HEBREWS

In This Section:

HEBREWS 6:4-8

HEBREWS 6:4-8

As has been mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, to get a proper understanding of passages in Hebrews, we must get a proper understanding of Hebrews itself. As a foundational starting point, it is important for us to realize that Hebrews was written to actual Hebrews. The epistle was written to Hebrews by a Jewish Messianic follower of Jesus, traditionally recognized to be Paul the apostle. Going through Hebrews, it is quickly made evident that the epistle is written from the author's expertise in Judaism, and his revelation into various aspects of the New Covenant that was instituted by the Hebrew Messiah, Jesus. It is important to realize that Hebrews is written to an audience made up of the ones to whom Messiah was promised to come according to the Old Testament prophecies. These Hebrews had been looking for, and expecting the Hebrew Messiah. The language and flow reflect this fact. Additionally, the contents of Hebrews reveals that it served several purposes:

1) Hebrews is apologetic; meaning it offers a defense of the faith to any unsaved Hebrews who would read it, hear it read, hear quotes from it, or indirectly be influenced by the doctrine it contains.

2) Hebrews is evangelistic. It is meant to be an instrument in leading any unsaved Hebrews to receive Jesus as the true Messiah that they have been waiting for. Most, if not all, of the unsaved Hebrews knew about the miracle working Messiah. They were familiar with the Christian community and the movement. In fact many of them were in and among the Christians. Nevertheless, many of the Hebrews had not embraced Jesus as Messiah and sacrifice for their sins, so they are not saved. At the writing of Hebrews, they do not believe Jesus really resurrected from the dead, so they are lost. They know Jesus really existed, but merely being aware that Jesus was real does not save anyone. There is a similar group that is also the evangelistic focus of Hebrews. They are the unsaved Hebrews who claim to follow Jesus and his teachings, but they are selective. Their selectivity is like that of the Judaizers of Galatia who taught that to be justified, one must do something else. One must do some other works in addition to the work that Messiah did. The writer calls these works, "dead works" in Hebrews 6:1. So, the problem is that certain Hebrews, such as the Judaizers, have looked to the Messiah, yet in an inadequate manner, (in other words, on their own terms, as all cults do); because they seek other means to atone for their sins, they are not saved. The point is that Hebrews explains that the only way of salvation is through Jesus' completed work, completely on His terms, and the epistle lays it out in easy to understand language.

3) Hebrews is also theological; meaning it lays out truths that are important for all Hebrew people (both saved and unsaved alike) to understand important revelations concerning Jesus as the true Messiah, and His unique establishment of a New Covenant which supersedes the old one made 1500 years earlier with Moses. Actually this is the main theological thrust--preaching the superiority of Messiah and God's New Covenant through Him in fulfilling God's promises to the Hebrews as opposed to the Old obsolete Mosaic Law Covenant, (cf. Hebrews 8:13).

The overall destination the letter was meant for is a general Hebrew target community that is predominantly composed of those who already believe in Jesus as Messiah. Nevertheless, directives, warnings, and restated evangelistic urgings within the letter, demonstrate to us that the broad Hebrew audience to which the epistle is intended to reach, has unsaved Hebrews living among it--a fact which is explored in our verse to verse exegesis of the pertinent texts. The unsaved Hebrew audience is treated like they already know of Jesus and have a basic knowledge of His claim to be God's Messiah. The saved audience is getting a lot of teaching that builds upon the foundation that was already laid in them. So, it is important to understand that Hebrews is a letter that is intended for all Hebrews in general--both saved and unsaved. This particular point is important because it is a vital key to unlocking the meaning of the sentences that are wrongly interpreted according to the NEST.

A KEY

This leads us to recognize an important key, which will be repeated at the introduction of each section of this chapter for clarity. When the writer of Hebrews refers to ethnic Israelites, he simply refers to them as brothers. When he references saved Hebrews, he refers to them as holy brothers, (saints, set apart ones from GK. hagios, for holy). Along this line, it is important to recognize that the term "brother," or "sister," by itself is often used in other New Testament writings to refer to Christians, but "Holy," "set apart," "consecrated," "sanctified," brothers or sisters (New Covenant saints) is never used of non-Christians in, and under, a New Covenant context. Here in Hebrews, if the term, "brothers" is used by itself, but means a holy, sanctified, consecrated brother in Christ, it will always be qualified in the immediate context, in some manner, as referring to a Christian; for example, in Hebrews 10:19, where "brothers" is qualified by Hebrews 10:10 as sanctified, holy, set apart, brothers; or in the case of Timothy "our brother" singular in Hebrews 13:23, who is naturally qualified as being saved by the fact that we know (and the primary recipients of this letter knew) Timothy was saved. We know this from information about him in other epistles. Though Timothy's mother was Jewish, which would make him a Hebrew brother, Timothy was also saved, which would make him a holy, sanctified, set apart brother, ie, a Christian. Similar is the instance of the writer's closing remarks to the "brothers" in 13:22. We know that in this instance they are qualified in the context as being "in the body," in Hebrews 13:3, not having deserted, Hebrews 13:5, and have God working in them through Jesus Messiah in Hebrews 13:20-21. So the closing personal remarks are to those trustworthy brothers in Messiah who would initially receive this letter in hand to share with the broader Hebrew community of ethnic brothers, as was typical of the fact that every epistle was entrusted to mature dependable Christians (probably elders) in primary reception for guarding, reading aloud, and further distribution. The point is that the immediate antecedent describer of being holy, set apart, consecrated, and sanctified, indicates a Christian. If the immediate antecedent is absent, then the flow of the context will qualify the term brother (singular) or brothers (plural) by indicating, in some manner, that the brother or brothers are saved, or not saved.

To demonstrate this consistent language of unsaved Hebrews being referred to as merely brothers to other Israelites, but not holy, sanctified brothers of the saved remnant of Israelites, we will look at what Peter preached at Pentecost to the unsaved Jews. He says,

"29 Brothers, [Peter is talking to his own ethnic Hebrew people] I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." (Acts 2:29)

These ethnic Israelites are not yet saved. They are not set apart, but to Peter, at this time, they are Hebrew brothers. We find Paul the apostle making the same reference when he preached in the Jewish synagogue to the unsaved Jews in Pisidian Antioch, saying,

"Therefore let it be known to you, brothers, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you," (Acts 13:38)

Paul's ethnic brothers in this context are not set apart. They are not holy brothers. They are Hebrew brothers according to the flesh. Paul makes the distinction crystal clear in Romans 9;

"3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Messiah for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, ..." (Romans 9:3-4)

This grammatical distinction of Hebrews according to the flesh, and holy Hebrews according to the Spirit, is exactly the same one we find here in the Hebrews epistle. Concerning the New Covenant's superiority over the Old, we read in Hebrews 10,

"10 And by that ["that" is the New Covenant sacrifice] will we ["we" is a reference to the saved Hebrews] have been set apart [sanctified, made holy by God] through the offering of the body of Jesus Messiah once for all ... 14 For by a single offering He has perfected for all time those who are set apart [made holy by God--sanctified]." (Hebrews 10:10, 14).

