In
video games, if you make a wrong move you often get to start over as
many times as you need until you finally get it right. Wouldn't it be
nice if life were like that? Wouldn't it be nice to have a redo
button that we could access at any time we wanted?
Everyone
has thought about what mistakes they would correct if they could go
back in time. At multiple times we've all had the conversation about
what life would be like if it we hadn't made that one mistake, or if
we would have taken that other job offer instead of the one we did.
Our desire to redo our mistakes isn't something that just happens as
we get older. Children try to get out of their mistakes more than
anyone else. If you've ever played games with kids you know what I
mean. Every time they make a mistake they say something like, “OOH!
I didn't mean to do that. Can we do it again?” Then, if you refuse
too often, they throw a fit or don't want to play anymore because
“It's not fair!”
But
life isn't like a video game where you get to start over as many
times as you would like. Instead, it's like a game of competition
chess. You only have so much time to make a move, and once you've
made your move, there's no going back. We have to be very intentional
about what we do and the way we live.
Many
people don't realize it, but the Bible speaks very pointedly on this
subject. We are told in Hebrews chapter 6 that we cannot undo our
mistakes. Once we've made our move, it is etched into the stone
tablet of our lives and there is no going back. Time is a fixed
constant, and unlike a child who begs for a redo and is often granted
for the sake of not making a scene, God is not swayed by our
petitions to correct our mistakes. There is no going back.
What about Hebrews 6?
In
an article entitled, iWhat
about Hebrews 6? on R.C. Sproul's website, the opening line
confesses “Hebrews 6 is one of the most difficult passages of
Scripture to understand...”. I fully agree! Personally, I have
wrestled with this passage for hours trying to understand what it
means. I have witnessed fear strike the heart of some who have read
it, and I've seen the passage drive others to clearly unbiblical
thinking. Most Sunday school teachers ought to be ready to calm a
war whenever the time comes to teach on Hebrews 6 because there is so
much controversy that follows whenever it is brought up.
The
debate is centered around the verses 4 through 6 which state, “For
it is impossible... if they fall away, to renew them again to
repentance...”. This sentence has caused great upheavals among
individuals and churches alike because of the word “impossible”.
We
are told elsewhere is scripture that nothing is impossible with God,
so how do we understand this word “impossible?” It presents a
real problem, that's why I call this “the impossible problem”.
The problem is that the word “impossible” signifies that the
condition of this individual cannot be reversed. If they fall away,
there is no turning back.
If
the author chose to say, “it is difficult,” or “it is not
likely,” or “there's not much chance of reversing their
condition,” then this verse would be much easier to swallow. But
the confidence that the author demonstrates by stating that it is
impossible causes many people to feel insecure and uneasy. How do we
deal with this “impossible problem”? Let's look at three common
interpretations.
Three Common Interpretations
These
are 3 common ways that people have dealt with the problem of
interpreting Hebrews 6:4-6.
1. Loss of Salvation – After one has lost it, they cannot get it
back.
2. Unbeliever – The person in view has had a religious experience
and was close to salvation, but has rejected Christ once and for all.
3. Believer – The person in view has backslidden to the point of no
return.
iiMany liberal theologians take the first view, which makes it easy for the
rest of us get so wrapped up in defending against it that we forget
to interpret what the verse actually does mean. As far as my research
goes both R.C. Sproul and John Piper take the position that an
unbeliever is in view, which seems to be the most reasonable position
of those who can't conceive that a believer can get to the point of
no return – something I agree with. In the past, I have taken the
view that the verse is speaking of a backslidden believer, though it
never seemed to fit quite right.
That
was the case until a friend pointed out a fourth option that, as far
as I know, no one else has considered. This fourth option is the
position that I hold today, and that I would like to share with you.
It is the position that asserts the writer intended for us to
understand that if we “fall away” we are still saved, but it is
impossible get saved again (i.e. be “renewed to repentance”) to
wipe away our past mistakes. The sin is forgiven, but we must deal
with the consequences.
In
order to explain why I have switched my view, and why I don't believe
that any of the three most common interpretations listed above are an
accurate representation of the text, I need to begin by pointing out
the central theme of the book of Hebrews. As I do, I want to be
careful not to put down faithful men who have studied and taught the
Bible longer than I have, (because I sincerely appreciate these men)
but I have greatly struggled to understand Hebrews 6 and none of the
three most common interpretations have ever fully satisfied me. In
the past, when I tried to fit all the pieces together using one of
these three interpretations a sense of haze has clouded clear
understanding which I can only attribute to the pieces not fitting
exactly right. Then, I heard the fourth option, and when I put it to
the test all the haze was gone.
