THE QUESTION OF HEBREWS 6
Is Hebrews 6 a WARNING to Believers not to 'FALL AWAY'?
or addressed to the whole nation of Israel?
Is this addressed to believers or unbelievers?
"Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment." (Hebrews 6:1-2 NASB)
The question arises here, "Where the people addressed in this passage Born-again Believers?"
"..elementary teaching.."
If you have a good reference Bible, you'll see that there is a footnote with a 'literal' translation. It reads, "word of the beginning".
We would naturally assume this is referring to either:
- The FIRST Gospel presentation they heard, or
- The FIRST revelation they received about God, or
- The FIRST written revelation – the Old Testament.
"word of the beginning" naturally sounds like the Old Testament.
The author extensively QUOTES and makes a vast multitude of references to the Covenants & Promises (chap 8-9), the OT law, the Melchizedek Priesthood (chap 7), Levitical priesthood (chap 5-10), the patriarchs (chap 11), OT blood sacrifices (chap 9-10), the atonement, etc, etc, etc….
There can be NO DOUBT the author is speaking of the Old Testament when he says, "elementary teaching" – this is completely in the context of the entire book of Hebrews…. Especially within chapter 6, where he speaks of Abraham and the Melchizedekian Priesthood.
To further illustrate this important point, let's look at way Jesus Christ is addressed, if we can even call it that in verse one.
"..elementary teaching ABOUT the Christ.."
The first references to the promised Messiah (which is what 'christ' means) is given in Genesis 3:15.
"And I will put enmity Between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel"
"He shall bruise.." literally means, "He will CRUSH your head". That is the destruction of satan. This is the first reference to Christ's future reign & rule, but only one reference of many! In addition, the Old Testament teaches the atonement, blood sacrifices etc. which we already know the author refers to many times in the book of Hebrews.
If this passage was addressed to believers, even immature believers, why would the author say, "Therefore LEAVING the elementary teaching about the Christ.."?
Again, the greek yields some interesting language….
The Greek word "aphiemi" means to forsake, to put away, let alone, disregard, put off. It refers to total detachment, total separation, from a previous location of condition. The Expostior's Greek Testament translates Hebrews 6:1, "Therefore let us abandon [give up] the elementary teaching about Christ." Alford comments, "Therefore leaving (as behind, and done with; in order to go on to another thing)."
A.T. Robertson states:
"Wherefore (dio). Because of the argument already made about the difficulty of the subject and the dullness of the readers. 'Let us cease to speak…' … to leave off or behind. Of the first principles of Christ… Objective genitive Christou (about Christ). 'Leaving behind the discussion of the beginning about Christ,'… [ I an condensing here ]
"Let us be borne on" (both the writer and the readers). The Pythagorean Schools use 'perometha' in precisely this sense of being borne on to a higher stage of instruction. …. "Unto perfection" Old word from 'teleios' mature, adults as in 5:14. Only twice in the N.T. (here and Col. 3:14). Let us go on to the stage of adults, not babes, able to masticate solid spiritual food. The writer will assume that the readers are adults in his discussion of the topic." ( Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 5, pg. 373. There is MUCH omitted here.)
The context is Old Testament centered, it is asking the hearers to "leave something behind and go onto another thing"; and the subject is "about the messiah" referring to the Old Testament promises.
This verse does not address Jesus Christ, but things formerly said about Him. the author wants to speak on adult terms about the REALITY of Jesus Christ, His sacrificial atonement, and the New Covenant that awaits all those who would receive Him. The issue being addressed in this passage is not growing in Christian maturity, but coming to faith in Jesus Christ.
IF…. a big IF…
If this passage is addressed to Born-again believers, then we have a real situation on our hands. The author is telling the hearers to "leave the basics of their faith behind. Leaving behind what they know and trust about Jesus Christ – to go on to something else…..?"
That would be encoraging apostacy!
"It is the provisions and the principles of the Old Covenant, of Judiasm, that are to be dropped. It is not a question of adding to what one has. It is a question of abandoning what you have for something else. This is precisely what the Holy Spirit asked the Hebrews to do – to abandon the shadows, the types, the pictures, and the sacrifices of the old economy and come to the reality of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. A paraphrase could be, 'Leave the pictures of the Messiah and go on to the Messiah Himself,' or 'Drop the Old Covenant and accept the New.'" (John MacArthur)
The author of Hebrews is warning and encouraging unbelieving JEWS to come to faith in Jesus Christ the fulfiller of the O.T. prophecies.
When studying Hebrews 6:4-6, we have to ask if these folks the author is addressing are really believers to begin with.
"who have once been enlightened"
This passage makes no reference to salvation. There is no mention of justification, sanctification, the new birth, or regeneration. These folks are not spoken of as born again, made holy or made righteous. In fact, none of the New Testament terminology for salvation is even used. "enlightened" simply isn't used anywhere else in the New Testament for salvation – so why assume it means it here?
In the septuagint, "photizo" is oftentimes translated, "to give light by knowledge or teaching". This in no way means a person accepts OR rejects what they have learned, it does mean they are intellectually 'tuned in'.
Those who have been ENLIGHTENED, doesn't mean they accepted Christ. So the enlightment the author is speaking of here is dealing with comprehending the spiritual truth. By this time, the hearers were well informed, fully aware of the spiritual significance of the message. It doesn't mean they accepted the message.