"Those who are set apart" in Hebrews 10, are saved Hebrews who have been perfected in Messiah for all time. Once we familiarize ourselves with this language, it becomes quickly intuitive to read the New Testament author's intended meaning. As a final example, the distinction is made crystal clear in Colossians where Paul says,

"To the set apart [holy, sanctified] and faithful brothers in Messiah who are at Colossae: Grace to you and peace from God our Father." (Colossians 1:2)

The set apart, holy, and faithful brothers in Messiah at Colossae, are of course, saved people. It is easy to see, because we know the language.

With the above considerations in mind, we must also be alerted to the unfortunate practice of some expositors to dismiss important texts in Hebrews, that are typically used to build the Not Eternally Saved Theory, to the realm of exaggerated hypothetical fiction. In other words, it is arbitrarily asserted, by some well meaning teachers, that the writer relentlessly warned Hebrew Christians (spiritually saved people) of consequences for the damning action of rejecting Messiah, but that the author did so while really believing that such rejecting actions are not something that they will, or can, possibly do. The primary reason for this has to do with the presuppositional bias that all the points made in the epistle must necessarily be directed to saved Hebrews. It is then postulated that no particular point, by way of necessity, is being directed to unsaved Hebrews who have had the true Messiah revealed to them, and subsequently needed to be urged to act upon their knowledge. This theory is just as wrong as the Not Eternally Saved Theory. Aware of that errant hermeneutic, we approach the epistle of Hebrews in recognition of the fact that the author meant what he said to really apply to the particular people that such points were directed.

This leads us to recognize one more important consideration that we must keep in mind in our exegesis of the following passages. Namely, the writer of Hebrews uses pronouns in a very loose and abrupt way. Just like Paul does this in Romans, and Galatians, the writer of Hebrews will speak of "we," and "us," and then will abruptly say "those," "they," and "you," but he will do it in ping-pong fashion from sentence to sentence. Such communication was not a problem for the original Hebrew audience. But, what this means for us, in our time, culture, and ingrained ways of thinking, is that if we try to blend all the various Hebrew groups together in each of the writer's points as a matter of arbitrary preference, then we will end up misunderstanding what the writer meant by a certain directive, urging, or warning, which is a mistake that is typical of those who believe in the NEST. The important task for us is to identify each Hebrew group, and in so doing, clear up the passages that are wrongly interpreted according to the NEST.

With this background consideration at the forefront, we need to get the writer's contextual flow. We are going to work through the points, layer upon layer, just as the writer does. Coming into chapter 6, we read at the end of chapter 5 that the writer describes Messiah Jesus as,

"being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. 11 Concerning him we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil." (Hebrews 5:10-14)

The writer is saying that there is much more that he can share concerning the deeper things of Messiah, but he knows that a huge segment of Hebrews to whom this letter will arrive, are still babes who are not really very accustomed to the various aspects of the word of righteousness. They need to have their senses trained, so right now the writer sees a great need among a huge segment of the Hebrew community. It is a repeated need. He says,

"you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God." (Hebrews 5:12)

Nevertheless, the writer says that, concerning Messiah, "we" still have much to say. The term "we" is probably much more than a mere literary device, (see footnote 1 below) and so the writer and whomever is co-ministering with him, (possibly an amanuenses co-minister) do actually go on to say much, and so the writer says next, coming into chapter 6;

"1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Messiah, ..." (Hebrews 6:1)

The ESV renders this, as leaving the "elementary doctrine" of Messiah, which is an accurate translation clarifier. With this in mind, the passage is clarified when worded in the following manner;

"Therefore leaving the elementary doctrinal teaching about the Messiah, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, ..." (Hebrews 6:1 emph. mine)

[The phrase toward God is rendered in other translations as, "in God," "upon God," and "on God." The Greek preposition epi is used in this particular context in Hebrews 6:1, with "God" in such a way as to follow similar context declarations as found in 1 Timothy 4:10, and also Romans 9:33, 10:11, etc., which lends credibility to the "upon" and "on" rendering. Continuing with the flow;]

"2 of instruction about washings [baptisms; cleansings, immersions] and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits." (Hebrews 6:2-3)

What we are seeing is that the writer wants to get onto some other things in his letter. They are things above and beyond the mere fundamentals of the faith concerning Jesus as Messiah. At this point, the writer is focused upon saved Hebrews. He wants the saved Hebrews, (which he puts himself into this category with the pronoun "us") to press on to maturity in the Messianic faith. Going on to doctrines of maturity, is to go on to everything that is built upon the early, and basic, foundational doctrines concerning salvation. It is the "solid food" that is added to the "elementary principles of the oracles of God."

A KEY

At this point we must keep in mind the elementary foundation about Messiah that these Hebrews need to get past. The elementary foundation is "repentance," (cf. Hebrews 6:1) and then a list of other things. This repentance is "from" something. It is from "dead works" (cf. Hebrews 6:1). The saved Hebrews need to get past that teaching, and the teaching of faith toward God, and instruction about washings, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. The key word in this passage is "repentance." It is metanoia in the Greek, and means "to turn." The English word typically translated from metanoia unfortunately has a polarized anachronistic meaning among English speaking people. This is regrettable, because metanoia means "to turn to something" in some contexts, and it means "to turn away from something" in other contexts, (ie. Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, Acts 26:16-20 whole context, 2 Corinthians 7:9-10, etc.). The main point is that metanoia is dynamic and not static when used in various contexts. It means "to turn," yet it may be used to describe turning as in changing one's course of action, or may be used to describe turning as in changing one's mind. This is where the anachronistic tags come in. Some people always associate the word "repentance" with turning from sin in general. Others always associate the word with salvation, as in being miraculously born again. Neither is correct as an exclusive definition. Such definitions do not fit other usage's of the word; For example, the way the King James version renders the negative adjective form, ametameletos, in Romans 11:29;

"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." (Romans 11:29)

This verse has nothing to do with teaching that the gifts and callings of God are without repenting from sin, or the gifts and callings of God are without being saved.

