◄ Hebrews 6 ►
Expositor's Greek Testament
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Hebrews 6:1. Διὸ “wherefore,” i.e., because beginnings belong to a stage which ought long since to have been left behind (Hebrews 5:12), ἀφέντες … let us abandon [give up] the elementary teaching about Christ and press on to maturity. [Of the use of ἀφιέναι in similar connections Bleek gives many instances of which Eurip., Androm., 393 may be cited: ἀλλὰ f1τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀφεὶς πρὸς τὴν τελευτὴν ὑστέραν οὖσαν φέρῃ. ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα is an expression which was in vogue in the Pythagorean schools. [Westcott and Weiss press the passive. “The thought is not primarily of personal effort … but of personal surrender to an active influence.” But φέρομαι is used where it is difficult to discover a passive sense.] It is questioned whether the words are merely the expression of the teacher’s resolution to advance to a higher stage of instruction, or are meant as an exhortation to the readers to advance to perfectness. Davidson advocates the former view, Peake the latter. It would seem that the author primarily refers to his own teaching. The context and the use of λόγον favour this view. He has been chiding them for remaining so long “babes,” able to receive only “milk”; let us, he says, leave this rudimentary teaching and proceed to what is more nutritious. But with his advance in teaching, their advance in knowledge and growth in character is closely bound up. What the writer definitely means by τὸν τ. ἀρχῆς τ. Χριστοῦ λόγον, he explains in his detailed description of the “foundation,” which is not again to be laid. It consists of the teaching that must first be given to those who seek some knowledge of Christ. Westcott explains the expression thus: “the word, the exposition, of the beginning, the elementary view of the Christ”; although he probably too narrowly restricts the meaning of “the beginning of Christ” when he explains it as “the fundamental explanation of the fulfilment of the Messianic promises in Jesus of Nazareth”. Weiss thinks the writer urges abandonment of the topics with which he and his readers had been occupied in the Epistle [“also des bisherigen Inhalts des Briefes”.] But this is not necessarily implied, and indeed is excluded by the advanced character of much of the preceding teaching. What was taught the Hebrews at their first acquaintance with the Christ must be abandoned, not as if it had been misleading, but as one leaves behind school books or foundations: “non quod eorum oblivisci unquam debeant fideles, sed quia in illis minime est haerendum”. Calvin: as Paul says, τὰ μὲν ὀπίσω ἐπιλανθανόμενος, Php 3:13. μὴ πάλιν θεμέλιον καταβαλλόμενοι “not again and again laying a foundation”. θεμέλιον possibly a neuter (see Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 119) as in Acts 16:16; certainly masculine in 2 Timothy 2:19; Hebrews 11:10; Revelation 21:14; Revelation 21:19 twice. καταβαλλ. the usual word for expressing the idea of “laying” foundations, as in Dionys. Hal., iii. 69; Josephus Ant., xv. 11, 3; metaphorically in Eurip., Helena, 164; hence καταβολὴ κόσμου, the foundation of the world. Then follow six particulars in which this foundation consists. Various arrangements and interpretations have been offered. Dr. Bruce says: “We are tempted to adopt another hypothesis, namely, that the last four are to be regarded as the foundation of the first two, conceived not as belonging to the foundation, but rather as the superstructure. On this view we should have to render ‘Not laying again a foundation for repentance and faith, consisting in instructions concerning baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment.’ In favour of this construction is the reading διδαχήν found in B, and adopted by Westcott and Hort, which being in opposition with θεμέλιον suggests that the four things following form the foundation of repentance and faith.” But Dr. Bruce returns to the idea that six articles are mentioned as forming the foundation, and Westcott, although adopting the reading διδαχήν, makes no use of it. Balfour (Central Truths) in an elaborate paper on the passage suggests that only four articles are mentioned, the words, βαπτισμῶν … χειρῶν being introduced parenthetically, because the writer cannot refrain from pointing out that repentance and faith were respectively taught by two legal rites, baptism and laying on of hands. The probability, however, is, as we shall see, that six fundamentals are intended, and that they are not so non-Christian as is sometimes supposed. These six fundamentals are arranged in three pairs, the first of which is μετανοίας … Θεόν “repentance from dead works and faith toward God”. Repentance and faith are conjoined in Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:9. They are found together in Scripture because they are conjoined in life, and are indeed but different aspects of one spiritual act. A man repents because a new belief has found entrance into his mind. Repentance is here characterised as ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων. Many explanations are given. [“Hanc vero phrasin apud scriptores Judaicos mihi nondum occurrisse lubens fateor” (Schoettgen).] The only other place where works are thus designated is Hebrews 9:14, where the blood of Christ is said to cleanse the conscience from dead works and thus to fit for the worship of the living God; on which Chrysostom remarks εἴ τις ἥψατο τότε νεκροῦ ἐμιαίνετο· καὶ ἐνταῦθα εἴ τις ἅψαιτο νεκροῦ ἔργου, μολὐνεται διὰ τῆς συνειδήσεως, as if sins were called “dead” simply because they defile and unfit for God’s worship. [On this view Weiss remarks, “wenigstens etwas Richtiges zu Grunde”.] Others think that “dead” here means “deadly” or “death-bringing”; so Peirce; or that it is meant that sins have no strength, are “devoid of life and power”; so Tholuck, Alford; or are “vain and fruitless” (Lünemann). Hofmann says that every work is dead in which there is not inherent any life from God. Similarly Westcott, who says: “There is but one spring of life and all which does not flow from it is ‘dead’. All acts of a man in himself, separated from God, are ‘dead works’.” Davidson thinks that this is “hardly enough,” and adds “they seem so called because being sinful they belong to the sphere of that which is separate from the living God, the sphere of death (Hebrews 2:14, etc.)”. Rather it may be said that dead works are such as have no living connection with the character but are done in mere compliance with the law and therefore accomplish nothing. They are like a dead fleece laid on a wolf, not a part of his life and growing out of him. Cf. Bleek and Weiss. Such repentance was especially necessary in Jewish Christians. καὶ πίστεως ἐπὶ θεόν, the counterpart of the preceding. The abandonment of formal, external righteousness results from confidence in God as faithful to His promises and furnishing an open way to Himself. What is meant is not only faith in God’s existence, which of course had not to be taught to a Jew, but trust in God. Faith is either εἰς, πρός, ἐν, or ἐπί as union, relation, rest, or direction is meant (Vaughan).
Hebrews 6:2
Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
Hebrews 6:2. The next pair, βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν “instruction regarding washings and laying on of hands”. “The historical sequence is followed in the enumeration”. Some interpreters make all three conditions directly dependent on θεμέλιον, “foundation of baptisms, teaching, and laying on of hands”. Bengel makes διδαχῆς dependent on βαπτ. He says: “βαπτισμοὶ διδαχῆς erant baptismi, quos qui suscipiebant, doctrinae sacrae Judaeorum sese addicebant. Itaque adjecto διδαχῆς doctrinae distinguuntur a lotionibus ceteris leviticis”. Similarly Winer (Gramm., p. 240): “If we render βαπτ. διδ. baptisms of doctrine or instruction, as distinguished from the legal baptisms (washings) of Judaism, we find a support for this designation, as characteristically Christian, in Matthew 28:19, βαπτίσαντες αὐτούς … διδάσκοντες αὐτούς”. It is better to take the words as equivalent to διδαχῆς περὶ βαπτισμῶν. In N.T. βάπτισμα is regularly used of Christian baptism or of John’s baptism, while βαπτισμός is used of ceremonial washings as in Hebrews 9:10 and Mark 7:4. [Cf. Blass, Gramm., p. 62. Josephus, (Ant., xviii. 