Ok, here it goes, an attempt to concisely (this is my longest post ever) and clearly explain what I believe is the clear teaching of Hebrews 6:4-9. I think there are 3 major interpretations of this text. Each of the interpretations has their nuanced varieties of course, so I will be guilty of reductionism. Also there are the wacko cousins, those oddball interpretations that few if any other than their progenitors want to claim, I will leave them alone. Option number one I will simply reject and move on. Option number two I find tolerable but not probable, thus I will work to break it into pieces, and by doing so establish option 3. Option number three I will seek to defend.
Number One:
Some hold this text to be speaking of actual Christians who have committed a sin or sins so serious the deal is off. Not only do they lose their salvation, they can never get it back. Umm…NO! (Though you may feel like I’m yelling at you though your computer, I don’t care; bold, underline, all caps, and exclamation are all justified here.)
Number Two:
Some hold this text to be speaking hypothetically. They make much of the “if” in verse six, taking it in the sense of “if you fell off this building, though it’s impossible because of all the precautionary measures, what would happen to you.” They then interpret this passage to be saying that you can’t lose your salvation, but if you could, you could never get it back.
Here are my major problems with this interpretation:
1) It doesn’t fit the author’s pattern. Proponents of this view often say that this text is then meant to build our assurance of salvation. Because this is a hypothetical impossibility we need not fear it. But the author of Hebrews will constantly transition from building comfort/assurance to concern/rebuke.
1 – comfort 2:1-4 – concern
2:14-18 – comfort 3:6-13 – concern
4:14-5:10 – comfort 5:11-6:8 – concern
6:9ff – comfort
The point of this paragraph is meant to generate concern, not comfort; thus the hypothetical position violates the intention of the paragraph. And if one who takes this passage to be speaking hypothetically interprets this text as a warning he tears down any force the warning might have by making it a hypothetical impossibility.
2) It doesn’t fit the immediate context. After exhorting them to press on to maturity he tells them they will do this “if God permits” (v. 3). Verses 4-9 function as an exposition of verse 3 giving us a case where God will not permit. Also there are two cases being developed here as illustrated by verses 7-8. There is land that has been cultivated and received natural irrigation. If such a field produces fruit it is blessed by God, but if it bears thorns it is cursed. The fruit is indicative of how the rain was received. If the rain is received, it will produce fruit. (Cf. Isaiah 5:1-7 and Matthew 13:1-30) In verse 9 the author turns to comfort telling them that he is sure of better things concerning them, things that belong to salvation. The implication being that the action of apostasy just mentioned above does not belong to salvation. In other word they are not those who bear thorns, but fruit.
3) It doesn’t fit the overall context of Hebrews. He wants them to persevere, remain faithful, not in order to gain salvation but to prove their salvation. Falling away is a real threat, and he does not want them to do so proving that they were never Christ’s (I John 2:19).
Hebrews 2:1-4 – Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
Hebrews 3:12 – “Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.”
Hebrews 4:11 – “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same sort of disobedience.”
Hebrews 10:26-31 – “For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”
Hebrews 12:25 – “See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven.”
The issue is not one of falling away and losing your salvation, but of never really having had it. Here is one that has enjoyed great spiritual privileges yet has proved to have a hard unbelieving heart.
Some objections might be:
1) “This violates the language of verses 4-5 which clearly indicates that these persons must be saved.” This is an example of forcing a preconceived meaning onto terms rather than letting the context determine the meaning of the terms. For example some might look at ever instance of “righteousness” in scriptures and import the meaning of “imputed righteousness” (that foreign righteousness of Christ that is declared to be ours) rather than “practical righteousness” (that which comes as a result of regeneration and sanctification). Another instance is looking at every instance of “sanctification” as referring to the progress that we make after salvation, when in some instances “sanctification” is to be interpreted as “positional sanctification” (being set apart as holy) something that happens once upon salvation. Too often we read our systematic theological categories into the text, forcing our system onto the text rather than allowing the text to fill out and refine our system.