This verse means, as the NASB renders it,

"29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." (Romans 11:29 NASB)

The sense here is that the gifts, and the calling of God, themselves, are not subject to being turned away, or turned down, later on in revocation. They are not reversible, ie. irrevocable. Another example is found in our letter of Hebrews. It is the repentance in 12:17, where Esau sold his birthright, as we read,

"For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears." (Hebrews 12:17)

Various opinions have been given as to what the writer means by using metanoia in Esau's case here. For example, there is the suggestion that Esau found no place for turning from sin in general. There is also the suggestion that Esau found no place for turning to God. Nevertheless, those views do not fit Esau's situation. There is also the suggestion that Esau found no place for turning to his previous state of being rightful heir before making his foolish decision. There is also the suggestion that Esau found no place for turning around what he had done. The last two suggestions seem to be the most probable. One could say that the writer meant that Esau found no place for "changing his mind" about what he did, but that would be wrong because Esau did change his mind; there simply was not anything he could do about it; it was too late, though he sought it with tears.

The point is that repentance means to turn, and one must not understand it to mean "salvation" (as in turning to salvation and being saved in the process) as some anachronistically do, or that it must necessarily be defined as "to turn from your sins," thus creating artificial rules which only serve to confuse, and equivocate, when analyzing contextual considerations.

A KEY

Here, in Hebrews 6:1, we see that the writer is saying that this particular repentance is from "dead works."

"1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Messiah, let us press on to maturity, [see footnote 2 below: re. maturity Gk. teleios in 5:19 with Gk. teleiotes 6:1 here] not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God," (Hebrews 6:1)

This is a very important designation. It is another point to keep in mind as a central key for interpreting this passage (pericope). This definition of repentance will be visited again when we get to the specific section that is wrongly interpreted out of the context according to the NEST philosophy of insecurity. In the meantime, the writer goes on to explain what elementary doctrinal teachings he wants to get past now, adding also;

"2 of instruction about washings and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do, if God permits." (Hebrews 6:2-3)

Here, we notice that the writer uses the typical pronoun reference to "we" that he is known for doing in respect to himself and others involved in authorship (see footnote 1 below). The writer will use this pronoun reference to authorship again in a few more verses, in Hebrews 6:9-11. We will examine more of the pronoun distinctives that the writer uses in a moment.

At this point, we are coming into the passages that are used by those who believe in the Not Eternally Saved Theory, which are passages that are still dealing with the foundations of the doctrines of Messiah. The writer thinks he needs to mention these foundational things quickly before he goes on to maturity things, and so he says he is going do this "if God permits." The writer said this before finishing the letter. In retrospect, we see that he does go onto maturity teachings in the following chapters with so many beautiful truths inspired by God's revelatory Holy Spirit. But first the writer wants to get a layer out of the way that still has to do with the important basics. So the writer begins to teach quickly and directly concerning the case of another group of Hebrews. He calls this next group he is about to talk about, those. This clarifying switch in pronouns is important, so we must pay special attention to what the writer says when he uses the pronoun, "those." The writer says,

"4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened ..." (Hebrews 6:4 emph. mine)

A KEY

A good question to ask at this point, is; who are "those" other Hebrews? Who are the "those" who have once been enlightened, but who can not go on to maturity with "us" saved Hebrews of verse 1? We must look at this closely, and carefully, because this pronoun reference is a major key for understanding this whole section of scripture. As a first consideration, we notice that at a past point in time, "those" particular Hebrews had "once" been enlightened. This particular event of having "once been enlightened" is written as a participle that is in what is called the aorist tense and passive voice. In plainer language, this means that this is a statement that "those" Hebrew people of the writer's point here, had already been exposed to the elementary doctrinal teachings about the Messiah in the past--particularly the doctrinal foundation of repentance from dead works, of faith toward God, resurrection from the dead, eternal judgment, and so forth. Those particular Hebrews had been enlightened. They had encountered the primary, and very important, fundamentals of the gospel, but as we shall see, they are not benefitting from the exposure and teachings like saved Hebrews benefit. Saved Hebrews who have also once been enlightened are found in Hebrews 10:32. The saved Hebrews in their initial enlightenment to the gospel, received Messiah by grace through faith, and so they are saved. Going on to maturity, is to be receiving continuous enlightenment now in salvation. There is a difference between what unsaved Hebrews, and saved Hebrews, did with the enlightenment of encountering the elementary doctrinal teachings of Messiah in that generation. This is why it is so important for us to understand that no place in the scriptures do we find that initial enlightenment concerning the things of God, necessitates salvation. Exposure, familiarity, and knowledge of the gospel does not save, in and of themselves. Intellectual perception of the facts does not save. The enlightenment of the unsaved, that remain unsaved, is merely an intellectual perception of facts. An atheist can hear the gospel, or read through the Bible and receive enlightenment of new facts in the mind, but simply because the atheist is mentally aware of spiritual truths, by being informed, does not mean that the atheist is now saved, or ever will be saved. Likewise, masses of Hebrews heard the clear message of salvation from the Messiah and the apostles, but it was only the Hebrews who had been enlightened with the facts of the gospel, and then actually believed and received Jesus as their Messiah in God's miracle work of regeneration, that are the saved Hebrews. John explains the whole process of believing and receiving very nicely, where he said that he (John) was sent by God, and he,

"... came as a witness, to testify about the Light, [which is Messiah Jesus] so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light. There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." (John 1:7-8)

[We notice that John makes the proclamation that Jesus is the great revelator of Himself and His will. Jesus, as God manifest in the flesh, is the one who bears the important message of Himself (the Light) which enlightens every man. This was actually prophesied of Christ in Isaiah 42:6, where He was promised to come in the future as both "a covenant" and "the light." Men did not get this revelation on their own, as Peter says in 2 Peter 1:6, "we did not follow cleverly devised tales" or as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:13, "which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit." We see that the apostles speak forth the good news of the Light, yet the good news consist of God's revelations of enlightenment. It is an important point to recognize that the enlightenment is not from themselves. John goes on,]

"10 He [Messiah Jesus] was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own [ethnic Hebrews of His own ancient promise], and those who were His own [ethnic Hebrews of His own ancient promise] did not receive Him. [The Jews as a broader whole rejected their Messiah even though they were enlightened] 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, [saved Hebrews] even to those who believe in His name," (John 1:7-12)

There is a remnant of enlightened Hebrews who are saved. Being saved, they are made evident in that they are not only initially enlightened, but they actually believe in Jesus as Messiah, and received Jesus as Messiah, and so they abide in a saved state; receiving more and more Holy Spirit led enlightenment in discipleship and understanding. Jesus gave the remnant this right, and only them (not all Israelites). He gave this remnant of Hebrew receivers the right to become true children of God.