5, 2) uses βαπτισμός of John’s baptism.] Probably, therefore, “teaching about washings” would include instruction in the distinction between the various Jewish washings, John’s baptism and that of Christ (cf. Acts 19:2); and this would involve instruction in the cleansing efficacy of the Atonement made by Christ as well as in the work of the Holy Spirit. It was very necessary for a convert from Judaism to understand the difference between symbolic and real lustration. The reference of the plural must, therefore, not be restricted to the distinction of outward and inward baptism (Grotius), nor of water and spirit baptism (Reuss) nor of infant and adult baptism, nor of the threefold immersion nor, as Primasius, “pro varietate accipientium”. ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν closely conjoined to the foregoing by τε because the “laying on of hands” was the accompaniment of baptism in Apostolic times. “As through baptism the convert became a member of the House of God, through the laying on of hands he received endowments fitting him for service in the house, and an earnest of his relation to the world to come (Hebrews 6:5)” (Davidson, cf. Delitzsch). The laying on of hands was normally accompanied by prayer. Prayer was the essential element in the transaction, the laying on of hands designating the person to whom the prayer was to be answered and for whom the gift was designed. Cf. Acts 19:1-6; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 13:3; Acts 6:6; and Lepine’s The Ministers of Jesus Christ, p. 141–4. In Apostolic times baptism apparently meant that the baptised believed in and gave himself to Christ, while the laying on of hands meant that the Holy Ghost was conferred upon him. In baptism as now administered both these facts are outwardly represented. ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν καὶ κρίματος αἰωνίου: “resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment,” “constituting the believer’s outlook under which he was to live” (Davidson). The genitives depend on διδαχῆς, not on θεμέλιον, as Vaughan. The phrase ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν naturally includes all the dead both righteous and unrighteous (see John 5:29 and Acts 24:15. κρίμα though properly the result of κρίσις is not always distinguished from it, see John 9:39; Acts 24:25; and cf. Hebrews 9:27). It is “eternal,” timeless in its results. These last-named doctrines, although not specifically Christian, yet required to be brought before the notice of a Jewish convert that he might disentangle the Christian idea from the Jewish Messianic expectation of a resurrection of Israel to the enjoyment of the Messianic Kingdom, and of a judgment on the enemies of Israel (Cf. Weiss).
Hebrews 6:3
And this will we do, if God permit.
Hebrews 6:3. καὶ τοῦτο ποιήσομεν: “and this will we do,” that is, we will go on to perfection and not attempt again to lay a foundation. So Theoph.: τὸ ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φέρεσθαι. And Primasius: “et hoc faciemus, i.e., et ad majora nos ducemus, et de his omnibus quae enumeravimus plenissime docebimus nos, ut non sit iterum necesse ex toto et a capite ponere fundamentum”. Hofmann refers the words to the participial clause, an interpretation adopted even by von Soden [“nämlich abermal Fundament Einsenken”] which only creates superfluous difficulty. The writer, feeling as he does the arduous nature of the task he undertakes, adds the condition, ἐάνπερ ἐπιτρέπῃ ὁ Θεός, “if God permit”. The addition of περ has the effect of limiting the condition or of indicating a sine qua non; and may be rendered “if only,” “if at all events,” “if at least”. This clause is added not as if the writer had any doubt of God’s willingness, but because he is conscious that his success depends wholly on God’s will. Cf. 1 Corinthians 16:7.
Hebrews 6:4
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,
Hebrews 6:4-6 give the writer’s reason for not attempting again to lay a foundation. It is, he says, to attempt an impossibility. The statement falls into three parts: (1) A description of a class of persons τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας … καὶ παραπεσόντας. (2) The statement of a fact regarding these persons ἀδύνατον πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν. (3) The cause of this fact found in some further characteristics of their career ἀνασταυροῦντας … παραδειγματίζοντας.
