Foreword⤒🔗

This contribution focuses primarily on the meaning of the verb “to crucify anew,” anastaurountas, in Hebrews 6:6. Some time ago my colleague Van Bruggen and I had a discussion about the letter to the Hebrews, in which this matter also came up. Van Bruggen suggested a specific aspect of this word, which immediately resonated with me. It fit perfectly with the understanding that I had formed of the historical context of this letter. This aspect will be addressed toward the conclusion of this contribution. A proper understanding of this verb is important for grasping the meaning of the main clause in Hebrews 6:4-6: “For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened ... and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance...” The reason for this impossibility is “since they are crucifying once again the Son of God.” It is an honour and a pleasure to contribute the results of a study on this verb to this celebratory volume for my esteemed colleague Dr. J. van Bruggen.

Introduction←⤒🔗

In a recent issue of the Westminster Theological Journal, Dave Mathewson introduces his study on reading Hebrews 6:4-6 in light of the Old Testament with the telling observation (209), “Perhaps the most characteristic and simultaneously most perplexing feature of Hebrews are its so-called ‘warning sections.’” The most difficult problem, Hebrews 6:4-6, has always attracted the greatest attention from scholars. Mathewson does not himself attempt to solve this puzzle, but he does offer some helpful remarks by pointing to contextual and linguistic parallels between this section and various Old Testament texts.

Present Difficulties←⤒🔗

The difficulties surrounding this section—and others—are not just exegetical in nature; they are also theological and practical. Many ask the theological question: How can the God of forgiving love in Christ be so unloving with this “impossibility”? How can the author of this letter, writing about this God of love, make such a seemingly harsh statement? After all, it is stated here that it is impossible to bring certain people back to repentance and thus to salvation. How should we view this impossibility? Does it depend on God, and is he unwilling? Or does the problem lie with certain individuals who are either unwilling or unable? Should we conclude that people who fall away (that is, become apostate) were not truly enlightened: that is, they were not born again? Was their conversion merely pretence or a sham? But if this would be the case, were these people hypocrites? Then this verse would imply that hypocrites cannot be converted.

Practical questions are raised as well. Does this verse mean that any attempts by family and friends to draw back people who have broken with the faith are futile and should not be undertaken? Do church councils not need to take any action here because it would not help anyway? But then what about the man who left in his youth because of difficulties in the church and wanted nothing more to do with the God of the church, and who later, in his old age, did return? He showed sincerity and was joyfully received back as a member. Shouldn't that really be forbidden, because his repentance would not be genuine? Or does this text imply that the Word of God forbids attempts to bring people who had left the church to insight and repentance?

Challenges in the Early Church←⤒🔗

The early church of the first centuries apparently faced the same difficulties. We can point to two indications to clarify this: a sermon by Chrysostom and the suppression of the letter to the Hebrews in the churches of the West. In a sermon on Hebrews 6:1-6 (Homily IX, 5-8), Chrysostom explains that renewal unto repentance means renewal through repentance. He then asks, "Is repentance then excluded?" His response is "Certainly not." Being renewed through repentance is not impossible in itself, but being renewed again unto repentance while crucifying Christ anew is impossible. His starting point for this explanation of the difficulty is found in Romans 6:4-9. There Paul writes about the believer dying to sin, being united in Christ’s death on the cross in his baptism. Being re-baptized now means being crucified again. And crucifying Christ again is an impossibility because Christ lives forever. So it is clear that it is impossible to be renewed through crucifying him again, yet being renewed through repentance is not impossible. His conclusion is that there is room for repentance, but not for a second baptism. Chrysostom then uses textual evidence to demonstrate that Scripture commends repentance, and he describes what true conversion consists of and what it accomplishes. Chrysostom’s difficulty arises because he does not position Hebrews 6:4-6 within its specific historical context, but instead generalizes it. Therefore he needs to explain the difficulty away, which was caused by his own misreading.

The second indication of the difficulty in the early church with our text, and thus with this letter, is mentioned by Calvin (among others). He tells us that because of this text the Epistle to the Hebrews was practically unused in the churches of the West in the third and fourth centuries. These churches had to contend with Montanists, Novatians, and Donatists, who believed that church members who had fallen away under the pressure of severe persecution could not be readmitted. Hebrews was not recognized as canonical because it would support the view of the Montanists and others. An example of this is the learned church leader Tertullian, who in his later life followed the views of the strict Montanists. In the passage—in which he expresses his judgment that not Paul but his companion Barnabas is the author of our letter—he argues that for an apostate Christian, repentance is not possible after a grave sin (De Pudicitia, 20).