Here in this Hebrews 6 context, the particular unsaved Hebrews that the writer is talking about in verse 4 have that designation which helps identify them. Here, he calls them "those." They are "those" Hebrews who have been enlightened but are not saved, and therefore they are not able to mature according to any further enlightenment. Remember, ongoing, continuous enlightenment in salvation occurs only for saved people, which is another group. Paul prayed for further enlightenment for saved people in Ephesians, saying,

"17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you [saved Ephesians] a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, [There it is--this enlightenment is the same Greek word as the one in Hebrews. They were enlightened beforehand, but they still need further enlightenment. All Christians need further enlightenment. The writer goes on] so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the set apart ones, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might" (Ephesians 1:17-19 emph. mine)

Paul prayed for the Ephesians to go beyond initial enlightenment of Messiah, and on to maturity, which is something the unsaved can not do. Knowing these things concerning further enlightenment to the facts for God's elect, Paul goes on to write the epistles of teaching that will be instrumental in answering his very prayer that he prays in Ephesians 1. Continuing next, here in Hebrews, the writer says concerning the unsaved Hebrews that he calls "those;" that they,

"... have tasted of the heavenly gift and have shared in the Holy Spirit, ..." (Hebrews 6:4)

It is important for us to understand that any time the word "taste," is used in the New Testament, it has to do with contact and experience, but not necessarily with consuming, filling, and embracing. In other words tasting is not always the same as eating. Now, it is true that one can taste and eat at the same time, but it is not necessarily true that one must always eat when one tastes. When Jesus was on the cross, Matthew records,

"they gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink." (Matthew 27:340

Jesus was willing to taste, but He was not willing to take in the drink into the depths of His body by swallowing. Similarly, when Jesus "tasted death," according to Hebrews 2:9, He, of course, experienced both it and the suffering that went along with it. In the flesh, Jesus tasted suffering and death, which was something as an eternal Person in the One Triune Godhead, in eternity past, He had never personally tasted before. So, in the flesh, Jesus tasted suffering and death, but in the Godhead He always remained alive. It is simple: our immortal God can taste death, but our immortal God can not die. God can contact and experience death through being incarnate in flesh, but the eternally living God does not ingest, fill, and embrace being a dead God. Jesus, as 100 % fleshly body, died, but Jesus as 100% Godhead, as eternal Son, in essence, can not die, and never dies. We see the same principle about experience, and contact, in 1 Peter 2:3, where Peter says,

"3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:30)

Peter is talking about exposure, contact, and experience, in sensing (as in the metaphor of tasting the delicious savor) that the Lord is good. Unsaved people taste that the Lord is good all the time in common grace (cf. Matthew 5:45), but their taste means nothing to them in terms of salvation. They have not feasted upon the goodness of the Lord, which is something that is represented in Communion in the symbolism of the bread and wine. We even read in 1 Corinthians 12:13 that salvation in connection with the person of the Holy Spirit, is described as more than merely tasting;

"For in one Spirit we were all immersed into one body--Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of one Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:13)

When one is miraculously regenerated into being a member of the body of Christ (His church) there is a difference between tasting, as experience, and drinking, as embracing and being sealed. Saved people have both tasted and drunk, and are drinking continuously. Unsaved people, who have tasted, have merely only experienced one aspect of the gospel, which is initial enlightenment to the facts. They have not been "made," Paul says, by God's sovereign hand, to drink of one Spirit. The writer of Hebrews explained what it means to have this taste of the heavenly gift; to have experienced it, back in Hebrews 2:3-5 concerning those who were enlightened, saying,

"3 how will we [all ethnic Hebrews] escape if we [all ethnic Hebrews] neglect so great a salvation? After it [so great a salvation] was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us [ethnic Hebrews] by those who heard, 4 God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will." (Hebrews 2:3-5)

Those Hebrews of that generation had salvation preached to them by the apostles, and it was God who was testifying with them in supernatural events, by signs and wonders and by miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit. Peter indicated at his Pentecost preaching that the pouring out of God’s Spirit in those days, was a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy to Israelites. Accordingly, the Hebrew people tasted all of these things; they were getting an enlightenment, yet it can be neglected, as is demonstrated in the fact that many Hebrews actually did neglect so great a salvation that was spoken and confirmed. Paul relates to the Thessalonians that the apostolic preaching comes in power, and in the Holy Spirit,

"for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit ..." (1 Thessalonians 1:5)

"Those" Hebrews had experienced the gospel from the original apostles in their generation in this same way. They had tasted of the heavenly gift. They had seen God's power. They have shared in the Holy Spirit, yet they were not drinkers of the Spirit.

Further, it is important to take notice that the writer indicates that the sharing of the Holy Spirit is something that "those" other Hebrews had encountered in the past. The writer does not say that the sharing is happening as a state of being for "those" Hebrews right now at this very moment. "Shared" here is an event that is described in the aorist tense and passive voice, which means it is something that was a specific happening at a former point in time. "Those" Hebrews are not saved now (as the contemporary was writing), so they do not continuously share in the Holy Spirit as the seal of their salvation, (cf. Ephesians 1:13). When the writer wants to reference Hebrews who have been sharers, and are still sharing in Messiah as an ongoing relationship in their state of being spiritually saved now, he uses a different voice and tense. This is demonstrated in 3:14, where the writer says of saved people,

"For we share [right now] in Messiah, if indeed we hold our original confidence [boldness] firm to the end." (Hebrews 3:14)

The main evidence that people are saved now in sharing in Messiah now, is the fact that in the end they will have been shown to have held fast the assurance of their faith. In other words, the continuance demonstrates the reality. Conversely, discontinuance demonstrates the non reality of ever being saved. In other words, saved people share in Messiah now, and forever. But what is interesting about the language the writer uses for these saved Hebrews (the writer included) is that the writer uses what is called the perfect tense and active voice when he refers to them. What this means is that spiritually saved people not only became, but, spiritually saved people continue to be, right now, sharing in Messiah. The writer also does this in 3:1 concerning saved Hebrews, saying,

"Therefore, holy [sanctified, set apart] brothers, you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession," (Hebrews 3:1)

To be saved, one must "share" in the heavenly calling right now, and must share in it continuously in a once saved in eternal spiritual salvation condition.

Looking back at 6:4, another important fact that we need to know is that the compound verb in the Greek that the writer uses for "have shared in the Holy Spirit," is also accurately rendered as, have been sharers of, as in, sharers of the Holy Spirit. The reason this is important is because the phrase does not mean that those Hebrews were inside the Holy Spirit at one time as certain English translations could be misunderstood to mean. In other words, to have shared in the Holy Spirit, does not necessarily mean to have been "in" the Holy Spirit.

To make the writer's whole statement simpler, by way of analogy, think of the statement being like saying that you were a sharer of something 20 years ago, but now it is history. You are not a sharer of it anymore. Ethnic Hebrews of that generation were providentially exposed to, and shared in, the Holy Spirit, His work, and His ministry of the New Covenant dispensation in the past, but they, in lost darkness, do not share in the Holy Spirit in current salvation with the indwelling Spirit of God. The main point is that even though this taste had been the case with those unsaved Hebrews, the fact remains that so great a salvation can still be neglected, and it apparently was.