Hebrews 6:4. First, the description here given of those who have entered upon the Christian life is parallel to the description given in Hebrews 6:1-2 of elementary Christian teaching; although the parallel is not carried out in detail. The picture, though highly coloured, is somewhat vague in outline. “The writer’s purpose is not to give information to us, but to awaken in the breasts of his first readers sacred memories, and breed godly sorrow over a dead past. Hence he expresses himself in emotional terms such as might be used by recent converts rather than in the colder but more exact style of the historian” (Bruce). ἀδύνατον γὰρ: The γὰρ does not refer to the immediately preceding clause (Delitzsch) but points directly to τοῦτο ποιήσομεν and through these words to ἐπὶ τὴν τελ. φερώμεθα, the sense being “Let us go on to perfection and not attempt to lay again a foundation, for this would be vain, seeing that those who have once begun and found entrance to the Christian life, but have fallen away, cannot be renewed again to repentance, cannot make a second beginning. τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας, “those who were once enlightened”. τοὺς includes all the participles down to παραπεσόντας, which therefore describe one class of persons; and it is governed by ἀνακαινίζειν. ἅπαξ: “once for all” semel (not πότε = quondam) may be taken as remotely modifying the three following participles as well as φωτισθ. Its force is that “once” must be enough; no πάλιν can find place; and it refers back to πάλιν of Hebrews 6:1, and forward to πάλιν of Hebrews 6:6. φωτισθέντας is used in this absolute way in Hebrews 10:32 where a comparison with Hebrews 10:26 indicates that it is equivalent to τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας. Cf. also 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:18. The source of the enlightenment is τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινὸν ὃ φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθρωπον, the result is repentance and faith, Hebrews 6:1. Hatch refers to this passage in support of his contention that the language and imagery of the N.T. are influenced by the Greek mysteries (Hibbert Lect., pp. 295–6). “So early as the time of Justin Martyr we find a name given to baptism which comes straight from the Greek mysteries—the name ‘enlightenment’ (φωτισμός, φωτίζεσθαι). It came to be the constant technical term.” But as Anrich shows (Das antike Mysterienwesen, p. 125) φωτισμός was not one of the technical terms of the mysteries [“Der Ausdruck φωτισμός begegnet in der Mysterienterminologie nie und nirgends”.] The word is of frequent occurrence in the LXX, see esp. Hosea 10:12. φωτίσατε ἑαυτοὺς φῶς γνώσεως [“Ausdruck und Vorstellung sind alttestamentlich”]. Of course it is the fact that φωτισμός was used by Justin and subsequent fathers to denote baptism (vide Suicer, s.v.), and several interpret the word here in that sense. So the Syrian versions; Theodoret and Theophylact translate by βάπτισμα and λουτρόυ. For the use made of this translation in the Montanist and Novatian controversies see the Church Histories, and Tertullian’s De Pudic., c. xx. The translation is, however, an anachronism. [In this connection, the whole of c. vi. of Clement’s Paedag. may with advantage be read. ἐωτίσθημεν· τὸ δʼ ἐστιν ἐπιγνῶναι τὸν Θεόν.… Βαπτιζόμενοι φωτιζόμεθα· φωτιζόμενοι υἱοποιούμεθα· υἱοποιούμενοι τελειούμεθα.]
γευσαμένους τε f1τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου, “and tasted the heavenly gift”. γευσαμ. here as elsewhere, to know experimentally; cf. Hebrews 2:9; Matthew 16:28. The heavenly gift, or the gift that comes to us from heaven and partakes of the nature of its source, is according to Chrys. and Œcum: “The forgiveness of sins”; and so, many moderns, Davidson, Weiss, etc.; others with a slight difference refer it to the result of forgiveness “pacem conscientiae quae consequitur peccatorum remissionem” (Grotius). Some finding that δωρεά is more than once (Acts 2:38; Acts 10:45) used of the Holy Spirit, conclude that this is here the meaning (Owen, von Soden, etc.); while Bengel is not alone in rendering, “Dei filius, ut exprimitur (Hebrews 6:6.) Christus, qui per fidem, nec non in sacra ipsius Coena gustatur”. Bleek, considering that this expression is closely joined to the preceding by τε, concludes that what is meant is the gift of enlightenment, or, as Tholuck says, “the δωρεά is just the Christian φῶς objectively taken”. The objection to the first of these interpretations, which has much in its favour, is that it is too restricted: the last is right in emphasising the close connection with φωτισθ., for what is meant apparently is the whole gift of redemption, the new creation, the fulness of life eternal freely bestowed, and made known as freely bestowed, to the “enlightened”. Cf. Romans 5:15; 2 Corinthians 9:15. καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας Πνεύματος Ἁγίου, “and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost”; a strong expression intended to bring out, as Westcott remarks, “the fact of a personal character gained; and that gained in a vital development”. The bestowal of the Spirit is the invariable response to faith. The believer is πνευματικός. In chap. Hebrews 10:29, when the same class of persons is described, one element of their guilt is stated to be their doing despite to the Spirit of grace. Grotius and others refer the words to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit; rather it is the distinctive source of Christian life that is meant. It is customary to find a parallel between the two clauses of Hebrews 6:2, βαπτ. διδ. ἐπιθέσ. τε χειρῶν and the two clauses of this verse γευσαμ. και μετόχους. There are, however, objections to this idea.
