Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 6:6 - 6:6
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_6:6. Καὶ παραπεσόντας ] and (in spite of this) have fallen, i.e. have fallen away again from Christianity.
πάλιν ] belongs to ἀνακαινίζειν . The taking of the same with παραπεσόντας (Heinsius, Alting, Peirce, and others) has the position of the word against it. A pleonasm, however (Grotius), is not produced by πάλιν along with the ἀνα in ἀνακαινίζειν . For ἀνα marks out the becoming new as a change ensuing, in opposition to the preceding state of the old man; whereas πάλιν has reference to the fact that the class of men described have already experienced that change, namely, at their first conversion.
ἀνακαινίζειν ] to renew, to fashion inwardly new. To supplement an ἑαυτούς to the verb (Erasmus, Vatablus, al.), according to which the preceding accusatives of the object would be changed into accusatives of the subject, is arbitrary.
εἰς μετάνοιαν ] not equivalent to διὰ μετανοίας (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Zeger, Corn, a Lapide), but under the form of conception of the result: in such wise that change of mind or repentance should arise therefrom.
ἀνασταυροῦντας κ . τ . λ .] since they, etc. Note of cause to ἀδύνατον ἀνακαινίζειν . The impossibility of the renewal is explained by the magnitude of the culpability. By their action such men bear witness that the Son of God is in their estimation a transgressor and deceiver who has been justly crucified.
The compound form ἀνασταυροῦν occurs with classic writers only in the sense of “nailing up to the cross.” Comp. L. Bos, Exercitatt., and Wetstein ad loc. In itself, however, the explanation is equally admissible: “crucify afresh.” Thus it is accordingly taken without questioning by the Greek interpreters, and probably was so meant by the author.
ἑαυτοῖς ] Dativus incommodi: to their own judgment. Vatablus: in suam ipsorum perniciem. Too weak, Bleek,—to whom Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 769), and Alford give in their adhesion,—“they crucify Him to themselves, in so far as, by that crucifying again, they rob Him of themselves, who were in His possession.” False is the interpretation of Oecumenius, Theophylact, Calvin, Jac. Cappellus, Limborch, Böhme, Bisping: as much as in them lies, ὅσον τὸ ἐφʼ ἑαυτοῖς ; Heinrichs: each one for himself; Schulz: by themselves [by their own act]; Grotius, Abresch, Tholuck, explaining by the supposition of the so-called Dativus localis: in themselves; Hofmann: as regards their own persons; Klee: to their contentment; Stengel: to the joy and pleasure of their obdurate heart; Kurtz: to the gratification of their hatred or their enmity against Him. Over refinedly Bengel and Delitzsch: sibi, as an opposition to παραδειγματίζοντας , ostentantes, sc. aliis.
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ] A more palpable manifestation of the enormity of the crime than would have been the case had he written τὸν Χριστόν or Ἰησοῦν . Comp. Heb_10:29.
παραδειγματίζειν ] to expose to scorn and insult; here, inasmuch as the death of the cross was a shameful one. παραδειγματίζειν stronger than the simple δειγματίζειν , Mat_1:19.
Concluding remarks on Heb_6:4-6.
