Our Sunday School lesson this week includes the difficult words of Hebrews 6:4-8: For it is impossible to renew to repentance those who were once enlightened, who tasted the heavenly gift, became companions with the Holy Spirit, tasted God’s good word and the powers of the coming age, and who have fallen away, because to their own hard they are recrucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt. For ground that has drunk the rain that has often fallen on it and that produces vegetation useful to those it is cultivated for receives a blessing from God. But if it produces thorns and thistles, it is worthless and about to be cursed, and will be burned at the end. As is normal for me, let me give you everything I know about these words and then allow you to draw your own conclusions. At quick glance, we would probably say this: the author is speaking about someone
John 10:27-29: My sheep hear My voice, I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish—ever! No one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. We know that the Bible does not contradict itself, and the Bible certainly teaches that our salvation is secure, so what do we do with Hebrews 6? Let's walk a little more slowly and carefully through the text and see what we might learn. First, catch the "for" at the beginning of the passage (NIV omits this). "For" connects the thought with what has just been said. In this case, the author has just implored his readers to continue growing in their faith and walk with Christ. Christianity is a journey, and Christ is always moving, always working. There is no "standing still" in the Christian life. Either we are growing or we are falling back, slipping away. "For" indicates that these words are the natural conclusion to that idea; they should not surprise us. Next, note the use of "impossible." The word means in English what it meant in Greek - impossible. Whatever the author says, the condition itself cannot happen under any circumstances. That puts the entire scenario in a certain light. Next, to what can those people who have fallen away not be renewed? Repentance. Not salvation, but repentance. Repentance is the beginning of salvation, as Jesus (and later Peter) proclaimed. What must we do to be saved? Repent (and then be baptized in the name of Jesus). The people in question, whoever they are, cannot be brought to this state, or "renewed" to this state. The word for "renew" only occurs here in the Bible, but it is obvious what it means: made new again. This affirms the use of repentance as the beginning of salvation, the meaning being that a person who has gone through the process of salvation cannot again go through that process. They can only do it once. There is still much to debate about what this means, but we can save that for below. Next, what about those first four characteristics? (1) "Once enlightened" means just that. Once, or one time, they were given light or made to see. The image of Jesus as the light of the world (John 8:12 or 12:35-36) is almost certainly in view. What does Jesus say to the people? "You currently have access to the light (because the Light is talking to you). Don't neglect it." In this perspective, one does not have to be saved to have been shown the light. One simply has to have been made aware of the truth of Jesus Christ. Now, it certainly does not preclude being saved. A saved person also has this characteristic. (2) "Tasted the heavenly gift" is clear as mud to us. "Tasted" does not mean tasted contra "ate." Jesus "tasted" death for us, per Hebrews 2:9, meaning He fully experienced death. Whatever the heavenly gift is, these people experienced it. We just don't know what "gift" precisely means. Most of the times the author of Hebrews uses "gift" he refers to a sacrifice given to God. The one exception is 2:4, in which God is said to have distributed gifts of the Holy Spirit in confirmation of the message of salvation in Jesus Christ. It might make us think of Ephesians 4, in which Paul speaks of the gifts and offices of the local church as a gift from Jesus through the Holy Spirit. If that is the case, then the author clearly has Christians in mind. However, he does not clarify exactly what he means by "heavenly gift," so we must admit a certain level of ambiguity. (3) "Companions with the Holy Spirit," when combined with the previous phrase, sure makes us think of someone who is truly a Christian. The word "companion" means participant, associate, partaker, or partner. The author of Hebrews uses the word 5 of its 6 appearances in the New Testament. In 3:1, the letter recipients are "partakers of a heavenly calling" and in 3:14 "partakers of Christ." But in 12:4, the recipients are said to have partaken in discipline. Interestingly, each of those references is in the context of distinguishing between true and false believers, but the "partakers" are all Christians. It is absolutely possible that a companion is someone who has simply been around the Holy Spirit, and not one who possesses that Spirit, but the context indicates otherwise. (4) "Tasted God's good word and powers" combines with each of the three previous characteristics to make us think of someone who is truly saved. He or she has fully experienced the word and power of God. The author of Hebrews has gone to great length to establish Jesus as the full and final revelation of God, so there is no reason to think of "word" as referring to anything but the message of Jesus Christ found in the (now) canonical Scriptures. "Power" is the opposite of the word used earlier for "impossible." The author of Hebrews later uses it as the authority for a priest. Think of 1 Thess 1:15 in which Paul says the gospel came not just with words but also with power, namely the Holy Spirit. Someone who has experienced this word and power, in this context, certainly seems to be someone who is a Christian. Yes, it could be someone who has simply seen the Spirit at work in someone else, but the context indicates someone who is a Christian. So now we come to (5), this person has "fallen away." This is another word that occurs only here in the New Testament, and it means literally to "fall aside" and can also be used to mean "deviate." From what have they fallen away? There are really only two