There are examples in the Bible of Hebrews who tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit, and yet they still rejected their Messiah. Judas Iscariot was one such Jewish man. Judas heard the message of salvation, over and over again, from Jesus Himself. Judas saw more signs and wonders by the Holy Spirit than the Hebrew audience of this letter had seen. Judas personally experienced miracles by the Holy Spirit. Judas walked with Jesus throughout His earthly ministry as one of the 12 students. In Matthew 12, Jesus indicates that the miracles He performed were by the Holy Spirit so that there would be no confusion as to what entity the people were experiencing as the source of the miracles. Judas was there. Judas tasted of the heavenly gift. He was a sharer in the Holy Spirit, but there is a sobering fact about Judas. Judas rejected Messiah. Judas betrayed Messiah for a few pieces of silver. Along with the Judas example, there is also the example of the Hebrews who were gathered in Jerusalem for the feast celebration weeks after Messiah's crucifixion, and resurrection. It was on Pentecost that Peter preached by the power of the Holy Spirit, fulfilling the prophecy out of Joel. The Holy Spirit had settled on Peter and the other students in a dramatic way; like tongues of fire. Immediately the apostles began preaching to the Israelite multitudes who were from all over the surrounding regions. What is amazing is that the Jewish people were hearing the message in their own languages of their hometown regions. This was a miracle in which Hebrews shared in the Holy Spirit, but they did not all believe and receive, so those who did not believe and receive, remained lost.

Continuing along in the contextual flow after the writer says "those" Hebrews have tasted of the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, the writer also says those Hebrews,

"... have tasted the goodness of the word of God ..." Hebrews 6:5

Those Hebrews had experienced the same word of God that the writer just described, as "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, ..." Hebrews 4:12. It is the same word of God that was spoken to the Jews in Acts 4:31, and proclaimed in the synagogues of the Jews in Acts 13:5. It is the same word of God that the Samaritans received in Acts 8:14. It is the same word of God that the Gentiles received in Acts 11:1. The writer says that "those" Hebrews have tasted its goodness (the good news)--the gospel. But those Hebrews that the writer is talking about, have shrugged off what they had been enlightened with. They did not feed on the word. They are like the Jews of Acts 13:46, where we read,

"Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly and said, 'It was necessary that the word of God be spoken to you first; since you repudiate it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles." (Acts 13:46 emph. mine)

Finally, those Hebrews that the writer is talking about here had not only tasted the goodness of the word of God, but they had also tasted,

"... the powers of the age to come, ... " (Hebrews 6:5)

It is easy to understand how the ethnic Hebrews of that age (aeon) tasted the powers of the age (aeon) to come. They tasted the powers of the age to come through the ministry of the apostles, through actually seeing Messiah, hearing His words, seeing His miracles, signs, and wonders.

Going with the flow of the writer's point, we immediately see that those particular Hebrews who had fallen away from the good news, have had all the previous things made available to them in experience, but they never actually took possession of those things as their own. They never actually embraced them for themselves, as saved Hebrews do. This is why there is no reference to salvation here in what they have experienced. Nowhere does the writer say that those Hebrews who have fallen away, had previously experienced being saved. Additionally, no term used by the writer for what those rejecting Hebrews experienced is used anywhere in the New Testament as a reference to salvation. This is why the writer says that those Hebrews, who have once been enlightened, have tasted of the heavenly gift, have shared in the Holy Spirit, have tasted the goodness of the word of God, and the powers of the age to come, verse 6;

"and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew [restore] them again to repentance, ..." (Hebrews 6:6)

Those Hebrews were never saved, so they fell away from the real Messiah of the Israelites after being confronted with Him, His gospel, and the powers of the age to come. They fell away from all they had been confronted with concerning the actual Messiah that all Hebrews claimed that they were waiting for.

At this point, we have arrived to the passage that is misinterpreted according to the NEST philosophy of insecurity in Christ. The typical interpretation according to the NEST, claims that the writer of Hebrews is saying that saved people can fall away from being saved after actually being saved beforehand.

The NEST is wrong.

/1/
As a primary consideration, at this point, it is important to recognize that one important philosophy of the NEST is that it is possible for a saved person to lose salvation and then gain it back again, then lose it, then gain it back again; on and on until death, where the cycle can finally stop. The reason for this philosophy is because the NEST treats salvation as mental assent rather than miracle, which is an error of Arminianism, and Pelagianism (also called synergism). Those who believe in the NEST, treat salvation merely as a change of mind. So the theory suggests that you can decide you are saved one day, and then supposedly decide you are not saved the next day. It is an inherent corner that those who believe in the NEST get into, where it is believed that any spiritually saved person who supposedly loses spiritual salvation can be resaved again--even moments later. So, as an initial consideration, this philosophy of those who believe in the NEST concerning salvation, is a philosophy that already nullifies its own wrong interpretation of this passage. The reason is because the writer clearly explains, concerning those unbelieving Hebrews who have fallen away from salvation that only comes through Messiah Jesus, that it is impossible to renew them again to repentance.

/2/
As we continue to consider this, now is the time that we should bring back to the forefront of our minds, the repentance definition that the writer has already given his intended audience in Hebrews 6:1 in his contextual flow of thought. The writer gave the definition of the repentance that he is talking about at the outset of this passage so that the Hebrew audience would not be confused concerning the point the writer endeavored to make by God's Spirit. Along this line, we recognize that the writer does not mention repentance in the first five chapters of this epistle. Further, when the writer starts his flow of thought on these immediate points of chapter 6, he introduces repentance in verse one, which is only one sentence before his reference to it again. This is an important point because we absolutely must recognize the antecedent "repentance" that the writer establishes for us in 6:1 as being the same subject the writer is still talking about here in 6:6. To not recognize this could lead to making the same kinds of interpretation errors as those who believe in the NEST. What this means is that the writer is telling us that it is impossible to lead such rejecting Hebrews of that age to repentance, because, in the hardness of their hearts, they have finalized their complete rejection of Messiah and His New Covenant work by turning back to "dead works." Looking at the writer's own clarifier here from verse one, we see how clear this is,

"1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching, [doctrine] about the Messiah, let us [saved Hebrews including the writer of Hebrews] press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works," (Hebrews 6:1 emph. mine)

This is a concisely clear definition of the repentance that the writer is concerned with. It is from dead works. Unsaved Hebrews, who are dead in their sins and trespasses, are dead in their dead works. The rest of the list of discipleship basics in 6:1 are:

2) faith on God;

3) instruction about washings, (Gk. baptizo);

4) laying on of hands;

5) the resurrection of the dead;

6) eternal judgment.