Hebrews 6:5
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Hebrews 6:5. καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους … “and tasted God’s word that it is good”. ῥήματα καλά in LXX (vide Joshua 21:43) are the rich and encouraging promises of God, cf. Zechariah 1:13, ῥήματα καλὰ καὶ λόγους παρακλητικούς. Here it probably means the Gospel in which all promise is comprehended; cf. 1 Peter 1:25, ῥῆμα Κυρίου … τοῦτο δέ ἐστι τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς. Persons then are here described who have not only heard God’s promise, but have themselves tasted or made trial of it and found it good. They have experienced that what God proclaims finds them, in their conscience with its resistless truth, in their best desires by quickening and satisfying them. The change from the genitive, δωρεᾶς, to the accusative, ῥῆμα, after γευσ. is variously accounted for. Commonly, verbs of sense take the accusative of the nearer, the genitive of the remoter source of the sensation; but probably the indiscriminate use of the two cases in LXX and N.T. arises from the tendency of the accusative in later Greek to usurp the place of the other cases. Yet it is not likely that so careful a stylist as our author should have altered the case without a reason. That reason is best given by Simcox (Gram., p. 87), “γεὐεσθαι in Hebrews 6:4-5, has the genitive, where it is merely a verb of sense, the accusative where it is used of the recognition of a fact—καλόν being (as its position shows) a predicate”. With this expression may be compared Proverbs 31:18, ἐγεύσατο ὅτι καλόν ἐστι τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι. Bengel’s idea that the genitive indicates that a part, while accusative that the whole was tasted, may be put aside. Also Hofmann’s idea, approved by Weiss, that the accusative is employed to avoid an accumulation of genitives. δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος “and [tasted] the powers of the age to come” [that they were good, for καλάς may be supplied out of the καλόν of the preceding clause; or the predicate indicating the result of the tasting may be taken for granted]. δυνάμεις is so frequently used of the powers to work miracle imparted by the Holy Spirit (see Hebrews 2:4, 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Corinthians 12:12; and in the Gospels passim) that this meaning is generally accepted as appropriate here. See Lunemann. αἰὼν μέλλων is therefore here used not exactly as in Matthew 12:32, Ephesians 1:21 where it is contrasted with this present age or world, but rather as the temporal equivalent of the οἰκουμένη ἡ μέλλουσα of chap. Hebrews 2:5, cf. also Hebrews 9:11, Hebrews 10:1.; and Bengel’s note. It is the Messianic age begun by the ministry of Christ, but only consummated in His Second Advent. A wider reference is sometimes found in the words, as by Davidson: “Though the realising of the promises be yet future, it is not absolutely so; the world to come projects itself in many forms into the present life, or shows its heavenly beauty and order rising up amidst the chaos of the present. This it does in the powers of the world to come, which are like laws of a new world coming in to cross and by and by to supersede those of this world. Those “powers,” being mainly still future, are combined with the good word of promise, and elevated into a distinct class, corresponding to the third group above, viz.: resurrection and judgment (Hebrews 6:2).” The persons described have so fully entered into the spirit of the new time and have so admitted into their life the powers which Christ brings to bear upon men, that they can be said to have “tasted” or experienced the spiritual forces of the new era.
Hebrews 6:6
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.
