Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 29 –
December/2007
What
Does “Fall Away” Mean?
Hebrews
6:4-6
RIGHT UP THERE WITH THE IDENTITY OF the
“Sons of God” in Genesis 6 (see Issues 5, 6, and 7 for a
study of this), the meaning of “fallen away” in Hebrews
6:4-6 is among the major “tough texts” of Scripture.
This puzzling passage reads:
For it is impossible for
those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy
Ghost,
And have tasted the good
word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
If they shall fall away,
to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify
to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an
open shame.
Before we begin our
study, I want to mention again the TOTT
mission statement that we print in
every issue. We recognize that godly and scholarly men
differ with the views we share here, and we respect each
one. We reemphasize this here because this text is
particularly controversial.
That said, it is insisted
by some Bible teachers that this passage means that a
Christian can lose his salvation, whether through
apostasy, willfully turning one’s back on Jesus Christ
and returning to the old life, or some other sin. That
idea must be rejected immediately, however, because the
only teaching that is more heretical than the idea of
losing salvation is one that teaches that salvation
comes either wholly or partly by works. The evidences
for the security of the believer are numerous and
unmistakable (e.g., Jn. 10:27-29, Rom. 8:15-17; 35-39;
Heb. 10:10, 12, 14; 1 Peter 1:3-5; etc.). To deny the
security of the believer is not only to deny grace but
even question the very character of God.
We should also point
out that those today who teach that it is possible to
lose one’s salvation also teach that one can
get it back. This passage, however, says that it
is impossible
for those who have fallen
away to be [renewed] again unto
repentance. The view that
this passage teaches the loss of salvation is,
therefore, self-refuting.
Another
interpretation is that this refers only to a purely
hypothetical situation, that is, if a Christian
could lose his salvation,
there remains no provision for repentance because Christ
died only once, which is therefore another proof for the
security of the believer.
Again, while we respect
those who differ with the view we will defend in just a
moment, we humbly submit that it is puzzling that any
interpreter would read salvation into this passage, for
it clearly is not here. No one is spoken of as
exercising saving faith, being justified, redeemed,
saved, born again, sanctified, or any other term
normally used in Scripture to indicate true salvation.
The reverse is also true, namely, that no term that is
used here is ever used elsewhere to refer to salvation.
Still another view
is that this refers not to salvation but to
Christian service; that is,
it is a warning of the danger of a Christian moving from
a position of true faith and life to the extent of
becoming disqualified for further service. This,
however, as we will see, does not fit the context. Let
us, therefore, examine this controversial passage by
first examining the text and then considering an
implication that some teachers do not wish to
face.
The Text
What is this passage
all about? In light of our recent study of biblical
interpretation, it is the principle of context
that is the foundation for understanding this passage.
The word For immediately points back to what has already been
stated. While we will go deeper in a moment, Harry
Ironside writes this summary:
There were many Hebrews
who in the beginning professed to acknowledge the
Messiahship of Jesus and were eye-witnesses of the
marvelous things that took place at Pentecost and
afterwards. But as the Lord did not return and the
promised Kingdom was not immediately established, it was
easy to understand how many of these, if lacking
personal faith in Christ as Saviour, would eventually
give up the Messianic confession and go back to Judaism
which they knew to be a divinely revealed religion. This
was a very serious thing, and yet it was something to
which all these Hebrews would be exposed if they did not
make a clean break with Judaism and go on to the
perfection of Christianity. As to those who had already
apostatized, it was too late to help them. They had made
their choice and acted accordingly; and having
experienced so much that was new and wonderful and then
turned away from it all, they would be the hardest
people on earth to change again. It is impossible, we
are told, to renew again to repentance those once
enlightened.[i]
Another expositor,
E. Schuyler English, likewise emphasizes the word
For as taking “us back to what has been discussed.”