The
Central Theme of Hebrews
Talk
Thru The Bible, a useful Bible
Study tool which gives an overview of each book in the Bible
introduces the book of Hebrews by saying, “Many Jewish believers,
having stepped out of Judaism into Christianity, wanted to reverse
their course
in order to escape persecution by their countrymen. The writer of
Hebrews exhorts them to 'go
on to perfection'
(6:1).” According to Talk
Thru the Bible, Hebrews 6 is
central to the theme of the book which is “better,”
or superior.
To clarify, Christ is
superior
than the old Judaic system of law.
“The writer develops this theme to prevent the readers from giving
up on the substance for the shadow by abandoning Christ and
retreating
to the old Judaic system. This
epistle
also was written to exhort them to become mature in Christ and put
away their spiritual dullness and degeneration.”
The
three most common interpretations do not fit:
As
the writer further develops the theme of Hebrews, the security of the
believer is greatly stressed. The Word of God “proves steadfast”
(2:1) and Christ is the “sure and steadfast” “anchor” (6:19)
for believers.
Therefore, we ought to “hold fast our confession” (4:14) because
Christ has died “once for all” (9:12; 10:10) by fulfilling the
“law” to bring in “a better hope through which we draw near to
God” (7:19)
Interpretation
1
From
these quotations throughout Hebrews,
it becomes clear that the security of the believer cannot
be questioned in Hebrews 6 or
anywhere else in the book. It's
purpose is
entirely opposed to that false notion. It stresses that the New
Covenant, which is explained in great detail in chapter 8, is better
than the Old because Christ has fulfilled the Mosaic law, making way
for us to have “full assurance” (6:11) by which we may “come
boldly to the throne of grace” (4:16).
Interpretation
2
iiiThe
opinion that Hebrews 6 refers to unbelievers also does not line up
with the theme of Hebrews. Six times the writer calls his recipients
“brethren”. He writes to his brothers to warn, challenge, and
encourage them to not reject Christ, which is the specific sin he has
in mind throughout the book, especially in 3:13 and 12:4. This is the
sin of “falling away” referred to in our hotly debated passage –
Hebrews 6:4-6. Therefore, having such a specific focus, upholding
Christ as superior so that his brothers would not reject Christ, why
would the author randomly insert a comment about an unbeliever who
was close to salvation, but turned away? It simply doesn't fit.
Not
only that, but the author also seemed to really care that his readers
understood his warning was addressed to believers by describing them
using five phrases. In verses four and five he says they were
“enlightened,” having “tasted the heavenly gift.” They had
also “become partakers of the Holy Spirit,” and have “tasted
the Word of God” as well as “the powers of the age to come.”
What's
more, when word “tasted” was used the way it is is our passage,
it does not imply a small nibble as some have suggested, but it means
that they fully experienced whatever they tasted, having taken it all
in. Whenever the word is used in the ivfigurative
sense, as it is here, it always denotes a full experience. The word
is also used of Christ who “tasted death for everyone” (2:9). To
those who say the word “tasted” means anything less than a full
experience I must ask the question, “When Christ died, was He dead,
dead or did he just come close?” As far as I have seen, the only
reason someone has taken the position that the warning refers to an
unbeliever in spite of such great evidence to the contrary is because
they cannot conceive a believer getting to the point of no return.
Interpretation
3
The
final interpretation, that Hebrews 6 refers to a
believer who has backslidden
to the point of no return, is the most consistent with the theme
and surrounding context, but
it's a near miss. There
are two
reasons why I have come to disagree with it.
vReason
1: Hebrews
6:6 says that if we “fall
away” we “crucify again for [ourselves] the Son of God”.
My question is how? How do we
re-crucify Him? I can't think
of any good reason why our falling away would re-crucify the Savior
given this interpretation
because if it is true that we
re-crucify Christ when we backslide, collectively
Christians have been re-crucifying
Him around
the clock since the dawn of Christianity.
Every little sin we commit is
backslidding to one degree or another. Or, is it just the big sins
that Christ is re-crucified for? If you ask me, that route is a
slippery slope.
Here
is one reason people have come up with to explain why backslidding to
the point of no return (i.e. “falling away”) is a sort of
re-crucifying the Savior. They say something like, “When we shame
Christ we re-crucify Him.” I have been shamed many times, but it
would be a stretch to say people crucify me every time they do.
There
is only one other
reason I know of that
someone might use to say that we crucify
Christ through backslidding. Proponents of this view might
say that we re-crucify Christ when we deny Him and
to deny Christ is to give him over
to crucifixion. But
we must remember that Christ
died “once for all” (9:12;
10:10).
Christ died for any
believer who denies Him, and
he did it once for all. “All”
refers to all men, all sin, and
all time. This
is what makes His sacrifice
better than that of “bulls and goats” which “could never take
away sin” (10:4). It cannot
be said of Christ that He is re-crucified through our denial, because
that would weaken the finality of our
salvation. He only needed to
die once.