Hebrews 6:6. καὶ παραπεσόντας, “and fell away,” i.e., from the condition depicted by the preceding participles; “grave verbum subito occurrens” (Bengel). The word in classical Greek has the meaning “fall in with” or “fall upon”; in Polybius, “to fall away from,” “to err,” followed by τ. ὁδοῦ, τ. ἀληθείας, τ. καθήκοντος; also absolutely “to err”. In the Greek fathers the lapsed are called οἱ παραπεπτωκότες or οἱ παραπεσόντες. The full meaning of the word is given in ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν of Hebrews 10:39. The translation of the A.V. and early English versions “if they shall fall away,” although accused of dogmatic bias, is justifiable. It is a hypothesis that is here introduced. Thus far the writer has accumulated expressions which present the picture of persons who have not merely professed the Christian faith but have enjoyed rich experience of its peculiar and characteristic influence, but now a word is introduced which completely alters the picture. They have enjoyed all these things, but the last thing to be said of them is that they have “fallen from” their former state. The writer describes a condition which he considers possible. And of persons realising this possibility he says ἀδύνατον … πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν, “it is impossible to renew [them] again to repentance,” “impossible,” not “difficult” [as in the Graeco-Latin Codex Claromontanus, “difficile”]; impossible not only to a teacher, but to God, for in every case of renewal it is God who is the Agent. [Bengel says “hominibus est impossibile, non Deo,” and that therefore the ministers of God must leave such persons to Him and wait for what God may accomplish “per singulares afflictiones et operationes”. But cf. Hebrews 10:26-31.] πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν, πάλιν is not pleonastic, but denotes that those who have once experienced ἀνακαινισμός cannot again have a like experience. It suggests that the word ἀνακαιν. involves, or naturally leads on to, all that is expressed in the participles under ἅπαξ from φωτισθέντας to αἰῶνος of Hebrews 6:5. A renewed person is one who is enlightened, tastes the heavenly gift, and so on. But as the first stone in the foundation was μετάνοια (Hebrews 6:1), so here the first manifestation of renewal is in μετάνοια. The persons described cannot again be brought to a life-changing repentance—a statement which opens one of the most important psychological problems. The reason this writer assigns for the impossibility is given in the words ἀνασταυροῦντας … παραδειγματίζοντας, “crucifying [or “seeing that they crucify”] to themselves the Son of God, and putting Him to open shame”. Edwards understands these participles as putting a hypothetical case, and renders “they cannot be renewed after falling away if they persist in crucifying, etc.”. This, however, reduces the statement to a vapid truism, and, although grammatically admissible, does not agree with the οὐκέτι of the parallel passage in Hebrews 10:26. The mitigation of the severity of the statement is rather to be sought in the enormity and therefore rarity of the sin described, which is equivalent to the deliberate and insolent rejection of Christ alluded to in Hebrews 10:26; Hebrews 10:29, and the suicidal blasphemy alluded to in Mark 3:29. On the doctrine of the passage, see Harless, Ethics, c. 29. In classical and later Greek the word for “crucify” is not σταυρόω (of which Stephanus cites only one example, and that from Polybius), but ἀνασταυροῦν, so that the ἀνα does not mean “again” or “afresh,” but refers to the lifting up on the cross, as in ἀναρτάω or ἀνασκολοπίζω. In the N.T. no doubt σταυρόω is uniformly used, but never in this Epistle; and it was inevitable that a Hellenist would understand ἀνασταυρ. in its ordinary meaning. There is no ground therefore for the translation of the Vulg. “rursum crucifigentes,” although it is so commonly followed. Besides, any crucifixion by the Hebrews [ἑαυτοῖς] must have been a fresh crucifixion, and needs no express indication of that feature of it. The significance of ἑαυτοῖς seems to be “so far as they are concerned,” not “to their own judgment” or “to their own destruction”. The apostate crucifies Christ on his own account by virtually confirming the judgment of the actual crucifiers, declaring that he too has made trial of Jesus and found Him no true Messiah but a deceiver, and therefore worthy of death. The greatness of the guilt in so doing is aggravated by the fact that apostates thus treat τὸν υἱὸν τ. Θεοῦ, cf. Hebrews 10:29. καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας, the verb is found in Numbers 25:4, where it implies exposing to ignominy or infamy, such as was effected in barbarous times by exposing the quarters of the executed criminal, or leaving him hanging in chains. Archilochus, says Plutarch (Moral., 520), rendered himself infamous, ἑαυτὸν παρεδειγ., by writing obscene verses. The verb is therefore a strong expression; “put Him to open shame” excellently renders it. “This was the crime the Hebrew Christians were tempted to commit. A fatal step it must be when taken; for men who left the Christian Church and went back to the synagogue became companions of persons who thought they did God service in cursing the name of Jesus” (Bruce).
Hebrews 6:1-6 Expositor's Greek Testament
![]()
Shop for Expositors Greek Testament
I think you will like Logos! Get $100 off a Logos 10 base package (first-time base package purchasers only) from my link: https://logos.refr.cc/ricklivermore?t=em |
