Melchizedek having been mentioned in 5:6ff, the writer finds himself somewhat embarrassed to proceed with his exposition because of the state of the believers to whom he writes. He, therefore, breaks off into a parenthesis which occupies the remainder of ch. 5 and most of ch. 6. It seems that this section is not so much a warning against apostasy as it is against immaturity.
It appears to the writer that the application of this section, specially 6:4-6, to mere professors, who lack reality, fails altogether to do justice to what is actually written. The whole section affords, it would seem, the strongest proof of the eternal security of the believer and the impossibility of repeating the initial work of God’s grace in the soul. The passage assumes this eternal security. It is not written to affirm or to prove it.
On the supposition that those contemplated in verses 4-6 have never really been saved, and do not really belong to the people of God, but are spurious, the following points should be considered. They must not be avoided, but should be fairly construed, if we are to be satisfied that our interpretation of the section is sound. It is all too easy blindly to follow what others have said; we must satisfy ourselves.
1. They have been once for all enlightened. Note the word “once” (a~rat): it is not once upon a time, or at some time or other, but once for all. We have earlier discussed this word in relation to the work of Christ: it speaks of finality and unrepeatability. Moreover, the word ‘enlightened’ is used elsewhere of true believers who have received ‘inward light’ (Eph. 1:18; Heb. 10:32). How can this be true of a mere professor?
2. How can the words “made partakers of the Holy Ghost” be true of any but genuine believers? The phrase cannot, it is submitted, be fairly construed to mean that those referred to have only come under the influence of the Holy Spirit and His works. In this epistle the word ‘partakers’ is used in other connections but only in the sense of a real and not a nominal partaking or sharing. There is an actual partaking of “blood and flesh” (Heb. 2:14); an actual partaking of milk (Heb. 5:13, Gk.); and so it is in every other use of the word in this epistle; there is an actual participation in the thing concerned. Why, then, should it be necessary to modify the sense in this passage and regard it, not to mean an actual partaking of the Holy Spirit, but merely a coming under His influence? Besides, the words “were made” (v.4) implies a change which was experienced—a becoming something which they were not before.
3. “The powers of the world to come” are spoken of separately which seems to disprove the interpretation given by some that this is the same as partaking of the Holy Spirit. This undoubtedly refers to the miracles that characterized early Christianity.
4. It seems too much to say that “fall away” (v.6) is equivalent to apostasy. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament and so we have no guide save the context and the etymology of the word, though this latter is insufficient to determine the significance of its use. It means to “fall alongside” as one might fall out of the ranks of a regiment of soldiers, not by way of desertion but because of inability to maintain the pace. This seems to accord with the sense here where there has been decline and a need of milk has recurred: strength has waned and strong meat can no longer be digested.
5. Nor must the force of “taste” be reduced to merely that of sipping. The word is used of the Lord who “tasted” death for everything. He actually experienced it.
6. The constant repetition of the word “again” is a key, we suggest, to the true meaning of the section. They need to be “taught again”; they need milk “again”; but no one lays the foundation “again”; it is impossible to “renew again” for that would entail “crucifying again”: the force of all which is, that the work in the soul, once done, cannot be done again.
If the section is made to apply to false professors, then the interpretation creates a class for whom there is no hope of repentance whatsoever. It may be answered that this is so only “while they are crucifying afresh the Son of God,” but the writer of the epistle did not use the word “while” unless it be claimed that, in English, it is required to give the sense, and cannot be properly translated without it. Grammarians may affirm or deny this. We must be careful not to make our grammatical rules according to our theological views.
What then, does the section mean? We suggest as follows: The writer of the letter says that he has many things to say touching Melchizedek, which are difficult to express, not because of the complexity of the subject but because of the low spiritual condition of the Hebrews. They ought by the time then present to have been able to teach others, but they had gone back and had become themselves in need of teaching: teaching of the first oracles of God, or “the beginning of the oracles of God.” They needed to start all afresh, right from the very beginning. They had reverted to babyhood and needed milk, not strong meat. They were without spiritual teeth.
We should carefully note the twice repeated “ye have become.” “Ye have become dull of hearing”; “ye have become such as have need of milk.” Their spiritual health was bad. They were going back to the beginning of things such as those set out in 6:1-2. These were common both to Judaism and Christianity, elementary but basic. The things peculiar to Christianity these Hebrews, or some of them, were not at that time able to digest.
