Chapter 6
2023 - Going back to re-read 5:11-14, since that is where the outline break says the topic of "Full Commitment" begins, after the section on Christ the better priest. Read it yesterday, but focusing today. In these last verses of 5, the writer just severely chastises his readers. He calls them children as far as their understanding of the gospel. Says they ought to be far more advanced, but they still drink milk,like a baby rather than even a child much less an adult. Why would he be so harsh? Who is he that he believes he has the authority to say such things and that they should listen to him and be ashamed because of his words? We could say Paul, as an apostle, but I can't think of anywhere else that Paul speaks so harshly, even to the Corinthians. So some other of the 12? Who? Matthew was a learned Jew, but surely we don't see Matthew in this. I come back to Apollos...but how would he have such authority unless this is written to a "seminary" at which he was, or once was, a teacher. He could reprimand his students, in fact it sort of has that feel to it. The book sounds like a teacher going back over material that they ought to know already, and being almost angry with them for wasting this time. There is much to do, and they aren't holding up their end. Who would say that? Apollos might, if he was the teacher. What do we really know about Apollos? I found these verses:
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. [Act 18:24 ESV]. Eloquent - a good speaker. They make good teachers. Competent? The literal translation is that "he was mighty in the scriptures". The word for mighty is "dynatos". I can see that as a superlative. Dynamite in the scriptures. He knew the scriptures thoroughly. The word is also translated "possible" as in "if possible". Would we translate it that Apollos had possibilities in the scripture?
12 What I mean is that each one of you says, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." [1Co 1:12 ESV]. Apollos is in good company here, with Paul and Peter. That's right at the top of the hierarchy. Further, it tells us that Apollos had done some teaching in the church at Corinth, and had been there long enough to baptize a group of people who considered him their primary teacher, above these two pretty big time apostles.
4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not being merely human? 5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. ... 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, [1Co 3:4-6, 22 ESV]. The company gets still smaller. Now it only includes Paul and Apollos.
6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. [1Co 4:6 ESV]. Again, pretty exclusive company.
It could have been Paul, being the stern schoolmaster, who wrote Hebrews, but there are so many things that don't fit. He doesn't give his salutation or his closing, he doesn't name the recipients...If it was Paul, this was an internal document at some church where he spent some time that was perhaps never intended for general circulation. We might say that same about Apollos though, if he wrote it as a professor's reprimand to his students. So I still don't have a better idea who wrote it, but I think now that I see what it really is. A review of previous material that ought to have been learned by now. Teaching the teachers, who were not learning very well.
That's the end of 5:11-14. Now let's look at 6.
2022 - Outline says we will continue to talk about full commitment to Christ.
Now the writer says it is time to push on. Much more could be said, but these things are foundational. They should be understood already.
2023 - In 6:1, the writer indicates that all that went before is the elementary doctrine of Christ. It was like a chapter in Systematic Theology about the person of Christ. And the writer says they should already have known that because it is so fundamental, so foundational, to everything else. So. We are going to move on to other things. Things less foundational I would say, but things that are still very important, and perhaps not on a level to even be taught to babes. You have to have graduated to solid food before these things will ever make any sense to you. And there are some big topics here. We ought to look at these as "building" on the foundational understanding of Christology:
1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. [Heb 6:1-2 ESV]. There are six more topics here. How many sermons could you come up with on these six topics? Washings? Beyond just baptism? It sure looks that way. Resurrection - we know the Thessalonicans had trouble there. Final judgment - I know there's more to that topic than meets the eye! Laying on of hands? In those days it conveyed real Holy Spirit power. Perhaps they needed instruction in being careful to whom they conveyed that? So...are these what the rest of Hebrews is going to be about?