He goes on to explain exactly what that
was:
. . . there were
some who . . . while professing to be Christians, were
still clinging to the ordinances and typology of the old
economy, still relying upon the Old Testament sacrifices
and Mosaic institutions, and still looking at Christ in
His life rather than in His death and resurrection; and
it is a warning lest some of the readers of the epistle
might be in such a classification.[ii]
This “explanation,” as
another commentator puts it, “seems most consistent with
the context and with the rest of the New
Testament.”[iii]
Let us now turn to
the five specific privileges these people enjoyed,
while still not exercising saving
faith.
First, they
were once
enlightened. The Greek verb here is
photizo (English “photo”), which means “to give
light, to shine” and does not imply salvation, that is,
what someone does with the
light. Just as one might close their eyes in a lighted
room, for example, and choose not to use the light, a
person can choose to ignore the spiritual light that God
has given.
John 1:9-10, for example,
declares that “the true Light, which lighteth every man
that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the
world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”
While Christ’s coming enlightened
the whole world, not every person believes. Just two
verses before, we read that John the Baptist “came for a
witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men
through him might believe,” but again, while the Light
came, not all believe it. As one commentator points out,
in fact, “whenever a man or woman hears the gospel of
salvation in Christ, he is enlightened . . . but many,
loving darkness rather than light, flee from its
radiance.”[iv] Another example
appears in Matthew 4:16, where Jesus declares that He
had come to fulfill the prophecy of Isaiah 6:2, which
declares, “The people that walked in darkness have seen
a great light.” Just because the people saw the
Light does not mean that they
believed the Light.
“Enlightenment,”
therefore, simply refers to intellectual awareness of
something and does not imply either accepting it as true
or, much less, receiving it as life changing. The people
pictured in our text saw the light, were mentally aware
of it, and perhaps even mentally assented to it, but
they most certainly did not receive the light in the
fullest sense; saving faith is nowhere to be found here.
So strong was their mental state, in fact, that they
were once (that
is, “once for all,” aorist tense) enlightened; that is, as Greek authority Kenneth Wuest
points out, they
understood these issues
perfectly. . . . They were enlightened as every sinner
is enlightened who comes under the hearing of God’s
Word. But as the unsaved in an evangelistic meeting
today clearly understand the message of salvation but
sometimes refuse the light and turn back into the
darkness of sin and continued unbelief, so these Hebrews
were in danger of doing a like thing.[v]
Just hearing is not
enough. Intellectual understanding is not enough. Only
faith is enough, and these hearers had not truly
believed anything they saw.
Second, these
people had tasted of the
heavenly gift. What is the heavenly
gift? Without doubt, it is salvation in
Christ. It is, indeed, “the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8),
God’s truly “unspeakable gift” (II Cor. 9:15). But to
taste something is far different than actually
eating or drinking it, that is, fully receiving
it. Some teachers object to this observation by pointing
out that the Greek behind tasted
(geuomai) is also used in Hebrews 2:9, where God
permitted Jesus to “taste death for every man.” Surely
then, it is argued, Jesus did not simply sample
death on the cross. No, indeed, He did not just
taste it; He went on to drink all of it.
To force the word here, however, to mean the same is not
warranted. Just as the spies who went into Canaan saw
its incredible fruit, and perhaps tasted it (I would
have), and yet did not believe they could ever possess
it, how many people have done the same with Christ? How
many have been deeply stirred by a Gospel message,
sampled the blessings it has to offer, but then say, “No
thank you?” Jesus, Who is the Living Bread, must be
eaten, not just tasted
(John 6:51).
Third, and
most controversial of all, these people were made partakers of the
Holy Ghost. Some insist that this clearly
implies that these people were believers. We submit,
however, that this simply does not mean the same thing
as being “born of the Spirit” (Jn. 3:5-6, 8), “sealed with the
Spirit” (Eph. 1:13), indwelt by the Spirit (Rom. 8:9),
baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ (I Cor.