I
haven't
heard one reason that fully satisfies the question “How
does our backslidden behavior cause Christ to be re-crucified?”
Some come close, but as I said before, it's a near miss. However,
if you are still not convinced, and you sense the same haze that I
had before I knew of the fourth way
to interpret Hebrews 6, maybe my second reason why I cannot interpret
“falling away” to mean “backslidding to the point of no return”
will make it clear that this
interpretation is not valid.
Reason
2: The
Spirit of God indwells believers. He works miracles within our hearts
and minds. To say that a believer can get to a point of no return is
to restrict the Spirit who abides within
us. Along with those who take
the position of an unbeliever, I
simply cannot believe that God can't
or won't
work in the heart of a believer to bring him
to repentance after he has
denied Him. That's contrary
to the very nature of God as I understand Him.
None
of the common interpretations line up with the text. When tested,
each one fails. Though some fail more severely than others, none of
them perfectly line up with the theme of the book, the context of
Hebrews 6, and the character of God as I understand Him. That's why I
want to share a less common interpretation which solves our
“impossible problem” once and for all. Let's examine the fourth
interpretation and see how it lines up.
The
Fourth Option
As
already stated, the position I believe perfectly fits the text is the
position that asserts the writer intended for us to understand that
if we “fall away” we are still saved, but we cannot get saved
again (i.e. be “renewed to repentance”) to wipe away our past
mistakes. The sin is forgiven, but we must deal with the
consequences. Let's see how this lines up with both the theme of
Hebrews and the context of chapter 6.
Does
it match the theme?
The
theme of Hebrews, as already stated, is “better.” Christ is
superior to the Judaic system, therefore we should never deny him,
even when faced with persecution. In Hebrews 6:6 we are told that if
we fall away, it is impossible to be renewed again to repentance.
Imagine
that you were in the position of the Hebrews at the time this letter
was written. You would be tempted to return to the mosaic law as they
were, but if you did, in due time you would realize your mistake. You
would realize that you had rejected your Lord and Savior. What could
be worse?!
We
all want to wipe away our worst mistakes in life. We all wish we
could go back in time and fix what we've done, but that's not
possible. According to Hebrews 6:6, it's impossible to be renewed to
repentance. The mistakes that we make will remain with us as long as
we live. If they have consequences, we must bear those consequences
for the rest of our lives. Christ took our sin, but that does not
make our sin without consequence.
viWe
all will have to stand before Christ, to whom “all things are naked
and open” and to whom “we must give account.” (4:13) This is a
grave warning that is reiterated throughout the book. When the author
asks in at the beginning of Hebrews in 2:3 “How shall we escape if
we neglect so great a salvation?” he's speaking of the eye of
Christ. Jesus is always watching and one day He will demand us to
tell Him why we neglected His greatest gift for the sake of personal
preservation or worldly gain.
This
warning flows throughout the book and is reiterated again in 12:25,
“See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not
escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not
escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven?” In the
face of temptation, the author tells his readers to be prepared to
tell Christ why they rejected Him. We cannot wipe away our mistakes
and act as though they never happened, even though we are forgiven.
This
interpretation fits well with the theme of the book. Now, let's turn
to the immediate context and see if it fits there as well.
Does
it match the immediate context?
In
order to explain why Christ is better than the old Judaic system, the
author needed to explain how Christ is part of a better priesthood,
the Melchizedekian priesthood. He wanted to go deep into the the
truths surrounding that priesthood in order to impart greater faith
in Christ, but he was afraid that His readers were not ready to
receive what he wanted to tell them because their faith in the
foundational truths of God were not grounded as deeply as they should
have been. According to 5:12, they only had a diet of milk, and not
solid food. This means that they have only been taught the Word, but
they have not yet fully digested it. In other words, they believe the
foundational truths of God, but they have not yet fully internalized
those truths, seating them in the deepest part of their being. This
is evidenced by the fact that they are being tempted to reject
Christ, despite their apparent faith in Him. For this reason, he
takes a break from sharing about Christ's better priesthood, to warn
them of what could happen if they did not become fully grounded in
the “elementary principles of Christ” and move on to maturity
(6:1).
As stated above, He makes it abundantly clear that he is
talking about a believer in verses four and five in order to clear up
any confusion that may result from the warning he is about to give.
The reason why he goes to such great lengths to ensure his readers
understand he is talking about a believer by using five phrases that
only pertain to believers is because he needs to state the following
warning in such a way that it will strike them at the core of their
being. He says it is impossible for a believer, if he falls away, to
be renewed again to repentance (6:4-6).