And then here come the really tough verses that the intro talked about. These:
4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. [Heb 6:4-6 ESV]
It most certainly reads as if saved people can lose their salvation. Shared the Holy Spirit? How is that not saved people? Unless it is sarcastically showing the incredible sequence that would initiate. What it is really saying is that IF you could lose your salvation, it would be absolutely impossible ever to regain it. So if you want to adopt that it can be lost, then realize that once lost, we are with the demons in the abyss, with no hope of ever being saved again. MSB goes on at length about how this cannot be written about believers. He concludes the same way I did. If that's what these verses say, then once lost it can never be regained. But if it isn't about losing salvation, what is it really trying to say? Quoting MSB:
"Those who sinned against Christ in such a way had no hope of restoration or forgiveness. (that is, those who have full knowledge of Christ, complete teaching and instruction about Christ, and with this all in mind, still reject Christ). The reason is that they had rejected Him with full knowledge and conscious experience (as described in the features of vv 5,6). With full revelation they rejected the truth, concluding the opposite of the truth about Christ, and thus had no hope of being saved. They can never have more knowledge than they had when they rejected it. They have concluded that Jesus should have been crucified, and they stand with His enemies."
2022 - Paul is postulating what the sequence of events would have to be for a saved person to lose their salvation and then regain it. Improbable things would have to occur, as in Christ would need to be crucified again, each time. The doctrine of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice would fall. It wouldn't be enough to keep us saved. He sets the whole thing up with phrases that leave no doubt he is talking about saved people. The "enlightened", tasters of the gift, sharers of the Holy Spirit...only the saved are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. If SAVED people fall away, it is IMPOSSIBLE to restore them to salvation.
This begs the question, then. If this is impossible, why is Paul bringing it up right here, at this point in chapter 6? What was laid down before that might lead one to ask - just exactly here - whether those who lose their salvation can reacquire it? Well back in 5, the section title before vs 11 was "Warning Against Apostasy". Comments on 11-14 are just above. He accused them of being "toddlers", not only unlearned as to doctrine, but perhaps lacking the concentration span to learn it.
And then he starts 6 with "Therefore..." Because you "...need milk, not solid food...", let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity. Ahh!!! He is saying that they should not be spending their time rehashing, debating all over again, and re-proving what they have already studied and been told. It is time to STOP going over the same material again and again. Doing so does not add to knowledge - there is only so much algebra to learn before going on to something more complex - but just churns things up and gives the appearance of progress when in fact one is still "stuck" in the fundamentals. That is not useful or profitable, and that is what you are doing, "Therefore..." I'm not going to debate these already proven doctrines with you anymore - like whether or not you can lose salvation because it is so painfully obvious that you cannot - and move on to bigger questions. (((I note that eternal judgment is listed as an "elementary doctrine" that ought not need further study by this time, yet that is exactly what is challenging me at this point, it is my "extra" study. And what I'm trying to do is just organize what the Bible says so that I can explain what I believe it teaches. That's exactly what this writer is saying I ought to know already. So...that means judgment is decipherable using pretty much only the OT scriptures. The writer of Hebrews didn't have a complete NT, Revelation had not even been written - though 1 and 2Thess probably had. But they aren't about judgment they are about the second coming.
2023 - No. I think the additional list of topics are things they do not know. They ought to have already understood Christology, and rather than rehashing it continuously, it is time to move on to these additional topics.))) If that is correct, did all the previous chapters arise in response to the question of "losing salvation"? Possibly so....How could you lose the salvation offered by Christ if: he has a better name, he is the son, he is higher than the angels, higher than Moses, and a more profoundly effective High Priest than the Law ever provided. If you don't think you could lose the salvation that accrued to those UNDER the law, and BEFORE the law, how could you possibly think you could lose salvation that came through this better one - Christ the Messiah? OR, what if they were saying that failure to maintain the sacrifices DID result in lost salvation before there was Law and during the Law so wouldn't it still be possible to lose it? The answer would be that the sacrifices under the Law only delayed God's justice, it NEVER atoned completely for it. That's why we'll see later that it had to be done year by year. There are...how many verses in the OT that say faith is better than sacrifice anyway, that animal sacrifices are nothing, but obedience to the Law - because one WANTS to obey the Law, is what God requires. So at this point, I think it is probably the first situation - that they were concerned about losing salvation, and these first 5 chapters are a refutation of that, culminating with the stating of the question at the beginning of chapter 6.