All the terms here can be taken to speak of someone who dwells among God’s covenant people, makes a profession of faith, enjoys many spiritual privileges, and then violently rejects Christianity. We all know “professors” are not always “possessors”. They can be enlightened, that is come to see the truths of the gospel. They can taste of the heavenly gift, this could be directly related to enlightened or a reference to communion. They can share in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit may convict them, may use them while they are still unrepentant to teach and lead other to Christ and even gift them. Spiritual gifts are no final indication that you are Christ’s (Matthew 7:21-23). They can taste of the goodness of the Word of God; they can love its truths, see the goodness therein, and yet ultimately reject Christ. They can taste of the powers of the age to come, in the church as when Jesus we present in flesh the presence of the future can be seen and tasted. The immediate context is illustrating this heard unbelieving heart using the children of Israel in the wilderness (chapters 3,4); and all these things can be said of them, and of Judas as well.
2) Some will take the phrase “restore to repentance” and insist that they had truly repented. But scripture does speaking of a repentance, a turning that is not saving. 2 Peter 2 is a great example of this, pay particular attention to verses 20-22.
Number 3:
Although much can be implied concerning the option I hold from the mess above, here it is explicitly and briefly. These are persons who have heard the gospel, professed Christ, enjoyed great spiritual privileges by being a part of God’s covenant people, His church, and then violently abandon the faith proving ultimately to have a hard unbelieving heart.
This is not simply an agnostic attitude toward Christianity. It is not mere doubt. Nor is it atheism. Atheism is simply unbelief. This text goes further than that. Also it is not equivalent to someone who leaves the Christian faith for a time and lives in sin. It is a persistent, intense, resolute, violent action of standing with the crucifiers of Christ and holding Christ in contempt and shame, rather than trusting Him.
This is not to say there may be a person who repents but God will not save them. This is a case where someone will not be saved because they have such a hard heart that repentance is not a viable option. Repentance has become an impossibility due to the hardness of their heart.
WHEW! (Again another instance where the emphasis is justified) That was almost as exhausting as preaching it. I’m going to quit and go get a glass of water now.
No Other Boast 
Josh,
Thanks a lot for your post. It is very interesting and has had me thinking about this passage all weekend. I wish I could be there to go through the series with you guys. But as I’m thinking more about this passage, I’m seeing something very different in the passage than how you interpret it (and not just for the sake of argument). I guess this is a wacko cousin interpretation since it doesn’t fit in with the main three you outlined. I apologize about the length of this – I guess it’s fitting that the longest post ever should be accompanied by the longest comment ever. Most of this is just me trying to work through and sort out ideas by writing them down. I commend anyone who actually reads through to the end.
Interpretation:
The way I think the passage should be read is as an exposition of the verses immediately preceding it, specifically back to 5:11 where the author begins his next main thought. In 5:12, the author chastises his audience for needing to learn again the “first principles of the oracles of God” when they should be teaching these doctrines by this point. They are not learning the principles themselves for the first time, but again. The sense is not that they have forgotten what they are, but rather that they have replaced them with something else. This becomes clearer through the rest of the passage. For example, notice the emphasis on proper discernment as the distinguishing mark of maturity in 5:14, which indicates that they are immature because they cannot discern properly.
From the context of the previous chapters, it seems that the choice they must make is between the doctrines of Christ and the doctrines of the law. Each of the preceding chapters discusses the superiority of Christ over that which has come before. The author contrasts Christ to the prophets (1:1-2), the angels (chapter 1), Moses (chapter 3), and the Levitical priesthood (chapter 5), showing Christ’s superiority and fulfillment of all of these. Although the specific contrast to Christ is the Judaic covenant, I think we can safely extend this to any means of justification besides the grace and mercy of Christ without losing the intended meaning. But even more than simply being a choice between two sets of doctrines, what the author is trying to show his readers is that the work of Christ is final and will never need to be modified or added to by anything else.
In 6:1-2, the author exhorts them to leave the first principles of Christ, which he specifies as repentance from dead works, faith toward God, baptism instructions, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. These are the first principles referred to in 5:12 that they should have already mastered, but need to learn again because they have not discerned them properly. The list of these doctrines serves as the instruction that these people needed, so now he is telling them to move on toward maturity, which they should have been doing in the first place. The main point is that these foundations established by Christ are final and cannot be replaced by any other doctrine. As Christ has superseded the angels and the prophets, these doctrines serve as the final word on all that has gone before.