12:12-13), or the believer being the “temple of the Holy
Spirit” (I Cor. 6:19). And again, nowhere in the New
Testament is this term used to indicate salvation. In
short, “‘partakers’ does not mean
‘possessors.’”[vi] The Greek
metochos has to do with sharing, association, or
participation, but not possession. Commentator William MacDonald puts the matter
very well:
Before we jump to the
conclusion that this necessarily implies conversion, we
should remember that the Holy Spirit carries on a
preconversion ministry in men’s lives. He sanctifies
unbelievers (1Cor. 7:14), putting them in a position of
external privilege. He convicts unbelievers of sin, of
righteousness, and of judgment (John 16:8). He leads men
to repentance and points them to Christ as their only
hope. Men may thus partake of the Holy Spirit’s benefits
without being indwelt by Him.[vii]
Fourth, these
people had also tasted the good word
of God. The word geuomai (tasted) is
used again, this time to show that these people had
sampled God’s Word. I have met many a lost person who
loves to debate Scripture, is intrigued by its subject
matter, who enjoys a lively discussion about its ethics
and morality, and even admits its fascinating historical
content. But alas, all this is merely tasting,
not receiving. As one
commentator illustrates:
Herod was like this. In
spite of the prophet’s hard message, including
accusations directly against the king, Herod enjoyed
listening to John the Baptist preach (Mark 6:20). He was
perplexed but fascinated by this dynamic preacher. He
liked to sample the message of God. But when pressed
into decision, he forsook God’s man and God’s message.
He reluctantly, but willingly, agreed to have John
beheaded. His taste of God’s Word only brought on him
greater guilt.[viii]
Others taste it with even
more sincerity. They listen to it carefully, are moved
by it, are enthusiastic about it, and even appear to
receive it. But in the end, they are merely the “stony
ground hearer,” who endures for a while but falls away
when persecution comes (Matt. 13:20-21).
Fifth and
finally, these people had also tasted . . . the
powers of the world to come. The word
world
translates the Greek aion, which literally means
“age,” that is, a period of time or even a dispensation.
Powers is
dunamis, which speaks of inherent or raw power,
the ability to do wonders. The [age] to
come, then, is the future Millennial Kingdom,
when great wonders and miracles will be commonplace.
These people, therefore, had actually tasted of such a time, as Jesus did miracles here on
earth. In spite of that savory taste, however, they
would not fully eat and receive the One who performed
such wonders. These wonders, in fact, proved that Jesus
was Who He said He was. By their rejection, they
reaffirmed their guilt and sealed their
fate.
In spite of those
five great privileges, the writer goes on to say that
such people had fall way,
and here is the key to the issue. The Greek
parapipto, which appears only here in the New
Testament, is a compound comprised of the root
pipto, “to fall,” and para, “near or beside.” The full idea in the word,
then, is “to fall beside a person or thing, to slip
aside, hence, to deviate from the right path, to turn
aside, to wander.”[ix] One Greek authority makes
the important point that this word does not “indicate
errors of weakness, faults or accidents,” but rather “in
every case [signifes] deliberate acts of sin.”[x] What is, therefore, in
view here is a deliberate departure from the privileges
that are listed. It is a calculated decision to reject
what is known, and such a decision, as we have shown,
simply cannot come from a regenerated person.
The writer[xi] then writes of the
horrendous consequence of such a decision—it is impossible . .
. to renew them again unto repentance. Some
have tried to soften the word impossible
to “difficult” or “hard,” but the Greek adunatos
is unmistakable. The root dunatos means possible,
able, or powerful, so the alpha negative (a-)
makes it the polar opposite: impossible, unable,
powerless. The same word, in fact, appears elsewhere in
Hebrews. In 6:18, for example, it is “impossible for God
to lie,” in 10:4, it is “not possible that the blood of
bulls and of goats should take away sins,” and in 10:6,
“without faith it is impossible to please [God].” So by
making this decision, these Hebrews “would render their
hearts so hard that they would be impervious to the
ministry of the Holy Spirit. They would be irrevocably
lost. There would be no more hope for them.”[xii] Repentance
would, indeed, be impossible.
