- , unto repentance) He appropriately mentions that, which is first in the foundation, Heb 6:1. But the other things are left to be supplied, considered either by themselves or in their effect.-, since they crucify afresh) He has described the subject by former participles: he now subjoins the reason (tiology, Append.) of that impossibility. The preposition in signifies upwards in Herodian, but in this passage again, for it is the echo of in . , to themselves, which is added, makes an antithesis to , making an open showing, viz. to others: see with the same case, Gal 6:14. From which it is manifest, that he is speaking of those who scoff at Christ from hatred and bitterness of spirit, for the sake of indulging their humour (deliberately and intentionally): truly, if these men had it in their power, they would do to Christ what the Jews did under Pontius Pilate. Those who deny the efficacy of the cross of Christ, which has been already endured, or think that He was justly crucified by the Jews, do the same as if they were to say, that He must still be crucified; Rom 10:6-7.
[40] Vulg. has impossible.-ED.
If They Shall Fall Away
Here is a fact that must be faced and dealt with, if we would be honest with the Word of God and honest with the souls of men. Those who fall away are lost forever. But what does that mean? Be sure you understand the doctrine of Holy Scripture.
Never Perish
The Word of God tells us plainly and unmistakably that Gods elect shall not and cannot fall away and perish. True believers never cease to be true believers. Those to whom Christ gives eternal life shall never perish. Concerning these matters, the Word of God is crystal clear. If salvation is Gods work alone (and it is), then it is forever (Ecc 3:14). The gifts and callings of God are without repentance. Eternal life is eternal life. The promise of grace and the immutability of our God assure us of the infallible and everlasting security of all who are the objects of his mercy, love, and grace in Christ (Mal 3:6).
Those Who Fall
Yet, there are many who do fall away. Many who were once numbered among Gods elect in the house of God, thought to be true believers, even looked upon as examples of faith and faithfulness, have forsaken Christ and the gospel (Joh 6:66; 1Jn 2:19). Remember Lots wife! Those who do fall away are lost forever. They crucify the Son of God afresh and put him to an open shame.
What is this falling away?
What does the Holy Spirit mean by those words — If they shall fall away? This is not talking about some specific act of sin. Davids adultery did not separate him from the love of God in Christ. It is not even talking about the sin of denying Christ. Peter did that; but he was not lost. This is not even talking about doctrinal error, or even doctrinal error concerning vital issues. All these things may be and are forgiven. Though Gods people do fall into these grievous evils, our God lifts us up and sets us upon the Rock Christ Jesus. So what is this fall that results in the eternal, unrecoverable ruin of mens souls? In the Word of God, I see two things described in these terms.
To depart from the faith of the gospel is to fall away and perish forever (Gal 5:1-4).
Those who have been enlightened to the truth of the gospel and then turn from it, for whatever reason, blaspheme the Spirit of God and fall away, and shall not be forgiven. There is a sin unto death. I would not that you should pray for it. That sin which brings eternal reprobation is described in Mat 12:31-32. There the Lord Jesus Christ declares, “Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”
To forsake the assembly of Gods saints, the fellowship of the gospel, and the ministry of the Word, to abandon the worship of Christ is to fall away and be lost forever (Heb 10:25-31; 1Pe 2:20-21).
There are many, I fear, who tenaciously hold to and defend the doctrine of Christ who have fallen away and abandoned Christ altogether. They have no interest in the kingdom of God, no commitment to the cause of God, no fellowship with the people of God, and no concern for the glory of God. They have fallen away. In forsaking the worship of God, they have fallen away.
Something Ive Observed
The first step toward total apostasy is the neglect of public worship. When men and women begin to find comfortable excuses for neglecting the assembly of Gods saints, I tremble for them. By their willful neglect of public worship they declare to all who observe them that the ministry of the Word, the fellowship of Gods saints, the songs of Zion, and the praises of our God are really unimportant. If that which they declare by their actions is, indeed, a declaration of their hearts, such neglecters of divine worship are apostate.
Let us never look upon the assembly of Gods saints lightly, or treat it as a contemptible thing, a thing to be despised. To absent yourself from the house of God is to choose something else above the worship of God. To neglect the worship of Gods church is to neglect the worship of God. To abandon the church of God is to abandon God.
Something Ive Never Seen
Let me tell you something I have never seen. In thirty years of pastoral experience, I have never seen this happen. I have seen believing men and women recovered from falls into many evils. I have seen some who, like Peter, after their fall, were stronger and more faithful than ever. But this I have never seen. I have never seen a man or woman willingly walk away from and abandon the worship of God recover! I have seen many, apparently trying to silence some sting of conscience, come back for a while; but I have never seen it last. I have never yet seen a man or woman willingly walk away from and abandon the worship of God recover!