However, this did not mean that this letter was generally rejected in the days of and before Tertullian (who died in 222 AD). Tertullian notes about Hebrews (the “epistola Barnabae”) that it was certainly much more widely received in the churches than any other writing. Shortly after the persecution under Nero, Clement Romanus, the third bishop of Rome, quoted our letter quite extensively in a letter to the church in Corinth (see below).

The Path to a Solution←⤒🔗

In our present time it is emphasized that the books of the Bible –and especially the epistles– were written in view of specific situations. The teaching of Christ and its significance for the Christian life are expounded in such a way that they answer specific questions. This is often true, although this should not be exaggerated. In the case of our text an insight into the situation is indeed important. Exegetes such as  J.A.T. Robinson (207) and B. Lindars (II;20-21) rightly point out that our letter has a strong, pervasive character and that its gravity is rooted in the specific situation of the addressees. Calvin, too, emphasized this urgent character. For that reason it is important to gain a right understanding of the first recipients. Who were they? Where did they live? And when did they find themselves in this serious situation?

Our inquiry will therefore consist of two main parts. In the first part, we will attempt to determine the “who,” “where,” and “when” of the readers, primarily based on the letter itself. In the second part, we will focus on the meaning of 6:6 in the overall context to arrive at a sound exegesis.

1. The Historical Situation: The Who, Where, and When←↰⤒🔗

a. Who?←↰⤒🔗

Were the original readers Gentiles or Jews? The oldest tradition is that this letter was addressed “To the Hebrews.” It is generally assumed that this heading was added later – although this would have occurred very early on. The second “Chester Beatty biblical papyrus,” known as Papyrus 46, is dated around 200 AD. It positions this letter as a Pauline writing immediately after Romans under the heading “To the Romans” (see Metzger: 37; K. & B. Aland: 99). Eusebius (3:3, 38; 6:13), writing about the letter, states as the view of the churches in the East that Paul wrote it in Hebrew to the Hebrews: that is, to the Jews.

In the New Testament, we find the term “Hebrew” four times. In Acts 6:1, it has the meaning of people who spoke Hebrew or Aramaic, and it is used in contrast to Greek-speaking Jews. We find the word three more times in Paul’s letters, in 2 Corinthians 11:22 and Philippians 3:5, where Paul uses it to refer to himself when addressing Jewish opponents. Here it has the meaning of a “genuine,” “authentic” member of the Jewish people (Hughes, 1962: 403). The conclusion that this word in Paul’s writings should be understood in light of its meaning in Acts 6 as speaking Hebrew or Aramaic (P. Barnett: 536-537) may have been inspired to distinguish it from another name, “Israelite,” also mentioned by Paul. “Hebrew” could then have the meaning of “being able to read and speak the ancient biblical language of God’s people.” It then refers to Jews born or raised in Palestine. Until the nineteenth century the general conviction was that the letter was addressed to Christians from the Jews in Palestine.

Believers of Gentile Origins?←↰⤒🔗

The view that the addressees would have been Christians originating from the Gentiles was first proposed in 1836 by E.M. Roeth (Ellingworth: lxxviii, 22). G. Vos concurs with this. Like others he bases his view, among other things, on terms and formulations that, in his view, do not fit within a Jewish-Christian framework and in Jerusalem (16-18). For example, the expression “dead works” (6:1 and 9:14) would not be appropriate for Jewish Christians who revert to Judaism, because they continue to live by the law of God. Works according to the law cannot be understood as “dead works.” This reasoning contradicts the Gospel, which teaches that only works done through faith in Christ are not dead works. The context of 9:14 teaches that the blood and Spirit of Christ cleanse the conscience from dead works.

Vos (and he is not the exception) then points to the expression “the living God” (for example, 3:12; 9:14). A Jew who falls away from Christ and returns to Judaism would not be falling away from “the living God” because the God of Israel and the Jewish people is the God of the one Bible. Only a relapse into paganism would constitute a falling away from “the living God.”