But the writer is desirous of going on. “Let us go on unto full growth.” It is pointless to remain on the foundation without advancing further. No builder ever does that; he proceeds with the edifice. The foundation cannot be laid again: once laid the building should proceed. How, then, is it they need to be taught again? How is it they need milk again? It is impossible to renew to repentance again. The initial work cannot be repeated. “Repentance” headed the list of six items of basic things and this is selected, it would seem, as representative of the other five. “It is impossible to renew again to repentance.” Therefore, seeing this is so, we will go on: “this will we do if God permit.”
It is as though he would say: Consider brethren what is involved. If the work has to be repeated, then you cannot stop at the initial work of repentance, you must go farther back to the furthest possible point. It will entail crucifying again the Son of God, and that would put Him to an open shame in that, manifestly, His first death was insufficient. But this could not be, as he proceeds to show incontrovertibly in the later part of his epistle.
No one can do without the foundation any more than a Christian can dispense with the six cardinal items of vv. 1-2. But he should not remain there. To linger is pointless; the foundation is firm; let us go on….
The experiences, then, of v. 4 are, for the purposes of the argument, supposed to be real. The persons were, in fact, once for all enlightened; they had actually tasted of the heavenly gift; they had actually partaken of the Holy Spirit; they had tasted the good word of God: and the powers of the world to come. They are, the writer of this commentary supposes, genuine believers but weak ones at that. Their hands hang down; their knees are feeble; they have fallen out of the ranks due to weakness, but they have not deserted.
The illustration which follows depicts two classes, each of whom has been privileged but with different results. When the rain falls on the earth good fruit results in some places, thorns and thistles in others. Verse 8 is similar to 1 Corinthians 3:15. The product is burned up. Where there are worthless results of all the labor expended on these Christians, such “results” will be consumed. Yet the writer is persuaded better things of these to whom he writes, for he cannot but recall their work and labor of love which they have shown towards the name of Christ, in that they have ministered to the saints and were, in fact, then doing so. But he earnestly desired that this should continue and that they should not be sluggish (the same word as is translated “dull” in 5:11).
If the results in the one case would be burned, in the other they would be rewarded. God would not forget.
He desired them to continue as they had begun. They had shown love to His name, and he desired them to show the same diligence right on to the end, and not to become slothful or sluggish. Consider Abraham. He, with others, was marked by faith and patience and they inherit the promises: they should imitate him. He patiently endured and he obtained the promise; Isaac was born. God promised to Abraham and he ratified it by an oath; the immutability of God’s counsel was demonstrated in that He not only made verbal promise, but did so by a sworn oath. The promise and the oath made the blessing sure.
We are the children of Abraham because of our faith: therefore the promise and the oath give us “strong encouragement” who have fled from the abrogated and judged system of Judaism to lay hold of the hope set before us.
The figure is taken, we are told, from the practice that prevailed in olden times in the harbors of the Mediterranean sea. There may be seen in every harbor to this very day a great stone, immovably embedded in the ground near to the water. That rock was called the Anchoria, and sometimes the ship could not by means of its sails make its way to the secure mooring of the harbor. In such a case the forerunner would go ashore in a little boat with a line which he would make fast to the Anchoria. This was sure and steadfast, and therefore, those on the ship had but to work on the line, hand over hand, and by this means would draw into the shore.
In our passage the “anchor” is out of sight, but it is our “hope.” Our forerunner is Christ and He has gone within the veil. Therefore, though the sea of life may, through persecution, be very stormy, there is no need to abandon ourselves to it or to revert to our former way of life. ‘Let us go on.” Such seems to be the gist of the chapter. But one or two remarks on its details may be made.
The third person used in v. 6 and the second person used in v. 9 would seem to be in keeping with the view here set forth, though it has been urged in support of the view that v. 6 envisages empty professors. But surely, the third person is essential for the general argument working out the logical issue of a certain course: and the second person is essential when the writer expresses his hope of the state of the Hebrews. It is true that a “mixed multitude” came out of Egypt but it must not be forgotten that all save two fell in the wilderness.
The “principles” referred to in vv. 1-2 are, as we have said, common to both Judaism and Christianity. Repentance was found in David and faith in Abraham, to say nothing of others. The “doctrine of washings” is that which is taught by the ceremonial washings of OT times, such as the washing of regeneration. The teaching of “laying on of hands” is that of identification and substitution, such as is seen when the hands were laid on the scapegoat. The “resurrection of the dead” and “eternal judgment” are things found in the OT, although it be in a dim light.
The day of Atonement is still before the mind of the writer. The High Priest has gone inside the veil. He is there as our Forerunner. Outside, the people are expecting Him to appear. Much stood to the credit of these Hebrews, and God would not forget how they had occupied the waiting time. Their work and labor of love would not go unrewarded, but they must not lose heart; they must show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end, and not give up before.
Written by E. W. Rogers