The Implications Heb 8:1-6
If the Old Testament sacrifices have been forever abolished, as they have, –If the carnal ordinances have been forever put away, as they have, — If the temple and tabernacle have forever been destroyed by the hand of God, as they have, — If the ark of the covenant, the mercy-seat, and all things pertaining to carnal worship have been forever destroyed in accordance with Gods purpose, as they have, what is implied by all these things? What does this mean to us? The implications are obvious; but they are not just implications. Everything implied by these things is specifically stated in Holy Scripture by God the Holy Spirit.
Christ is the end of the law! The High Priesthood of Christ fulfilled and forever brought to an end all the carnal ordinances of legal worship required under the Mosaic law (Col 2:11-23). The tabernacle, the temple, the priesthood, the priestly garments, the priestly service, the priestly sacrifices, holy days, sabbath keeping, the commandments, the whole thing has been brought to its fulfilment and finality by Christ (Rom 10:4).
The worship of God has been radically altered. Divine worship is no longer an external, material thing, but an internal spiritual matter. The external is still important, but now the spiritual is radically pervasive. We do not worship God at specified holy places, or upon specified holy days, or under the rigors of legal bondage.
We worship God in the Spirit. The believers life of faith in Christ is a life of worship (Rom 12:1-2; 1Co 6:19-20; 1Co 10:31). All who are born of God live in the Spirit (Rom 8:1-17), walk in the Spirit (Gal 5:17-23), and worship in the Spirit (Php 3:3-10). The believers very acts of obedience to God are now, in Christ, by his merits and his blood, accepted of God as a sweet smelling sacrifice (Php 4:18; 1Pe 2:5). Salvation is life in the Spirit. It is worshipping God in the totality of our beings. It is the continual consecration of our very lives to Christ.
All true worshippers worship God in the Spirit and in truth (Joh 4:23-24; Php 3:3). Worshipping God in the Spirit makes crosses, religious pictures, images, and icons abhorrent. We count nothing holy but Christ. We acknowledge no priest but the Christ of God. We have no altar but Christ himself. We bring no sacrifice to God for atonement and acceptance with him but Christ. We observe no sabbath but the sabbath of faith, finding all our souls rest and a total cessation from work in the finished work of Christ.
Christ alone is our Door of access to God. Christ alone is our Ark and Mercy-Seat. Salvation is doing business with God in the holy place. Worship is living for the glory of God. Worship is spiritual. It takes place in the heart.
to renew: Heb 6:4, Psa 51:10, Isa 1:28, 2Ti 2:25
they crucify: Heb 10:29, Zec 12:10-14, Mat 23:31, Mat 23:32, Luk 11:48
an open: Heb 12:2, Mat 27:38-44, Mar 15:29-32, Luk 23:35-39
Reciprocal: Num 9:13 – forbeareth 1Ki 12:19 – rebelled Isa 5:6 – also Zec 5:3 – the curse Mat 7:6 – that Mat 21:32 – repented Mar 4:12 – be converted Eph 4:5 – one baptism Phi 3:19 – end Col 3:10 – renewed Tit 3:5 – renewing Tit 3:14 – that Heb 10:39 – we are 1Pe 2:3 – General Rev 1:7 – and they Rev 11:8 – our Lord
Heb 6:6. To fall away means to desert or purposely turn away from a thing. It here applies to those who have had all the experience just described, then deliberately pull away from such a manner of life. Now we are ready to see what it is that is impossible, namely, to renew such a person to repentance. The impossibility is upon the part of the would-be restorer and not on the one who falls away. It does not say he cannot repent, but it is impossible for anyone else to iduce him to. The reason is that the apostate already knows as much about the subject as the one who wants to renew him, and hence the exhorter cannot offer any new arguments or reasons. On the basis of the foregoing statements of the apostle, it is proper to say that if persons fall away after all those experiences, then “It is impossible . . . to renew them again unto repentance.” If they ever come back to Christ it will be on their own change of heart, which will always be possible for them. Paul describes this falling away as another crucifying of the Son of God, since it puts them outside the church and in the class of the enemies who actually did crucify Him. It is an open shame because the radical turning from a life of righteousness is apparent to the world about the apostate.