This argument by Vos also fails in light of the Scriptures. This expression occurs about fifteen times in the Old Testament. It portrays the LORD as the holy and almighty, faithful God of the covenant (Deuteronomy 5:26 at Sinai and Joshua 3:10 at the fording of the Jordan at high tide in the spring). He is the true God who will not be mocked by “powerful pagans” such as Goliath and Sennacherib, and he shows that a “weak” David and a “weak” Hezekiah are able to defeat them in his strength (1 Samuel 17:26, 36; 2 Kings 19:4, 16). But in Jeremiah 23:36 the prophet uses this name to indicate that this “living God” will not be mocked by his own people either. He will punish their disobedience and unbelief with the exile. The name, therefore, essentially describes the same thing as the name Yahweh. “The living God” is the active God of the covenant; powerful to graciously rescue those who call upon him; but also powerful to effectively punish those who disobey him (see also the LORD’s revelation to Moses on Sinai after the sin of the golden calf: Exodus 34:6-7). The name is used both in the saving and in the destruction of God’s covenant people. Apostasy confronts God’s people with him who is a consuming fire (Hebrews 10:30-31; 12:29). In Hebrews 3:12 and 10:31 this name is also used in the context of a warning against apostasy. In 9:14 and 12:22, on the other hand, we find it precisely in the context of God’s faithful, gracious, saving help. The conclusion is that the use of this name fits very well within the context of a warning and encouragement for Israelite Christians in an Old Testament setting, which is repeatedly evoked by Old Testament words and formulations.

To demonstrate that Hebrews is addressed to Gentile Christians, Vos (16-18) also points to 13:9-13. In verse 9, the listeners are warned not to be “led away by diverse and strange teachings.” For the heart is “strengthened by grace [that is, by Christ], and not by foods.” Vos explains the various strange teachings and the food based on Romans 14, Colossians 2, and 1 Timothy 4 as a blend of Jewish customs with non-Jewish ascetic rules of sanctification. This goes beyond God’s law. And according to him, “foods” cannot refer to an Israelite sacrificial meal because this word (brõmata) is never used for that purpose, and because in the Septuagint it is used for both clean and unclean food.

Vos overlooks the fact that in Hebrews 9:9-10, this word, along with “drinks and various washings,” is used in connection with “gifts and sacrifices” that were brought to the tabernacle and could not purify (see also 1 Corinthians 8:8, 13 in this context). Hebrews states that those animal sacrifices and the associated meals could not effect purification. The situation has changed with the coming of Christ and his perfect sacrifice that brought grace. The contrast in 9:9-10 is clearly that of the old covenant with its animal sacrifices and the new covenant with the sacrifice of Christ. It is this same contrast that we find in 13:9-10. Here too, the writer states that those who sought their well-being from those animal sacrifices and in eating them found no benefit from them. In 13:10 this actual contrast is further developed, but now from the perspective of those who believe in Christ, who is the true priest with his true sacrifice: “We [who believe in Christ] have an altar from which those who serve the tent [the tabernacle] have no right to eat." The church of Christ eats and drinks at his “communion table” the “flesh and blood” of the sacrifice of himself. And Jews who participate in the Old Testament worship service with its accompanying meal that brings no benefit do not partake of Christ’s supper. They are outside of the grace that God gives through Christ.

Vos does acknowledge that these verses themselves do not refer to Gentile believers (versus Gentiles), but argues that the opponents of those who share in Christ are unbelieving Jews; and he concludes that these unbelieving Jews are opposed by believing Gentiles, non-believing Jews. Vos asserts—yet fails to demonstrate—that it must be Gentile believers who are contrasted here with non-believing Jews. The context, in fact, points in a different direction. It is the same contrast that we noted in chapters 8-10, between the old and the new covenant, between the high priesthood from Aaron and a high priest like Melchizedek, and between animal sacrifices and the sacrifice of Christ. In this context, the contrast between believing and non-believing members of the people of Israel is a much better fit.

Believers of Jewish Origin therefore?←↰⤒🔗

As for the “strange teachings” mentioned in 13:9, we must also understand them in context, and not primarily from Romans 14, Colossians 2, and 1 Timothy 4. Lindars (10) writes that from the perspective of the letter as a whole and from the following verse 10, these “strange teachings” are to be understood as “the details of the atoning sacrifice” as set forth in chapter 9. He adds that the point at issue is the readers’ religious need to clearly experience receiving the forgiveness of their sins. According to Lindars, they would no longer find that sense of forgiveness in a Christ who is far away in heaven, but in one that is visible and therefore tangible in the Old Testament sacrificial service. We do not simply adopt Lindars’ notion; however, we do note with approval what this author says further: “Thus, the central argument of the letter is precisely compelling proof for the complete and lasting effect of Jesus’ death as atoning sacrifice.” And the “food” (the “meals”) that did not benefit those who hold on to it “are the sacrificial meals in the temple.” In its direct connection with verse 10 in particular, and with the entire letter (especially chapters 7-10), this seems to be the correct explanation. In light of the great High Priest who came with his sacrifice, it has become indisputably clear that the Old Testament sacrificial ceremonies were a service of shadows and that these did not bring true salvation. In this light, the Jewish teaching that the animal sacrifices offered by Aaronic priests are the true means of atonement has become a “strange teaching.”