This "repentance," that is first mentioned and described at the start of the writer's list of discipleship basics, is what the writer is talking about as being impossible to renew the Hebrews to do, who are falling away from the gospel. The writer does not call it salvation. The writer does not call it regeneration. The writer does not call it complete surrender of one's soul to Jesus. The writer calls it "repentance from dead works." The point is that if "those" Hebrews tasted all these good miracle things, grace things, and Holy Spirit things from God concerning Messiah, and then continue on and start to neglect the works they were practicing beforehand, (which were the religious, ritualistic works, of the Judaizers, and Pharisees, the Old Covenant temple sacrifices, and keeping of the Old Law Covenant Law), and then eventually fall away from all that they had tasted concerning what God had done in the establishment of His New Covenant--going back again to dead works and faith in the arm of the flesh for justification, then they demonstrate that they were never spiritually saved, and so, it is impossible to do anything to renew (to restore) them again to repentance from dead works. They demonstrate that even if curious about Messiah, or even claiming to follow Him, they did not, and do not, really trust in Messiah as their righteousness. They are tare plants among the true wheat, and the plain fact that they are turning back to practicing dead works for justification, simply proves this fact. It is that simple.

This particular understanding of this specific area of repentance being directed toward Hebrews, can also be seen in an ancient magnified version of Paul's first recorded preaching ministry in Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:39-40. The repentance clarification is found in the Western text of Acts, (attributed to be an earlier work by Luke, which is part of Codex Bezae. This Acts was used, and quoted as authoritative, by early church theologians, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Pacian, Jerome, Augustine, Chrysostem, Ephrem, and others; see footnote 3 below). It is important to Keep in mind that the quote may be Luke's actual words in a previous draft of Acts, or it may be a redactive commentary that reflects the theological views of the first Christians. Either way, the text enlightens our understanding of an early recognition of a primary repentance clarifier reflective (of Hebrews, Galatians, Romans, etc.), in respect to Hebrew people of that age. The text is quoted here;

"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins; and repentance from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:39-40, emph. mine; Codex Bezae, aka. "The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles")

The point is that in the early centuries of Christianity, the particular repentance of Hebrews 6, that the writer urged the Hebrews to, was to turn from Mosaic Lawism, which most certainly included all things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses. Consequently, once a Hebrew rejected Messiah's comprehensive work, they had really rejected Jehovah, whether they thought they were still following Jehovah or not. To go back to dead works, which includes temple sacrifices to atone for sins (God finally does wipe away the temple system in a few years in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem) is to turn away from Jehovah like many Hebrews did in the desert with Moses. "Those" certain Hebrews, in like manner, have arrived at mount Sinai, so to speak, after tasting and sharing in all the wonders of God, and have metaphorically made a golden calf and are worshipping it. They have arrived at the border of Canaan, and are rebelling against Jehovah, His promise, and His provision. "Those" Hebrews, in the same manner of the Judaizers of Galatia, prefer to turn back to dead works of ritualistic legalism, and Old Covenant sacrifice, over the gospel of Messiah, which is something that the writer warns his Hebrew brothers (genetic) against, numerous times in this epistle. We must make no mistake about it, "those" particular Hebrews were never spiritually saved, and if they ever seemed saved, they were never truly saved, as is evidenced by their rejection of the gospel, called "falling away," and so once fallen away from the living work Himself, (whose living works are the only things that can save anyone), it is impossible to renew "them" again to repentance from dead works that they simply do not want to stop doing in religious blindness. Sadly, they demonstrate that they no longer follow Jehovah of the Hebrews, though they assert that they do under the Old Covenant. Ironically, in rejecting the gospel they show that they are pagans. This important fact concerning dead works, is mentioned by the writer later on in this same epistle to describe those unsaved Hebrews. We read the writer clarifying his terminology in 9:13-14, saying,

"For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Messiah, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Hebrews 9:13-14 emph. mine)

Here the writer is speaking of the transformation that occurs in salvation where the conscience is cleansed from "dead works" in serving a dead god, which is a false-Jehovah, to serve the living, true, Jehovah. It is repentance from dead works, which is also a repentance to the living God. Here in chapter 6, unsaved Hebrews started to turn from dead works, but they turned back to dead works again because their conscience had never been cleansed from dead works in true salvation. Being absent from the miracle of salvation of Messiah's New Covenant work, where the conscience is cleansed from dead works through the work of the "eternal Spirit," (cf. Hebrews 9:14), it is impossible to renew them again to repentance from those dead works, to serve the real, "living" Jehovah through His ordained work. Hebrews 9:13-14 confirms that the writer is talking about those particular Hebrews in that generation, who demonstrated that they were merely religious cultists who were trying to live under a covenant that no longer exists. In Hebrews 9, we see that what they began in the flesh, they tried to finish in the flesh. In Hebrews 10, it is made even more clear that in practicing their dead works, they demonstrate they they are really worshipping a dead pagan god when they rejected God's Messiah (cf. Hebrews 6:1, with 6:6). The important point that the writer is getting across, is that it does not matter whether they think they are still serving Jehovah according to the Old Covenant Law, or not, because they are not. Instead of being alive in the living work of Messiah, they demonstrate that they are "dead in" their "trespasses and sins," (Ephesians 2:1). They have "once" been enlightened, have shared, and have tasted, but their consciences are still filled with the foul empty deadness of lifeless efforts. In fact, having once being enlightened, (having tasted of the heavenly gift, having shared in the Holy Spirit, and having tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come) and then to have begun to cease from all Judaizing ritual, but then start dead works again, is so bad and anti-Jehovah that the writer continues his point by saying, in verse 6;

"... since they ..." (Hebrews 6:6)

[Here "they" is not the same pronoun of "us" saved Hebrews of verse 1, that go onto maturity. This pronoun "they" is the same people of the pronoun "those" who fall from the word of God. The writer says,]

"... since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." ["holding Him up to contempt" NET]

With all of this in mind, we recognize that crucifying Messiah initially, is what the hardened Hebrews did in Jerusalem who rejected Messiah and demanded of Pontius Pilate that Jesus be crucified. The writer indicates clearly that those Hebrews who reject Messiah, and fall headlong away from Him and back into trusting in dead works after all they have encountered concerning their Messiah, is metaphorically as if they continually hold Him in contempt and are crucifying Him again, in like manner, as Israel's previous act of rejection. The point is that they accept Him as their execution, but they reject Him as their sacrifice. They are lost. They demonstrate that they never held fast confidence in Messiah. They have rejected the New Covenant, again, and again, and are damned to hell for eternity.