The declaration of Heb_6:4-6 has been of importance for the controversy of the early church, as to the question whether those who relapsed from the gospel renounced for ever the hope of salvation, or whether by means of sincere repentance they might once more attain to a state of salvation. The rigoristic view was especially maintained by the Montanists and Novatianists; and already Tertullian, de Pudicitia, c. 20, appeals to our passage in favour thereof. In opposition to this view, another sense was universally put upon the passage in the orthodox church from the time of the fourth century. The words were interpreted of an impossibility of imparting a second time the baptism once administered, and the consequent condemnable character of such an act, in that according to a later usus loguendi (first met with in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 62, 65) they took φωτίζειν to be a designation of baptism, referred ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν to the repetition of baptism, and in ἀνασταυροῦντας κ . τ . λ . found the indication of that which such repetition would produce or involve. (Comp. e.g. Theodoret: Τῶν ἄγαν ἀδυνάτων , φησίν , τοὺς τῷ παναγίῳ προσεληλυθότας βαπτίσματι καὶ τῆς τοῦ θείου πνεύματος χάριτος μετειληφότας καὶ τῶν αἰωνίων ἀγαθῶν -g0- δεξαμένους -g0- τὸν -g0- τύπον -g0- αὖθις -g0- προσελθεῖν -g0- καὶ -g0- τυχεῖν -g0- ἑτέρου -g0- βαπτίσματος -g0-. Τοῦτο -g0- γὰρ -g0- οὐδέν -g0- ἐστιν -g0- ἕτερον -g0-, ἤ -g0- πάλιν -g0- τὸν -g0- υἱὸν -g0- τοῦ -g0- θεοῦ -g0- τῷ -g0- σταυρῷ -g0- προσηλῶσαι -g0- καὶ -g0- τὴν -g0- γεγενημένην -g0- ἀτιμίαν -g0- πάλιν -g0- αὐτῷ -g0- προσάψαι -g0-. Ὥσπερ -g0- γὰρ -g0- ἅπαξ -g0- τὸ -g0- πάθος -g0- αὐτὸς -g0- ὑπέμεινεν -g0-, οὕτω -g0- καὶ -g0- ἡμᾶς -g0- ἅπαξ -g0- αὐτῷ -g0- προσήκει -g0- κοινωνῆσαι -g0- τοῦ -g0- πάθους -g0-. Συνθαπτόμεθα -g0- δὲ -g0- αὐτῷ -g0- διὰ -g0- τοῦ -g0- βαπτίσματος -g0- καὶ -g0- συνανιστάμεθα -g0-. Οὐχ -g0- οἷόν -g0- τε -g0- οὖν -g0- ἡμᾶς -g0- πάλιν -g0- ἀπολαῦσαι -g0- τῆς -g0- τοῦ -g0- βαπτίσματος -g0- δωρεᾶς -g0-. Χριστὸς -g0- γὰρ -g0- ἀναστὰς -g0- ἐκ -g0- νεκρῶν -g0- οὐκ -g0- ἔτι -g0- ἀποθνήσκει -g0-, θάνατος -g0- αὐτοῦ -g0- οὐκ -g0- ἔτι -g0- κυριεύει -g0-. Ὃ -g0- γὰρ -g0- ἀπέθανε -g0-, τῇ -g0- ἁμαρτίᾳ -g0- ἀπέθανεν -g0- ἐφάπαξ -g0-, ὃ -g0- δὲ -g0- ζῇ -g0-, ζῇ -g0- τῷ -g0- θεῷ -g0-. Καὶ -g0- ἡμῶν -g0- δὲ -g0- ὁ -g0- παλαιὸς -g0- ἄνθρωπος -g0- συνεσταυρώθη -g0- ἐν -g0- τῷ -g0- βαπτίσματι -g0-, τοῦ -g0- θανάτου -g0- τὸν -g0- τύπον -g0- δεξάμενος .) That this interpretation, which is still followed among later expositors by Faber Stapulensis, Clarius, and Calmet, is a wrong one, is now generally admitted. The justification, however, of this passage, which furnished to Luther a determining reason for denying to the epistle canonicity in the narrower sense (see the Introduction, p. 18), is afforded by the fact that—as is also pointed out, Heb_10:26-31—the author is speaking not of a falling away in general, but of a clearly defined falling away, i.e., as is rightly urged by Calvin, Beza, Jac. Cappellus, Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Peirce, Carpzov, Tholuck, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Hofmann (Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 341 f. 2 Aufl.), Maier, and others, those Christians are described who commit the sin against the Holy. Ghost (Mat_12:31 f.; Mar_3:28 f.; Luk_12:10), or the ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον (1Jn_5:16). For Christians are described who fall away, not, e.g., from mere weakness, from a mere wavering of conviction, but in spite of a better knowledge, and in spite of having experienced the treasures of grace in Christianity; Christians who, according to the parallel passage, Heb_10:26 ff., against their better consciousness and conscience, tread under foot the Son of God as though He were a deceiver, brand His blood shed for redemption as the blood of a transgressor, and scoff at the Spirit of grace as a spirit of falsehood. In regard to men of this kind, the ἀδύνατον πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν is employed in its full right, since with them there must be inwardly wanting every kind of receptiveness or receptibility for the μετάνοια . The reference of the declaration to the sin against the Holy Ghost is, moreover, so much the more unquestionable, inasmuch as the author by no means says that the readers have already committed it, but, on the contrary, only sets at once before their eyes as a terrible warning the extreme length to which their conduct may lead them.