Heb 6:6. If they fall away Literally, and have fallen away. The preceding participles, , , and , being aorists, says Macknight, are rightly rendered by our translators in the past time; who were enlightened, have tasted, were made partakers; wherefore , being also an aorist, ought to have been translated in the past time, have fallen away. Nevertheless our translators, (following Beza, who, without any authority from ancient MSS., has inserted in his version the word si, if,) have rendered this clause, if they fall away; that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to, or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated the word in the past time, have fallen away, according to its true import, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses. Two things, says Pierce, are here to be observed: 1st, That he speaks of such only as fell away from the very profession of Christianity. This appears from what he presently adds, to set forth the aggravations of their guilt, that they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to open shame That is, show themselves to be of the same mind with those that did crucify him, and would do it again were it in their power; and do all they can to make him contemptible and despised. It is therefore very unreasonable for persons to give way to despair themselves, or to drive others to it, by applying to other sins this text, which only relates to total apostacy. 2d, As the same thing is spoken of again, Heb 10:26, &c., it cannot be improper to compare the two places together, in order to our fully understanding his design. And therefore, from the other place, I would explain this, If they shall, , wilfully, fall away. But it may be inquired why our author speaks so severely of the condition of such apostates. Now the reason of this may be taken partly from the nature of the evidence which they rejected. The fullest and clearest evidence which God ever designed to give of the truth of Christianity, was these miraculous operations of the Spirit; and when men were not only eye-witnesses of these miracles, but were likewise themselves (probably) empowered by the Spirit to work them, and yet after all rejected this evidence, they could have no further or higher evidence whereby they should be convinced; so that their case must, in that respect, appear desperate. This may be partly owing to their putting themselves out of the way of conviction. If they could not see enough to settle them in the Christian religion, while they made a profession of it, much less were they like to meet with any thing new to convince and reclaim them, when they had taken up an opposite profession, and joined themselves with the inveterate enemies of Christianity. And finally, this may be resolved into the righteous judgment of God against such men for the heinous and aggravated wickedness of which they are guilty.
Verse 6
If they shall fall away; apostatize, renounce Christ, and return again to unbelief and sin.–Put him to an open shame; expose his name and his cause to public reproach. The defection of one from any cause, who has been ranked as a friend to it, always tends to this result. There can be no doubt that this terrible warning against the guilt and the hopeless ruin attendant on apostasy, (Hebrews 6:4-6,) is well as many others of similar import, contained in the word of God, (Hebrews 10:26-29,) is addressed to real Christians. But they ought not to lead us to question the certainty of the final salvation of all who truly believe. Indeed, the moral influence which such warnings are designed to exert, is a part of the system of means by which God fulfils his design, very distinctly made known in other passages, Rom. 8:29, 30. 1 Pet. 1:4, 5,) effectually to keep those who once truly give themselves up to his care.
6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they {d} crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put [him] to an open shame.
(d) As men that hate Christ, and as though they crucified him again, making a mockery of him to all the world, to their own destruction, as Julian the Apostate or backslider did.
Earlier in this letter the writer warned his Christian readers about drifting away from the truth through negligence (Heb 2:1-4). He also warned them about failing to continue trusting God and walking by faith (Heb 3:7-19). Now he referred to the same apostasy as "falling away."
"The aorist tense indicates a decisive moment of commitment to apostasy. In the LXX, the term parapiptein has reference to the expression of a total attitude reflecting deliberate and calculated renunciation of God (Eze 20:27; Eze 22:4; Wis 6:9; Wis 12:2; cf. Michaelis, TDNT 6:171 . . .). [Note: Cf. Philip E. Hughes, "Hebrews 6 . . .," pp. 146-50.] In Hebrews it is equivalent to the expression apostenai apo theou zontos, ’to fall away from the living God,’ in Heb 3:12. Apostasy entailed a decisive rejection of God’s gifts, similar to the rejection of the divine promise by the Exodus generation at Kadesh (Heb 3:7 to Heb 4:2 . . .). . . . What is visualized by the expressions in Heb 6:6 is every form of departure from faith in the crucified Son of God. This could entail a return to Jewish convictions and practices as well as the public denial of faith in Christ under pressure from a magistrate or a hostile crowd, simply for personal advantage (cf. Mar 8:34-38 . . ." [Note: Lane, p. 142. Cf. J. C. McCullough, "The Impossibility of a Second Repentance in Hebrews," Biblical Theology 20 (1974):2-3.]
Falling away from the truth is no hypothetical possibility but a tragic reality in too many cases among believers (cf. Num 14:27-32; Gen 25:29-34; Heb 3:7-19; Heb 10:23-25; Heb 10:35-39). [Note: Lane, p. 141.] Christians departed from the faith in the first century (e.g., 2Ti 2:17-18) and they do so today (cf. 1Ti 4:1).
