Hebrews 6:1–12 is one of the most difficult passages in the New Testament. There are competing interpretations with no consensus view in sight. None of the interpretive views seems to satisfy all aspects of the text. Only one interpretation can be correct, but which one is it? What should a pastor do with this passage?
If a pastor explains the various interpretive views along with their strengths and weaknesses, the sermon could resemble a classroom lecture. Yet, if he advocates and explains only one view, it may be misleading as to how challenging this text is. The solution is to preach a text-driven sermon on this passage that reflects its difficulty by advocating a particular interpretation while also sometimes explaining why other interpretations are less likely.
Date and Author
When was Hebrews written? It was probably written in the mid-to-late 60s AD. First, its references to Jewish sacrifices are present tense (Heb 7:8; 9:6–7, 9, 13; 13:10), and Rome destroyed the Jewish temple in AD 70. Second, Hebrews does not mention the fall of the temple. Had the temple already fallen, it would have fit the theme in Hebrews that Christ is greater than the OT Law and priestly sacrifices.
Who wrote Hebrews? It is anonymous, but many lay people think Paul wrote this epistle. Yet, Paul is unlikely because: (1) his name does not appear in this epistle, unlike the 13 epistles he wrote in the NT, (2) the style, vocabulary, and subject matter are different from Paul’s epistles, (3) the writer makes no claim to apostolic authority, unlike Paul (e.g., Rom 1:1; Gal 1:1, 15–19; 1 Cor 9:1–23), and (4) the placement of Hebrews in the NT canon indicates someone else wrote it.1 If Paul were the unquestioned writer, it would sit next to Romans and 1 Corinthians in the NT due to its length. Two good candidates for the writer of Hebrews are Barnabas or Apollos.2
Context of Hebrews 6:1–12
The recipients of Hebrews were Christians (Heb 2:1; 3:1; 4:1)—either Jewish Christians or Gentile Christians who were rightly interested in the OT. Hebrews is an epistle that reads more like a sermon, and the author alternates between expositing the person and work of Christ and exhorting the readers/listeners to respond in obedience to Him.3 There are five warning passages in Hebrews: 2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; and 10:19–39.4 The focal text for this article appears at the end of the third warning passage. Also, since Hebrews 6:1–8 and 10:25–31 are similar passages, one may interpret them the say way. Yet, what did the author warn about in the focal text? Was it: (1) the danger of the recipients losing their salvation, (2) the peril of the nonbelievers among them never trusting in Christ, or (3) the problem of carnal Christian living?
Both before and after the third warning passage, the writer described Jesus as the great high priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:1–10 and 7:1–28).5 At the beginning of this warning passage, the writer noted the recipients of the epistle were immature Christians (5:11–14). So, this was a specific group of Christians the writer personally knew or at least knew about. They were “dull of hearing” (v. 11). By that time they should be teachers, but they were not (v. 12). All they could handle were easy spiritual teachings, likened to milk rather than solid food (vv. 12–14). They should be moving to deeper teaching, but sadly they still needed the basics.
The Text
The flow of the passage with the paragraph immediately preceding it divides into four distinct sections: Confronting the Recipients (5:11–14), Pleading for Maturity (6:1–3), Warning of Danger (6:4–8), and Encouraging the Recipients (6:9–12).6 George Guthrie summarizes the author’s exhortation this way: “You are spiritually immature” (5:11–14), “You are in danger” (6:1–8), and “I have confidence in you” (6:9–12).
I. The Plea (6:1–3)
The recipients of this letter were Christians, as affirmed in 5:12–14, yet they were immature. So, the writer exhorted them to “press on to maturity” by leaving behind the “elementary teachings about Christ’s word” (ton tēs archēs tou Christou logon, 6:1). Today’s Christians should emulate this spiritual progression. Yet, it may be surprising what the author considered to be basic teachings. “Repentance from dead works” and “faith in God” (v. 1) are considered basic elements of the faith today. However, the four teachings in verse 2 may not seem so basic today: washings (distinguishing believer’s baptism from ritual washings), laying on of hands (as a symbol of receiving the Holy Spirit at salvation or as the mark of beginning a Christian ministry), the resurrection of the dead, and judgment.