2023 - Wow. This previous paragraph is pretty much what I was about to write about these first 6 chapters. I had forgotten that I had untangled it this way. I certainly see it that way today. They were constantly trying to ascertain "how" Christ could give us eternal salvation if angels, the Law, Moses, or the Aaronic priesthood could not. And the answer was that Christ was greater by far than all these, and was the very Son of God, and the Messiah, the chosen one, the sent one, the sacrificer and the sacrificed. He is greater than all who came before, and salvation in Christ can NEVER be undone. So can we please move on now! That is what the first six chapters are about.
An agricultural analogy. Land that drinks the rain and produces thistles instead of crops is destined to be burned.
2022 - Not just an analogy. A metaphor. The rain is the blessings of God, falling on the saved. Good crops, life-sustaining (salvation-sustaining) nourishment is the result. If the rain is producing thorns, then it is not the rain that's the problem, but the land it falls on. That land is worthless (unsaved), and near to being cursed (going to hell upon death). This might very well be the authors way of saying that we shall know them by their works. It is not that saved people can regress and do bad things, it is that they were never saved at all. This surely might be the point here.
2023 - 7 For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. [Heb 6:7-8 ESV]
Possible FB post. God "rains" on all people. Those who produce crops - useful to others - are blessed by God. Those who produce thorns, when watered by this very same rain, are in danger of being cursed forever. God offers salvation to everyone, equally. If we turn it down, it is not the offer that is the problem.
Then this verse, a bit apologetic maybe for the harshness of what has just been stated:
9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things--things that belong to salvation. [Heb 6:9 ESV]
If better things belong to salvation, the section just presented does not belong to salvation. This is the confirmation verse that he was talking about unsaved, not saved.
2022 - He has just said a hard thing - that if you aren't producing good crops, though the rain daily falls in the form of teaching and scripture, then you are almost worthless and the fire is your next stop. BUT, it does not have to be that way. He is talking about -he is talking to - those who are hearing all this information about Christ, and yet STILL fail to commit. They want to talk about the same old things over and over, whereas if they were saved, they would understand and move on to bigger things. He is telling them that their hearts are not yet right, and that he believes/hopes/intends that they WILL be saved because they are right at the very door, but they are not yet saved.
2022 - Verse 11, we hope you can have assurance to the end. This puts it all together. If they are still worried about losing salvation, or still thinking - as the new wears off - that they even can lose their salvation, it is sapping their energy toward doing good works and serving, and what the writer wants for them is the assurance of eternity in heaven that ought to be keeping gas in the tank at all times.
2022 - 13-15 are saying that Abraham went through some difficulties too, but he remained faithful, as these to whom Hebrews is addressed ought also remain faithful.
The chapter concludes with a statement of the permanence of salvation, once obtained. These verses:
19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner place behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. [Heb 6:19-20 ESV]
Jesus permanent and unique position as our high priest is reiterated. Sure and steadfast are not words used of a precarious hold. We are "placed" behind the curtain, in God's very presence. Jesus led the way, living a perfect life, and making the perfect sacrifice. Since this atoned once and for all, the separation is removed. In Christ, we approach God's very throne.
2022 - All of 13-20 are aimed at reassuring the Hebrews that they cannot lose their salvation any more than Abraham could lose his. I think this chapter 6 is a "tying up" of the response to the question of whether Jesus is sufficient - whether faith in him alone - can really save us forever. The Hebrews who had been taught practically from birth that it was the sacrificial system that saved them, that kept them in good standing with God - through the actions of the priests in the Temple, so how was it possible to "disconnect" from all that completely, and individually trust in Christ alone, and "bet your eternity" on Christ's ability to "keep you saved". That is what it has all been about. And the writer says all this is elementary doctrine.