He couldn't have said what he wanted to say with any more power than
by those breathtaking words, and that was his intention. He wanted
them to know how serious a mistake it would be to reject Christ. Once
you have rejected Him, you cannot take it back. You will stand before
Him with that mistake weighing on your soul. You cannot wipe your
slate clean by repenting like you did when you first got saved. You
can only be born again once. After that, every move you make counts,
and you will take what you have done with you when you stand before
Christ.
He
makes his warning more sever by stating that, hypothetically, even
“if” you could get saved again, thereby wiping away your
mistakes, you would have to “crucify again for [yourself] the Son
of God, and put Him to open shame” (6:6). Christ died once for all,
so that's not going to happen, but even if it were possible, you
wouldn't want to go back. You wouldn't want to expose the Savior to
shame yet again. Once was bad enough!
Next,
in verse 7, he moves from conjecture to reality. If you ground
yourself in the elementary principles of Christ you will be able to
resist the temptation to reject Christ in the face of persecution and
your works will be like useful “herbs”. You will be a shining
example and God will use you. On the other hand, according to verse
8, if you do not get grounded enough in the elementary principles of
Christ and thereby expose yourself to the possibility of falling
away, your works will be “burned”. In that case, your works would
be like “thorns and briers” which only prevent those who produce
useful herbs from being as fruitful as they could be without you.
Having
stated what he wanted to say in the most severe way he could, in
verse 9 he seeks to encourage them with his confidence. He says that
he is sure they will ground themselves and move on to maturity. In
fact, he's already seen fruits of their maturity, which are the
“things that accompany salvation” though he spoke in such a
severe manner.
As
further encouragement he reminds them in verse 10 that the opposite
of what he just warned them about is also true. He reminds them that
just as they cannot take back their mistakes because we will have to
give an account for those things, God will also not forget their
“work and labor of love”. What a relief!
Conclusion
In my opinion, this interpretation clearly fits the passage.
There is no haze, and no unanswered questions. Everything falls into
place when we interpret Hebrews 6:6 to mean that it is impossible
repent unto salvation a second time. This interpretation solves the
“impossible problem” by asserting the writer does not mean to say
that it is impossible for God to allow someone to go back in time to
fix their mistakes, but that he will not allow it, making it
impossible for us.
In
conclusion, I feel the need to emphasize the fact that we are fully
secure. We have been saved to the furthest degree and nothing will
change that, however we must live with the consequences of the
mistakes we make. Though we are eternally secure, we will still
“suffer loss” for not remaining faithful to God as He has been
faithful to us (1 Corinthians 3:15).
We all love the idea of being able to fix our past mistakes, but
that's outside the realm of possibility. The only thing we can do is
“go on to perfection.” We will have to live with our mistakes,
but that's a good thing because our mistakes remind us of the need to
be sober minded and grounded in the truth of God. The more sober and
grounded we become, the easier it will be to resist temptation,
making way for the Spirit of God to do great works in our lives.
Praise God for the perimeters that He has set, making some things
impossible. May they spur us on to maturity.
“viiArm
me with jealous care
As
in Thy sight to live;
And
Oh, Thy servant, Lord, prepare
A
strict account to give.”
iiThomas
Hewitt, The
Epistle to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary The
Tyndale Press: London, 1960, pages 106-111
iiiA.B.
Davidson, The
Epistle to the Hebrews with Introduction and Notes T
& T Clark, Edinburgh, 1959, pages 120-122
ivMatthew
27:34 and Luke 14:24 can be used to counter my argument by saying
that in both of these cases, a small nibble is suggested, not the
full experience. I agree, but in both of those cases the word
“tasted” is used literally, which is why I was careful to
emphasize that the author used the word in a figurative sense. When
words are used literally they have a certain meaning, and when they
are used figuratively they take on a different meaning. For
instance, if I say “You're killing me!” I don't mean that I am
lying on the ground about to die, but that I don't like what you are
saying. Or if I say, “Let's chill!” I mean that I want us to
relax, not that I want to stand in a refrigerator with you. Whenever
the word “taste” is used in the figurative sense, it denotes a
full experience.
vThe
first two paragraphs of “Reason 1” represent the two reasons
John Piper gives to my question “How does our backslidden behavior
cause Christ to be re-crucified?” He gives these reasons in his
sermon When Is Saving Repentance Impossible?
http://www.desiringgod.org/sermons/when-is-saving-repentance-impossible
viLiddon,
Henry Parry Sermons
to the People: Preached Cheifly in St. Paul's Cathedral Longmans,
Green: London, 1894-98, Pg.
33
viiPark,
Edwards Amasa, The
Sabbath Hymn Book: For The Service of Song In The House Of The Lord
Mason
brothers:New
York,
1858,
Pg.
211
No comments:
Post a Comment