II. The Warning (6:4–8)
There are three key questions in verses 4–6 that are crucial in determining the meaning of this text. First, who were the problem people these verses? Were they unbelievers or immature Christians? The author switched from using second-person plural verbs in 5:12 (echete, “you have,” and gegonate, “you have need”) and the inclusive first-person plural verbs in 6:1, 3. He next focused on an endangered group of people in verses 4–6. He then gave an illustration (vv. 8–9) and returned to directly addressing the recipients in first and second-person plural verbs in verses 10–12.
So, who were the people in verses 4–6? The four aorist passive participles in verses 4–5 indicate this group is Christian. First, they were “enlightened” (phōtisthentas), and other uses of this verb usually refer to a Christian (Heb 10:32; Eph 1:18). Second, they “tasted” (geusamenous) “the heavenly gift.” “Taste” often has the denotation of “obtain” or “experience” (Heb 2:9; Matt 16:28; John 8:52; 1 Pet 2:3), and the “gift” is likely salvation.7 Third, they “became partakers” or “partners” (metachous genēthentas) of the Holy Spirit. This same word is used for the Christian recipients of the letter as being “partakers of Christ” (Heb 3:14). Fourth, they “tasted” (geusamenous) “the good word of God and the powers of the coming age.” As with the second participle, this one indicates the group experienced God’s word and powers. So, these terms best fit Christians.
Yet could these terms fit nonbelievers? Were they like tares whose roots were entangled with the wheat (Matt 13:29–30), nonbelievers among believers? This interpretation sees the “enlightened” like in John 1:9, where every person has the potential to become a Christian. It claims the two instances of “taste” do not include consumption, so it is a superficial rather than a genuine experience, but there is no use of the word like this in the NT. It says the group “partook” of the Holy Spirit simply by experiencing residual benefits of being around Christians. So, claiming these terms described unbelievers seems inadequate.
The second major question is: how was this group “falling away” (v. 6, parapesontas, used only once in the NT) or potentially “falling away”? Did they leave Christianity and lose their salvation? This interpretation is problematic because it goes against Scripture that affirms the security of the believer (John 10:28–30; Rom 11:29) and it is not the usual meaning of the word in extra-biblical literature. Or is this a group of non-believers who were exposed to Christianity but hardened their hearts against it? Their “falling away” meant rejecting what they had associated with but never actually joined. Yet, the more likely use of parapesontas is they were immature Christians who fell into certain sins.8
Third, what happened to this group? How was it “impossible to renew them to repentance” (v. 6)? Were they unbelievers who never could be saved due to their “falling away,” a hardening of their hearts? Since the terms in verses 4-6 fit Christians, it is more likely they were immature Christians stuck in their compromised way of living.
III. The Assurance (6:9–12)
The writer likened faithful Christians to productive ground (v. 7). He contrasted them with the group in verses 4–6, described as worthless ground producing “thorns and thistles” (v. 8). The latter group was “close to being cursed.” Were these non-Christians who were not yet cursed because their life was not over? Or were they nominal Christians, described as “sluggish” (nōthroi, v. 8), who were not cursed because they could not lose their salvation?
After giving the stark warning, the author wrote “we are convinced of better things concerning you” (v. 9). God remembered their work, love, and ministry (v. 10). He challenged them to imitate mature Christian believers (vv. 11–12).
Four Different Views
There are other possible interpretations of 6:1–12, but the four views listed below represent the main basic views.9 Yet this passage has only one true interpretation. Which one is it? It is the view that best fits the context and word meanings.