Your interpretation makes much of 6:3 as the specific verse that gives context to the next sentence. But all this verse really does is lend emphasis to the previous sentence, affirming with resolve that they are going to strive for maturity. The phrase “If God permits” is a common idiom and is equivalent to the modern “God willing,” which is really just a way of saying “If we can, if it is possible, etc.” I wouldn’t make too much of it. However, even if you want to take it literally, the Greek construction is a “future more vivid” conditional, which is used when the speaker thinks the situation is quite plausible. The author wouldn’t spend so much time talking about an alternative to something that he felt confident was going to happen.
6:4 begins with the word “for,” so the sentence that follows should be taken as an explanation or expansion of what was immediately stated. You suggested 6:3, but since this is a secondary sequence that relies on 6:1-2 for its subject, we have to look to 6:1-2 to see what the “for” in 6:4 is explaining. The author is explaining why we must leave behind the elementary doctrines of Christ and press on to maturity. To do so he makes a claim about the enlightened, about those who have at one point received the foundational doctrines, but for some reason have fallen away. The description of those who were once enlightened but have fallen away in 6:4-6 is a description of those in 5:11-14 who have become dull of hearing, who drink milk instead of eat meat, who do not properly discern good and evil. The author is telling them how severe their falling away is and what their actions actually mean. What they have fallen away from is the first principles of Christ. A possibility is that they have turned to the law, either completely or have attempted to combine elements of this with Christianity. Since the author has recalled them to these first principles, he is admonishing them not to call these principles into question by attempting to reformulate them or add anything to them, because these are the foundation by which they are to become perfect and mature. The point is that these who have fallen away must become perfect, but as they begin to do this they should leave the foundational doctrines untouched as their basis for doing so.
What does it mean that it is impossible to restore these unto repentance? It is impossible because the foundation of repentance has already been established (6:1). This could work in two ways (I’m still trying to sort this out). First, it is impossible for these to be renewed under the law because Christ has laid a new foundation. Any attempt at repentance under another system would be to shame Christ, or more broadly, anything that diminishes any of the foundational doctrines diminishes one’s faith in the work of Christ. Second, because they have already been renewed unto repentance from dead works when they first were enlightened, it is impossible for this to occur again. It is the foundational repentance from dead works that he is specifically referring to here (6:1). Of course repentance is something that must be lived out continuously, but the author is careful to draw a distinction between that which is foundational, which the recipients are instructed to leave aside, and that which pertains to perfection. He instructs them to leave behind the foundational repentance, that first repentance that brought them to faith in the first place, and concentrate on the repentance that pertains to perfection. The distinction is akin to that of “saving faith” (the enlightenment) and the faith we have from day to day (our perfection). You called attention to the fact that our theological terms can mean different things in different places, and I think that’s exactly what is going on here with repentance.
Attempting to lay again the foundation once it has already been established is considered a grave offense because it undermines one’s faith in the effectiveness of Christ’s sacrifice, as if a falling away could render his saving work ineffectual. The apostates addressed by the author have fallen away, but the author is calling them back into repentance, but showing them the proper way to do so. They can’t “get saved” again because this work has already been done in their lives. To try to do so would be to say that Christ’s work on the cross was only sufficient for one redemptive moment, but it could not cover any other sins after that first salvation, so Christ would have to die every time we sin. The passage suggests an assurance of our salvation so that they can remain faithful and persevere, which is precisely the theme of the book you highlighted. Our salvation is assured because the work of Christ is perfect. He does not need to die each time we sin.
I don’t think it’s too trustworthy to base any kind of interpretation off of a pattern one finds in the book, but in any case, the tone of the passage as a whole is that of concern for those who once truly knew Christ but have fallen away, but is ultimately encouraging because it does ensure us that true salvation is effective once and for all. We do not need to worry about turning to any other system such as our own works to find justification in Christ, nor do we have to worry that we can lose our salvation. Perfection and maturity should be our goal. The author makes this aim more clear when he ends these thoughts in 6:9-12 by exhorting those who have fallen away to strive toward perfection until the very end.