Finally, the writer
adds why these Hebrews cannot be brought back: by
rejecting these grand privileges, choosing rather to
return to the old sacrificial system, they crucify to
themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame. Of all the horrific aspects of Roman
Catholicism, for example, surely the worst of all is
“the Mass,” which crucifies our Savior over and over
again, and has done so inestimable millions of times
through the centuries. Spitting in the face of the
Savior, mocking His finished work, such people have
stripped Him naked again, lifted Him up before the
mocking crowd, and put him to an open
shame. This phrase is one word in the Greek
(paradeigmatízo) that means
“to make a public example of or expose to public
humiliation.” Joseph, for example, chose to divorce Mary
privately so as not “to make her a public example”
(Matt. 1:19), that is, so as not to shame and humiliate
her.
This passage is, indeed, a
horrifying scene. E. Schuyler English concludes his
exposition of it by writing:
They have been convinced
of their sin and their need. They have had opportunity
to become recipients of God’s loving provision in
Christ. They have, by their profession, acknowledged the
truth as truth. Then deliberately and willfully, they
turn back, turn away from the Lord of glory. Like their
fathers, they crucify the Son of God; afresh He is
nailed to the cross in rejection and put to an open
shame, and there is no hope for them. They were never
Christians. They were those who had ample opportunity to
become children of God in Christ through faith, who have
professed to be converted, but they have turned away to
their condemnation.[xiii]
The Implication
Once again, while we
respect those who teach other views of this passage, we
cannot help but wonder if at least part of the reason
for other views in the minds of some interpreters
(not all but some) is that
they do not like the implications of the view we have
submitted here. We live in a day of unprecedented
tolerance and perhaps the broadest definition of
salvation that has ever existed in church history. A
passage like this one, therefore, is not well accepted.
Many today find the view we have offered as narrow and
“judgmental.”
We would submit, however,
that other passages underscore the narrow road of true
salvation. One passage, in fact, uses those very
words:
Enter ye in at the strait
gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that
leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in
thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the
way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find
it. (Matt. 7:13-14).
A few verses later, we
then read some of the most sobering and terrifying words
in all of Scripture:
Not every one that saith
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is
in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,
have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have
cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful
works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (vs.
21-23)
Just saying
one is a Christian does not make it so. That is why Paul
writes elsewhere that we must “examine [ourselves],
whether [we] be in the faith; prove [our] own selves”
(II Cor. 13:5), and why Peter wrote that we should “give
diligence to make [our] calling and election sure” (II
Pet. 1:10). It is not enough to call yourself a
Christian or even say Jesus is
Lord. What proves you are a
Christian? Doing
“the will of My Father in heaven.” As the old expression goes, “Words are cheap,”
and they seem to get cheaper every day as the Gospel is
redefined in increasingly broader terms. But our Lord is
in no way ambiguous: the two greatest evidences of true
conversion are obedience to God’s Word (Jn. 14:15, 23; I
Jn. 2:1-5) and holiness of life (Eph. 4:24; I Thes.
4:17; etc.).
The Hebrews addressed in
this “tough text” were in danger of becoming what others
had already become, namely, “beyond salvage.” We need
the same warning today, regardless of how painful the
implication.
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
NOTES
[i]
Harry Ironside, Hebrews and Titus (Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1932), pp.
77-78.
[ii] E. Schuyler
English, Studies in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (Dunham Publishing
Company, 1955), p. 162.
[iii] William MacDonald,
Believer’s Bible Commentary
(Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995), p.
2172.
[v] Kenneth Wuest,
Hebrews in the Greek New Testament (Eerdmans, 1947), p.
114.
[vii] MacDonald, p.
2174.
[viii] John MacArthur,
The MacArthur New Testament Commentary,
Hebrews.
[x] Spiros Zodhiates,
The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New
Testament (AMG Publishers,
1992), entry #3895.
[xi] We believe the
writer of Hebrews was, indeed, the Apostle Paul See
TOTT issues 11 and 12, “Does the Authorship of
Hebrews Matter?”