The writer goes on to give an agricultural metaphor which contrasts the fruits of the saved and the fruits of the lost, saying in verse 7,

"For ground that has soaked up the rain that frequently falls on it and yields useful vegetation for those who tend it receives a blessing from God" (Hebrews 6:7 NET)

"Ground," here represents people. This particular ground here has soaked up rain, and lots of rain, as it gets the rain frequently, and so it yields good crops with good fruits for its farmers. This particular ground (people) is blessed and continues to receive God's blessing. In a few verses, the writer is going to explain what the useful crops in the analogy are that come from this blessed ground. They are the things that accompany salvation in verses 9-11. It is the metaphoric vegetation out of saved people that is manifest in quality fruit, which is work, and love toward His name in having served, and in serving to the set apart ones, (cf. Hebrews 6:10). We will get to these things in a moment, but right now we must recognize that there is a saved people aspect of the metaphor, and there is also a lost people aspect. With those unsaved Hebrew rejectors of Messiah in mind, the writer describes lost ground, saying,

"8 but that [ground, which represents people] which yields thorns and thistles is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned." (Hebrews 6:8)

That type of plot of land is horrible for any farmer. It only produces prickly, scrub-brush sin. Therefor, that ground is only fit to be destroyed. That ground does not soak up rain like the other kind of ground. Additionally, that ground does not produce the things that accompany salvation. It is not saved ground. It never was saved ground. In fact, that land is worthless, briar ridden, thorn producing, "dead works" producing ground that is so valueless that it is near being cursed. A good question to ask here, is what does it mean to be near being cursed? That other ground already sounds like it is cursed. In one sense it is cursed, but the writer is indicating that it is near being cursed in another sense. There are a couple of views on this. One view is that this is a prophetic warning of the destruction of Jerusalem that is coming in a few years within that generation in AD 70, where God is going to pour out His wrath in His days of vengeance against apostate Hebrews (cf. Luke 21:22). The field that is burned according to this view, is Jerusalem, the temple, and the Israelite people who die in the curse of the destruction. Another view is that the bad ground will be eternally damned in the future at the judgment. As a future curse, it is explained well in 2 Thessalonians,

"7... the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thessalonians 1:7)

The penalty of eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord is the curse that all living unsaved people are near. Everyone who does not know God, (made manifest in the fact that they do not obey by believing the gospel of our Lord Jesus the Messiah), when they die, will no longer be near being cursed--instead they will actually experience the curse of eternal destruction forever and ever like a bad field that is burned. Jesus used a similar metaphor in a parable He told to pre-cross Hebrews. We find it in Matthew 13, where Jesus says,

"3 ... 'A sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seeds, [the seeds are the "word of the kingdom," verse 19] fell along the path [certain people, particularly fell within their "hearts," cf. v. 19] and the birds came and devoured them [seeds as "word of the kingdom,"]. 5 Other seeds [word of the kingdom,] fell on rocky ground [certain people], where they [seeds as "word of the kingdom,"] did not have much soil [certain people], and immediately they [seeds as "word of the kingdom,"] sprang up [crops], since they [crops] had no depth of soil [certain people], 6 but when the sun rose they [crops] were scorched. And since they [crops] had no root, they [crops] withered away. 7 Other seeds ["word of the kingdom,"] fell among thorns, [which are cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches, verse 22] and the thorns grew up [among certain people as briar ridden soil] and choked them [crops]. 8 Other seeds ["word of the kingdom,"] fell on good soil [certain people] and produced grain [good fruit producing crops], some a hundred fold, some sixty, some thirty [which are varying degrees of good fruits]. 9 He who has ears, let him hear. ... 18 Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown [seed as the "word of the kingdom,"] in his heart ["in" the Israelite person's heart]. This [word of the kingdom] is what was sown along the path [people]. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground [certain people], this [rocky ground person] is the one who hears the word ["word of the kingdom," as seed] and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself [There is no rooting in him as sparse soiled ground], but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word ["word of the kingdom," as seed], immediately he falls away [He as ground has a "withered" crop]. 22 As for what was sown [seeds as "word of the kingdom,"] among thorns, this [ground] is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word [seedlings], and it proves unfruitful [does not produce a fruit bearing crop]. 23 As for what was sown [seed as "word of the kingdom,"] on good soil [people who are effectually called and so are saved, in that they fully embrace in saving faith, the "word of the kingdom,"], this is the one who hears the word and understands it [understanding is divine revelation and not contingent upon intelligence]. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundred fold, in another sixty, and in another thirty." Matthew 13, ESV

The main point of Jesus’ parable, directed at pre-cross Israelites, is that good soil is saved. It produces good crops. It grows good fruits out of salvation. Bad soil is lost, and so it produces worthlessness. The Hebrews 6 metaphor is similar in this respect, though directed toward post-cross Hebrews of that newly established New Covenant age.

Next comes the good news where the writer switches from talking about the pronoun "those" unsaved Hebrews and "they" who reject Messiah and re-crucify Him in their hearts, on over to the pronouns "we," and "you" and the noun "beloved" indicating saved people again, and so the writer says next in verse 9,

"9 But, beloved, we ["Beloved" is a beautiful word that describes saved Hebrews. "We" here is the people involved with sending out this letter. So, he says, But, beloved we] are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way." (Hebrews 6:9)

We must recognize that this is an absolutely tremendous declaration of surety in security. This is once saved in eternal spiritual salvation (OSIESS) in a crisp pronouncement. It is important that this statement that the writer makes, in context, should not be brushed over lightly. This statement of being "convinced of better things concerning you," ("you," meaning saved Hebrews), is reflective of what Paul said to the Philippians,

"6 For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus." (Philippians 1:6)

In Philippians 1:6, Paul clearly has personal assurance that God will persevere in perfecting the good work He started in the saved people until the end. Such declarations show that Paul is "confident' that his spiritually saved audiences are secure in their salvation. With such statements, we consider that the writer of Hebrews, is likewise, confident of the sustaining power of God in preserving the elect. What this followup statement in Hebrews 6:9 clearly indicates is that the writer has been talking about unsaved Hebrews with the pronouns of "they" and "those" who had been enlightened, tasted, and shared, but fell away just like many of their hardhearted Hebrew forefathers had done in the desert 1500 years earlier after they had been enlightened, tasted, and shared in all the miraculous things of Jehovah. But, now the writer turns his attention to the truly saved Hebrews, calling them "we," and "you," and "beloved" thus demonstrating that this whole section is not a lose your salvation passage at all. This whole section is not even a keep on trying and maybe you will persevere to the end passage. What we have just seen in this exegetical analyzation is that this passage identifies a contrast of those who clearly reject true Christianity, and those who have not rejected, and so the non rejectors are "beloved," and they are of the "better things" that accompany salvation. The writer goes on to explain the work of saved Hebrews among the saved audience, saying,

"10 For God is not unjust so as to forget your [This "your" is the same "you" and "beloved" saved people of verse 9] work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having served and in still serving the set apart ones" (Hebrews 6:10 emph. mine)