Possible Objections:
One might object that 6:4-6 is describing a hypothetical scenario, specifically because of the phrase “if they shall fall away” in verse 6, so it cannot apply to the people he is actually writing to. It is true that he is not specifically addressing them in the second person, but I think context makes it clear that they are included in the group he is talking about. Concerning the “if” phrase, I think the translation as a conditional in verse 6 is questionable. The entire comma break describes “those who were enlightened” by linking together a series of participles. The conditional “if” is taken from translating the final participle as a conditional participle, but there isn’t any suggestion in the text that this ought to be taken differently than the other descriptive participles. I think the NASB and ESV get the translation right when it says “and then have fallen away.” This distinction is important because it makes the possibility of falling away very real, and so refutes interpretation #2 that you mentioned in which it is impossible to fall away.
In terms of the specific content in 6:4-5, I think the descriptions of the enlightened must apply to one who has come to know Christ. You say we have to let context determine the meaning of our terms, and I fully agree, but here there is no indication anywhere in this description that each of these attributes are simply “professed” instead of actually “possessed.” The phrase “tasted the heavenly gift” seems like a powerful reference to the Eucharist (Luke 22:19 – And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.), and so is a reference to one’s partaking in the gift of the death of Christ. I wouldn’t say this is just about swallowing a cracker and drinking grape juice. “Sharing in the Holy Spirit” seems to be something very specific to those who have received Christ. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is a very fundamental idea across history and across theology that only believers have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. “Conviction” has a vastly different meaning than “share in,” which has the sense of “partake in” or “being in.” Possession is the key idea in these verses. One who merely professes does not partake in the heavenly gift or share in the Holy Spirit.
There is nothing in the text that suggests any of these things were not genuine or that they were just things that happened anyway even though that person’s heart was truly hard all along. The only way you can get the interpretation that the enlightened weren’t actually “saved” is if you start with the assumption that they weren’t saved to begin with and read the text to fit that assumption. Otherwise, I don’t see how it could possibly be a reference to anything other than one who has faith in Christ. What descriptions would be left for true Christians? The author seems to have used up most of the really powerful imagery here. Also, if all of these amazing things could apply to charlatans, it would make it that much more difficult to be assured of our own salvation. With that kind of doubt, we would be back stuck on the first principles which the author demands we move away from. See also John 4:10-14 for similar imagery. Why would it be the case that one who drinks of living water will never thirst and have everlasting life, but that this does not necessarily apply to one who partakes of the heavenly gift? These seem like metaphors for the same thing.
Finally, the illustration in verses 7-8 about the two fields doesn’t seem to have anything to do with salvation. The distinction is between being blessed and being “almost cursed”, not cursed. I think the contrast is between the spiritually immature and spiritually mature that we saw in 5:11-14, and fittingly the same theme of nourishment is used in both places. The spiritually immature are those who have “forgotten” the foundation doctrines of Christ and those who reach for perfection after having set these doctrines aside. So the one who is apostate, who crucifies Christ again and again, only yields thorns and thistles, but those who strive for perfection yield fruit. In light of the author’s urging them to turn away from their apostasy, I wouldn’t interpret the thorny field being burned as an image of their damnation to hell, since these people have already come to a genuine faith, which the author has demonstrated is still legitimate and the work of Christ is still effectual on them despite their now yielding thorns. Instead, the burning is a symbol of purification. Burning fields is a common method in agriculture of clearing away weeds, trees, and other obstructions so new and better planting can begin. We are made perfect as we are purified, and then by eating meat we can yield fruit fit for those who planted it.
Congratulations if you made it this far and are not dozing off. Thank you for putting up with my ramblings. I hope there’s something someone can take out of them.
Austin
LikeLike
Thanks, Josh. You should of went and got a Brownie Rootbeer!!! I need to read all this over a few times and pray for understanding. I’m waiting for your comments on what Austin had to say. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge.
LikeLike