Apostasy View
This view asserts that a person can lose his or her salvation, which is the classical Arminian position. The strength of this view is that the participles in verses 4–5 seem to describe a Christian. However, there are major weaknesses in this view. First, the consequences are irreversible. It is “impossible” for them to become a Christian again (to “renew them to repentance,” v. 6). Second, Scripture teaches the security of the believer (John 10:28–30). So, this interpretation is contrary to Scripture.
Reprobate View
The Reprobate (aka “Test of Genuineness” or “Means of Salvation”) view is a Reformed view that claims these people never trusted in Christ but were exposed to Christianity while among a group of believers. But they eventually left, and they could never become believers. The strength of this view is that the “impossible” for them to become a Christian fits. It is similar to pharaoh hardening his heart and then God hardening his heart: God locking in pharaoh’s rejection. Also, the Bible teaches there are non-Christians among Christians, such as Jesus’ parables of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31–46) and the tares among the wheat (13:24–30). Yet, a weakness of this view is that verses 4–5 seem to be describing Christians, but this view says they describe non-Christians who only appear to be Christian.
Hypothetical View
This view affirms a person cannot lose his or her salvation, but it presents a hypothetical situation. It says the writer chastised the immature recipients of the letter, saying in essence, “How immature are you? You are so fleshly, that if one could lose salvation, then you would have already lost it by now. Also, if you could lose your salvation, although that could not happen, it would be impossible to renew your salvation.” This kind of hypothetical reasoning was a typical type of argument in the first century, although it may sound weak to modern ears. A strength of the view is that it interprets verses 4–6 as describing Christians. A weakness of this view, like the Backslider view, is that it may make the problem seem too small.
Backslider View
The Backslider (aka Loss of Rewards) view believes this passage refers to Christians who live in carnality. Thus, parapesontas in v. 6 is “willful disobedience to God” rather than “falling away” (apostasy). They miss God’s blessings, mature growth, opportunities of service, and some future rewards (as in Rom 14:10–12; 1 Cor 3:10–15; 2 Cor 5:10), and they may experience an early death. Biblical examples of God cutting a carnal Christian’s life short include 1 Corinthians 11:29–30; James 5:19–20; and 1 John 5:16. A weakness of this view is that a loss of ministry opportunities or rewards may seem to make the problem too small; however, the loss of life is certainly a major judgment. A strength of the view is that it is consistent with the interpretation of Hebrews. There is a repetitive theme for believers to walk in godliness.
Conclusion
Still not completely sure which interpretation is correct? Preaching this passage offers an opportunity for pastoral humility. No pastor is all knowing—only God is. Sometimes it is acceptable to say a text is very difficult and hard to interpret, such as Exodus 4:22-26; John 20:21-23; and Hebrews 6:1-12. You could advocate one view of Hebrew 6:1-12 in your text-driven sermon and also mention some competing interpretations, such as the Reprobate and Backslider views, may be possible here but certainly occur in other biblical texts.
- The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and Council of Carthage (AD 397) separated Hebrews from Paul’s thirteen epistles in the NT canon. ↩︎
- Ellingworth evaluates thirteen possible authors of Hebrews and considers Apollos “perhaps the least unlikely” possibility. Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993), 21. David Allen defends an underdog authorship by Luke in David L. Allen, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010). ↩︎
- George A. Guthrie, Hebrews, The NIC Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 27–28. ↩︎
- Herbert W. Bateman IV, ed., Four Views of the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2007), 27–28. ↩︎
- Guthrie, Hebrews, 28–29. ↩︎
- These titles and texts are based on Guthrie, Hebrews, 201–22. ↩︎
- See BDAG, s.v., γεύομαι. ↩︎
- See David L. Allen, Hebrews, The New American Commentary, vol. 35 (Nashville: B&H, 2010), 360–62. ↩︎
- For a good discussion on Heb 6:4–6 and five interpretations of this passage, see Allen, Hebrews, 344–93. ↩︎