choices: they have fallen away from repentance, which is why it is impossible to renew them to it, or they have fallen away from the four characteristics (enlightenment, heavenly gift, Holy Spirit, and God's power) described. That's all well and good, but what does "fallen away" mean? Whatever it means, we know that it is permanent (impossible to renew), so there is not much purpose in quibbling about the mechanics of it. Really, it is more than permanent, it is serious. A person in this condition is "recrucifying the Son of God." I can't think of a more dire accusation. Whatever this person has done, it is the equivalent of attempting to force Jesus to endure the cross again, of "holding Him up to contempt." What we can quibble about is the one very important question of interpretation. Is the author talking about a true Christian who has fallen away from Christianity and is impossible to be renewed to salvation? Is the author talking about an almost-Christian who came very close to the kingdom of God but has fallen from that path and is impossible to be brought back to the path of salvation? Is the author talking about a true Christian who has fallen away from his or her confession and walk, is still saved, but is impossible to be brought back to that close relationship with Jesus? Or is the author talking about someone else entirely? So now let's move through the various ways people have understood these words and see what we think of them based on this more careful reading of the text. Option 1: The author is talking about Christians who have lost their salvation. While it can certainly be argued that the author has true Christians in mind, and whatever "fallen away" means is very serious, and contemning the Son of God sounds unforgivable, this option makes no sense in the context of Hebrews. The purpose of the letter is to encourage his readers to stand firm in their faith in Jesus, and the purpose of this section of the letter is to hold up Jesus as not just the One who willingly died for their salvation but also the One who loves them, understands them, advocates for them, and has the power to help them. Why would he go to all of that literary effort just to throw in that the most important element of their existence cannot fully be trusted with Jesus? Jesus loves you, but if you make Him mad enough, He'll kick you out of heaven! That truly makes no sense. (And I think it is worth pointing out that this point absolutely contradicts, say, a Nazarene perspective on salvation no matter what. There are many Christians who teach that one can repeatedly lose and regain salvation. This passage cannot be used in that way. Whatever happens here happens once. There is no going around and around. The process of salvation happens once. At the very least, this passage means that, so folks who disagree with eternal security should not take refuge here.) Option 2: The author is talking about Christians who have lost the rewards of their salvation. This is a very interesting option. It takes the subsequent illustration (the field that will be burned because it produces thorns and thistles instead of useful vegetation) and hearkens back to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 For no one can lay any other foundation than what has been laid down. That foundation is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on that foundation with gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, or straw, each one’s work will become obvious, for the day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire; the fire will test the quality of each one’s work. If anyone’s work that he has built survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, it will be lost, but he will be saved; yet it will be like an escape through fire. In other words, it is a very serious matter to neglect the blessings of salvation in this life. In the end, you will be saved, but you will look back with regret on a life that failed to be all that Christ could have helped it be. Living in ingratitude to the sacrifice of Christ is the equivalent of leaving Him on the cross. This option also makes good sense of the various warnings the author of Hebrews has already dropped. In 2:1, we were warned not to "drift away" from our confession of faith. In 3:13, we were warned to "encourage one another daily" so our hearts will not be "hardened by sin's deceitfulness." Neither of those contexts are about losing salvation, but about standing apart from Jesus out of fear of persecution or simple laziness. I like this option because it makes obedience in the Christian life a very serious matter. We could all do to take our walk with Jesus more seriously. The biggest problem with this option is the author of Hebrews nowhere else speaks of salvation in this way. If anything, his language elsewhere directly contradicts this interpretation, as in 10:26-27: For if we deliberately sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire about to consume the adversaries. In this context, the person who continues in sin is not a backslidden Christian but a lost sinner. There is no salvation waiting for that person, let alone rewards therein. Option 3: The author is talking about almost-Christians who turned back too soon. This is also a very interesting option, and it would certainly fall in line with the greater purpose of the letter. The author is obviously writing to a community that included large numbers of Jews, which is why it is steeped in Jewish imagery and Old Testament language. They had heard about Jesus, but due to the difficulty of understanding Jesus, or the pressure of persecution, they were tempted to return to Judaism. In the larger context of this letter, we can absolutely draw two conclusions about people:
In other words, he is talking about people in this congregation who, for all intents and purposes, look like Christians. They have seen the miracles of God and stayed hardened in heart. (Remember that the author has already used the illustration of the Israelites on the way to the Promised Land - they daily experienced the miracles of God, yet in the end they still grumbled against Him and did not trust Him, and so He sent them back into the wilderness to die. What you believe about their eternal destiny will have much to say about what you believe here, per below.) They know the word and power of God. The Holy Spirit has been in their midst. But if they turn back after all of that, it will be impossible for them to come back to this place. We all know non-Christians who believe their are Christian because of their church membership or family relationship, but there is no evidence of a renewed heart. I like this option because it takes that very seriously. And there are many people who believe this is what the author means, and it is a very strong possibility. The only concern I have with this interpretation is it doesn't seem to take the characteristics of the people in question quite strongly enough. They really do seem to be Christian. Option 4: The author is talking about Christians who have fallen far into sin. We often call these people "backsliders." They are by definition Christians who have been hardened in sin. Essentially, we are faced with an ever-present reality in our lives and churches: people who claim to be Christian but who don't show significant evidence of spiritual regeneration. When we read the Sermon on the Mount, we cannot miss that Jesus associates His disciples with clear behavioral choices - believing demands following. A good tree produces good fruit. In other words, our behavior does not save us, but our behavior matters. Our behavior is evidence of our salvation. So when we are dealing with a professing Christian who doesn't live like it, are we dealing with a true Christian who has fallen into sin, or are we dealing with a fake Christian who is behaving naturally? Age-old question. Important question. I don't think we can answer it. It involves the heart. Salvation is a personal transaction. Plus, we know that Christians sin. And there is nowhere in the Bible an indicator of "how much sin is too much sin?" Why? Because salvation is personal, and only God knows the heart. I might look at someone's behavior and say that their lifestyle is too sinful to be Christian. Jesus would respond, "Remove the plank in your own eye, then we can talk." You see, the consequence is essentially the same (from our external perspective). That person, whether he is lost and needing to come to Jesus or in sin and needing to come to Jesus, needs to come to Jesus. Eternally, there is an infinite difference in that condition, but that is not for us to know. We treat every professing Christian as a professing Christian and let God deal with the soul. Now, is that who the author of Hebrews has in mind here? Remember the earlier reference to 10:26-27 - those words are pretty harsh. This is why I said it mattered what we think happened eternally to the rebellious Jews in the wilderness. Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, and saw My works 10 for 40 years. Therefore I was provoked with that generation and said, “They always go astray in their hearts, and they have not known My ways.” So I swore in My anger, “They will not enter My rest.” - Hebrews 3:7-11 Those doubting, grumbling, complaining Jews did not enter the Promised Land (except for Joshua and Caleb, who were not doubting, grumbling, or complaining). They did not enter God's rest, but does that mean they did not enter God's eternal Sabbath rest? In chapter 3, "rest" refers to a temporal reality. In chapter 4, "rest" refers to heaven. But is there a crossover element? Did God discipline His wayward children (of course, they were *so* wayward that it demanded severe discipline) but accept them into heaven? Or did God quite literally kick all but two of the Exodus Jews out of heaven? If you believe that this generation of Jews is not in heaven, then you would be more comfortable believing that the author of Hebrews is writing about falsely-professing Christians. If you believe that those Jews were punished for their hard hearts but ultimately forgiven and admitted to heaven, then you would be just as comfortable believing that the author of Hebrews is writing about backslidden Christians. Option 5: The author is presenting a hypothetical. Why did the author use the word "impossible"? Because the entire scenario is impossible. If this scenario were to take place, it would be the equivalent of putting Jesus back on the cross. But Jesus died once for all (Hebrews 10:12, 12:2), so this scenario cannot take place. It is the author's way of making sure his readers understand the seriousness of their perseverance. Jesus used hyperbole to force a response. Paul used hyperbole for the same reason. Perhaps the author of Hebrews has done the same. I like this option because it is in line with the rest of the letter. In my opinion, the author has likely used hypotheticals before, as in 2:2. It allows him to explain the stakes without passing judgment on anyone. There is a very strong concern with this option: if the author is knowingly using a hypothetical, where are the teeth of his argument? If the consequences could never take place, why forward the argument in the first place? I personally don't think that's a problem. I have used hypothetical arguments many times with great success. It makes the hearers think, analyze, process. The point is not the extreme conclusion, the point is warning your hearers from ever approaching that conclusion. (Of course, if perseverance is the proof of salvation, then the entire argument is somewhat circular.) So what are you going to do with all of this? Personally, I would be comfortable with options 3, 4, or 5. Each one has strengths, and each one has weaknesses. I lean toward option 5. It seems quite in line with the argumentation of the rest of the letter (and it certainly works on me). I admit that this particular style of writing loses some teeth if it is purely hypothetical, and that gives me pause.
I guess this is my way of admitting that I really don't know exactly what the author meant. It doesn't change how I respond to the text, however. Jesus died for me. The way I live my life reflects what I truly think of His sacrifice. I want to walk worthy of that love, not to earn salvation, but to show my gratitude. I didn't need the author of Hebrews to tell me to watch that any more carefully, but I'm glad he told me. So what do you do with this passage?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|