"The author repeatedly urges his readers to maintain their Christian profession and confidence (cf. Heb 3:6; Heb 3:12-15; Heb 6:11-12; Heb 10:23-25). The man who falls away is evidently the one who casts that confidence, and its attendant reward, aside (Heb 10:25)." [Note: Hodges, The Gospel . . ., pp. 70-71.]
To what is it impossible for an apostate to be renewed? The writer said it is repentance, not forgiveness or salvation. Immediately the question arises whether this explanation is realistic since some believers who have departed from the truth have repented and returned to the fold of the faithful. I believe the writer meant that in the case of apostates, the really hard cases who are persistently hostile to Christ, it is impossible to restore such people to repentance (cf. Heb 6:1; Heb 6:3; Heb 6:7-8). The word "apostate" refers to extreme cases of departure from the truth. We usually refer to less serious departure as backsliding. This inability to repent is the result of sin’s hardening effect about which the writer had sounded a warning earlier (Heb 3:13). It is also the result of divine judgment (cf. Pharaoh, Exo 9:12; Exo 10:20; Exo 10:27; Exo 11:10; Exo 14:4; Exo 14:8; Exo 14:17).
Some people who, earlier in their lives have given evidence of being true Christians, later renounced their belief in Christianity, and even in the deity of Christ. Does this mean they were never saved in the first place? Possibly. But it may mean that they were believers and have been misled by false teaching. If such a person persists in his or her departure from the truth, this verse warns that he or she may not be able to return to the truth.
This writer also wrote about three other impossible things. It is impossible for God to lie (Heb 6:18), for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins (Heb 10:4), and for someone to please God without faith (Heb 11:6).
"God has pledged Himself to pardon all who truly repent, but Scripture and experience alike suggest that it is possible for human beings to arrive at a state of heart and life where they can no longer repent." [Note: Bruce, p. 124.]
"That certain persons could not repent of their sins was, e.g., an idea admitted in rabbinic Judaism." [Note: Moffatt, p. 77.]
Even God cannot renew these apostates to repentance because He has chosen not to do so.
". . . the author does recognize the possibility that one may have regressed so far that it is impossible to again make progress toward maturity. He therefore states in Heb 6:4-6 that it may be impossible to renew certain believers so that they can progress toward maturity." [Note: Pentecost, pp. 105-6.]
Would it not glorify God more for apostates to repent? Evidently by making it impossible for them to repent God will bring greater glory to Himself than if they did repent. Consider the glory that came to God because the Pharaoh of the Exodus did not repent. One might ask the same question in regard to everyone being saved? Would it not glorify God more for everyone to be saved than for some to perish eternally?
God allows this hard condition because by repudiating Jesus Christ these apostates dishonor Him. The writer spoke of this dishonor as taking the side of Jesus’ enemies who crucified Him and publicly humiliated Him. The apostates in view crucify Him in the sense of passing judgment against Him again, by repudiating Him and His work, as those who literally crucified Jesus did. Evidently these "hard cases" are not those who turn away from just any aspect of God’s will but specifically the doctrine of Jesus Christ.
"The meaning of the vivid phrase ["they again crucify to themselves the Son of God"] is that they put Jesus out of their life, they break off all connexion [sic] with him; he is dead to them." [Note: Moffatt, p. 80.]
"Anyone who turned back from Christianity to Judaism would be identifying himself not only with Jewish unbelief, but with that malice which led to the crucifixion of Jesus." [Note: Guthrie, p. 144.]
". . . once Christ and his sacrifice have been rejected, there is nowhere else to turn. . . . The ’impossibility’ of a second repentance is thus not psychological or more generally related to the human condition; it is in the strict sense theological, related to God’s saving action in Christ." [Note: Ellingworth, p. 323.]
"Just as the Hebrew spies who returned from their expedition carrying visible tokens of the good land of Canaan nevertheless failed to enter the land because of their unbelief, so those who had come to know the blessings of the new covenant might nevertheless in a spiritual sense turn back in heart to Egypt and so forfeit the saints’ everlasting rest." [Note: Bruce, pp. 119-20. Cf. 3:7-11. See also Lang, pp. 98-107.]
Not only did the 10 spies fail to enter the Promised Land through unbelief, but so did the whole adult generation of Israelites who left Egypt with Moses (Numbers 14). It was impossible for them to repent in the sense that, even though they confessed their sin of unbelief (Num 14:40), God would not permit them to enter the land (Num 14:41-45). Two New Testament examples of these "hard cases" may be Hymenaeus and Alexander. Paul said he had turned them over to Satan that they might learn not to blaspheme because they had apostatized (1Ti 1:18-20).
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)