Nobody is the same after hearing the Gospel and understanding they are sinners. Read 2 Peter 2:20-21 as an example.
In Matthew 4:16 the same terminology is used, "…saw a great light," but were these people saved? No, they may have even understood completely the ramifications of Jesus' ministry, witnessed many miracles, even sat and ate the multipled loaves of bread OR even realized He was the messiah! However, their lives would never be the same because now they had first hand knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Peter has an interesting comment:
"For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them." (2 Peter 2:20-21 NASB)
These folks were 'enlightended' and understood, but never believed and received. They were 'taught' but never trusted, hence, the condemnation is FAR WORSE than ever before! The 'light' they received actually became the judgment AGAINST themselves.
"tasted of the heavenly gift"
When we see figurative language, it's best not to make it into doctrine. Nobody literally 'tastes' a heavenly gift. The greatest 'heavenly gift' is Jesus Christ, and Him we're suppose to 'eat' not taste. (John 6:51 & 6:35) Everyone on the earth 'samples' life and partial blessings from God just by breathing air, enjoying nature, and seeing God answer simple prayers such as making a vegetable garden grow. If the text said "consumes the heavenly gift" would there be any doubt that this individual was saved? But, the text only says "tasted" – that's too fuzzy to be dogmatic.
"had been made partakers of the Holy Spirit"
The Greek word, "metochos" (translated partakers) has to do with association, not possession. We see the same in Luke 5:7 as being 'associates' or in the same vicinity. When we invite someone over for dinner, they may share in the same wonderful roast we eat, but that doesn't make them automatically part of my family! In the same vicinity, sharing in the same blessings, but separated from the promises.
Compare this to 1 Corinthians 7:13-14 for an interesting text with some of the same interesting background.
"And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through he believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy."
We know 'sanctified' means 'to set apart' – presumably for God's use or for God's specific blessings. It would sound incredible that God would actually bless a godless man, but since there is an unbeliever in the vicinity or associated to a believer, that person receives God's favor for 'just being there'! Naturally, God wants the unsaved spouse SAVED, and hopefully, with the quiet witness of the spouse ( 1 Peter 3:1 ) the unsaved person might be saved quickly, and the whole house united in Christ.
Essentially, God WANTS PEACE in the home – He has a HIGH REGARD FOR MARRIAGE.
Therefore, by association, the unbeliever is 'tasting' and 'illuminated' but still they have not 'feasted upon' and 'received' Jesus Christ.
"have tasted the good word of God"
The Greek word here is not "logos" but "rhema". "Rhema" emphasizes parts, not the whole. When in this context, we can see why the author uses "rhema" instead of "logos". Elsewhere, 'logos' usually refers to the whole, but here "rhema" is used to refer to a "smorgasaboard attitude" towards the Word of God, they pick a little here, a little there, but never get down to taking it all in and accepting it all.
We've all met people that like to play "church" or use it as the "social club". These people take the best part of the ministry and leave the hard work for the REST OF US….. We wind up doing the WHOLE THING, they do only what's necessary to keep enjoying the blessings. It's partial involvement, not whole hearted commitment.
King Herod is a fine example, he enjoyed hearing John the Baptist preach, but when was he ever saved? (Mark 6:20) When did he repent? Instead, at his reluctant command, John the Baptist was beheaded! When push comes to shove, the 'samplers' never commit themselves, but only bring greater guilt upon themselves.
Is 'tasting' wrong?
Absolutely not. As Christians, we want to be salt to the unsaved, we and them to see the joy, peace & blessings we enjoy! We want them to realize that without the Lord, they really have nothing worthwhile and long lasting. When God blesses unsaved friends, THANK the Lord for them being blessed so! It sure gets their attention, and hopefully, they will realize that God has been VERY GOOD to them. We ultimately want their response to be, "Lord save me!", so directing their attention to the One from whom all blessings flow is a gentle reminder to Whom they owe thanks.
However…..
The BAD NEWS is, if these folks understand the Gospel, have seen the way God blesses and have even shared in those blessings…. and then utterly reject God's grace & the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to bring them BACK to the same point of repentance they were once at.
I cannot imagine anyone utterly rejecting the Lord after He pours out blessing after blessing on their life, and they have FULL KNOWLEDGE of what they are doing…. But we sure seem to see it happening. The best time to repent and receive Jesus Christ as Saviour is when you KNOW you need to be saved. To reject Him with full knowledge of the implications is certain damnation. I hope everyone reading this realizes this.
Lastly, Hebrews was written about the time of the Titus' seige of Jerusalem. Jerusalem fell to Titus around 70 AD. Could it be that God in His mercy and perservence was offering Israel as a nation, ONE LAST PROOF that Jesus was their Messiah, their only hope and salvation before the judgment was executed against their unbelief? With the mixed crowd in Jerusalem, we can expect a letter addressed to not a "church" but a nation of people, some believers, some unbelievers – but all needing the admonition and encouragement of the Lord to TRUST him. If your city was under seige for 3 years, about to fall to imperial Rome, wouldn't you need all the encouragement you could get?
The siege of Jerusalem was so strong, when food ran out, women were litterally eating the flesh of their children to survive. Titus ran out of trees to make crosses to crucify the men of the city on.
Bill Bennett
This article originated on The Salvation Online Network