The writer is using the aorist tense again of the verb, saying that these saved Hebrews have ministered to the other set apart ones in the past. Further, the writer also says that they are still serving them now. This is what saved people do, and God does not forget it. The writer goes on now to encourage this saved aspect of Hebrews to be having assurance of hope--to realize it, and to have patience in waiting for the end and the inheritance that is to come, saying,

"11 And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises." (Hebrews 6:11-12)

The writer is signifying that he wants the saved Hebrews to be diligent and not sluggish in realizing, as in comprehending, the full assurance of hope that is already there in their salvation, (ie. take hold of it, verse 18) no matter whether they get rejected, beaten down, and discouraged. It is a "fullness" realization. The eternal security is already there. That is why the writer wants them to diligently come to comprehend it to the fullest assurance of mind. This is why the writer is going to give the analogy of promise in the next verse, (verse 13). In fact, the writer wants the saved Hebrews to be just as diligent as they have been in the work, and love toward God's name, in serving the set apart ones, and also diligent like those Hebrews of old who through faith and patient waiting, eventually inherit the promises that finally do come. To show more of what he means, the writer used the analogy that all Hebrews are familiar with--the analogy of God's faithfulness to Abraham, and Abraham's faith in the God who is faithful. The writer's point is for the truly saved Hebrews of that generation to have "patience," and so the writer says,

"For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14 saying, 'I will surely bless you and I will surely multiply you.' 15 And so, having patiently waited, he obtained the promise. [That is all Abraham did; he patiently waited] 16 For men swear by one greater than themselves, and with them an oath given as confirmation is an end of every dispute. 17 In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge ..." (Hebrews 6:14-18)

The writer, the great preacher, is encouraging all saved Hebrews to truly "realize the full assurance of hope." So, the point is that Hebrews who have put their faith in Messiah, and are saved in Him, (which is what the writer is talking about), experience the same type of stable, secure, and guaranteed covenant that God made with Abraham by swearing by Himself as God in the covenant, because in doing so, God is always faithful to those whom He saves. God is the one Who perseveres in His promise. Christians need to have patience while waiting in faith until the inheritance comes. God is faithful even if any Hebrew or anyone who trusts in Messiah as Lord and Savior happens to waiver, cry, and fear in the midst of their wicked generation. This covenant of God, and assurance, is a strong encouragement to really fathom (fully) how immensely great our hope is for us who have taken refuge in God's New Covenant in Messiah Jesus. The writer goes on with the encouragement for saved Hebrews to really take hold of, and grasp, this sure and steadfast hope that is set before them, saying,

"18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope ["to hold the hope," Wycliffe. Gk. krathsai, "to grasp"] set before us." (Hebrews 6:13-18)

The really good news is that the saved Hebrew's hope is so immensely great, they need to fully fathom it, and the reason is because their hope has a firm foundation in Messiah Jesus--it is anchored, sure, steadfast. So, the urging is to grasp the confidence. Grip the assurance. Clasp the hope. It is unmoveable. In fact, their hope is even bold enough to enter through the veil of the temple without worry in coming into God's presence. This is what is said next;

"19 This hope we [saved Hebrews] have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, 20 where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." (Hebrews 6:19-20)

This sweet declaration is the boldness and confidence of being once saved in eternal spiritual salvation.

In finishing chapter 6, a quick recap is: The writer starts out the chapter wanting to move on to doctrines that have to do with maturity for saved Hebrews. He takes a side step first and goes into unsaved Hebrews who reject Messiah, even if they had shown interest in Him and His teachings in the past and had stopped practicing dead works for awhile, in contrast to saved Hebrews. The saved Hebrews are encouraged to get the fullness of what their hope is all about, which is maturity that is coming in the remaining chapters. With those two elementary things out of the way, the writer actually does go on to maturity teachings through the rest of Hebrews.

Therefore, we recognize that Hebrews 6 has no doctrinal material in it that remotely suggests that one can lose one's spiritual salvation, or that one must apply effort to keep one's spiritual salvation, or one must work in any manner to acquire salvation. Rather, Hebrews 6, is a beautiful reminder of being once saved in eternal spiritual salvation.
__________
FOOTNOTES:
(1) This "we" pronoun is the way the writer grouped himself in Hebrews 5:11 when making his comment about wanting to teach more on Jesus as a priest of the order of Melchizedek. The writer says;

"Concerning him <we> have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you [he switches to the pronoun "you" of the broad Hebrew audience] have become dull of hearing." (Hebrews 5:11 <emph. mine>)

The writer makes this same type of "we" reference in Hebrews 6:9-11, where he speaks of the wishes of "we" rather than just himself in writing this letter. In another example, we find Paul doing this in 2 Thessalonians where he groups himself with others, saying,

"Now <we> command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ..." (2 Thessalonians 3:6 <emph. mine>)

(2) Concerning teleiotes (teleiothv) rendered here in 6:1 as mature. This word is typically translated as perfect, and complete. In respect to teleios and teleiotes in Hebrews 5:14, and 6:1, typically the translation teams of the NASB, ESV, NET etc., are considering the legitimate semantic range in respect to an immediate qualifier in the pericope. "Babe" is used in the immediate context as the contrast, thus the translation of mature. This same pattern is seen in other passages in which this rendering is found:

"Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature." 1 Corinthians 14:20

We also find this in Ephesians 4:13-14,

"13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. 14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, ..." Ephesians 4:13-14

(3) In the introduction to The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Dr. Wilson writes:

"18. ...Scrivener (Introd. p. lxiii) tells us, "by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Pacian, Jerome (who speaks of the omitted words as occurring in some copies), Augustine," and others. It is the [Bezae] text that was translated into the early Latin, Syriac, and Sahidic and other versions. The [Bezae] text is used by Ephrem in his commentary [Rendel Harris, Four Lectures, p. 27; Chase, The old Syriac Element]. It is the [Bezae] text that is assumed in the Apology of Aristides in the middle of the second century. This is of great importance. No proof could be more complete of the wide early acceptance of the [Bezae] text, and of its admitted authority as Scripture, specially in the West. Some of the Eastern writers quote from the a text. But even Clement of Alexandria is shewn (Journal of Theol. Studies, Jan. 1900, p. 292) to have used a text akin to D." Quoted from The Western Text of the Acts of the Apostles (1923). Introduction. pp. 1-37, J. M. WILSON, D.D., 18. The nature of the arguments in support of either text of the decree. Bracketed addtions of this quote are from K Kinchen

Both Chrysostem, and Ephrem had access to this earlier version of Acts, and used the earlier version in their respective commentaries on the Acts. See, On the Western Text of the Acts as Evidenced by Chrysostom, Fred. C. Conybeare, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 17, No. 2 (1896), pp. 135-171, doi:10.2307/288294