Lindars is not convinced that the initial readers lived in Palestine. He assumes that they were Jewish Christians in the dispersion, and that therefore the food probably refers to meals in the synagogue, replacing the sacrificial meals in the temple. Such meals in the synagogue would keep alive a sense of connection, of solidarity, with the temple in Jerusalem. This seems to me to weaken the argument of the author of our letter. His pastoral attempt to convince his brothers and sisters to remain strong in their faith in Christ remains even more powerful when the readers are in fact to be found in Palestine.

The above demonstrates that the arguments that regard Gentile Christians as the addressees are untenable. It is therefore understandable that this theory no longer has many adherents. Our letter exudes a very strong Jewish-Christian atmosphere, from beginning to end. For Israelite readers, it is significant that it speaks of an old covenant, to which they personally belong, and of a new covenant with its superior priest and his superior sacrifice, in which they are also included. And for them, it is understandable that they would want to fall back into the Old Testament worship with its visible elements, which are based on God’s own word through Moses. This is much less obvious for a non-Israelite.

We may now conclude with regard to the who? that the first recipients are Israelite Christians, who are in danger of reverting back to the Old Testament worship with its Levitical priests and animal sacrifices.

b. Where?←↰⤒🔗

Many suggestions have been made over the last hundred and fifty years about the location of the recipients of this letter (see, for example, Guthrie: 696-701). There are clearly two main candidates for the setting: Jerusalem and Rome. Rome receives the most support. The arguments are often both negative against Jerusalem and positive for Rome, although Lindars (18) states that Rome as the address “is not without difficulties.” That the church in Rome consisted primarily of Gentile believers is clear from Paul’s letter to the church in Rome. However, he does not consider this conclusive, since Rome at that time had at least eleven Jewish synagogues. It is therefore quite possible that a group of Jewish Christians from those synagogues formed a congregation of Christian Jews that remained separate from the church that Paul addressed, in order to preserve their Jewish character. Clearly, this is no more than a suggestion, even though many adopt this stance. In The Origin of the Church in Rome, van Bruggen has convincingly demonstrated that there was most likely no congregation of Christ in this place, prior to and concurrent with the church that we know from the letter to the Romans.

In Rome?←↰⤒🔗

Lindars mentions two events in Rome that “would likely have left traces in our letter if it had been sent to Rome.” These two events are the edict of Emperor Claudius in 49 AD and the persecution of Christians under Nero in 64 AD. We note the extremely cautious and hesitant formulation, which actually argues against Rome as the address. He therefore concludes that the best we can conclude is that Hebrews is addressed to relatively “well-educated Jewish Christians somewhere in the Mediterranean dispersion.” Contrary to what Lindars writes here, others, notably Lane, emphasize that the first-mentioned event, the edict of Emperor Claudius, is very important. Lane even devotes a separate passage to it (lxiii-lxvi). In Acts 18:1-2, we read that when Paul arrived in Corinth on his second missionary journey, he met Aquila and Priscilla there, who had just arrived from Rome because Emperor Claudius had issued an edict banishing the Jews from Rome. The Roman writer Suetonius mentions this edict: Claudius “expelled from Rome the Jews who, at the instigation of Christ, were continually causing disturbances.” Lane, along with many others, now assumes that the unrest took place in Rome and that the cause was discord related to (but not caused by) Christ. Furthermore, it is assumed that Aquila and Priscilla were Christians when Paul encountered them in Corinth, and that therefore a church already existed in Rome at that time. Van Bruggen (1967) has demonstrated that these speculations are rather unfounded. He shows that Suetonius, in speaking of the Jewish unrest, mentions this in a context in which he discusses events that took place in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. Van Bruggen rightly concludes that the Jewish turmoil therefore did not take place in Rome but in Palestine. The expulsion of the Jews from Rome should then be understood as a punitive measure in Rome, intended as a warning to the Jews in Palestine. This fits the historical context. Unrest in Palestine continued to escalate after 44 AD. In that year, King Agrippa died (Acts 12). Judea was then placed under direct control of Roman governors, who acted unwisely and harshly. Van Bruggen (1967: 24) points out that Josephus describes how, from 44 AD until the outbreak of the First Jewish-Roman War in 66 AD, the Jews in Palestine “continually and increasingly” stirred up unrest (Antiquities XIX, 366; XX, 97-133; Bellum II, 223-238). Van Bruggen concludes that this invalidates one of the most important grounds for the existence of a Jewish community in Rome before (and also alongside) the church to which Paul addressed his letter. This also removes the basis for the proposition that such a Jewish-Christian community in Rome would have been the place to which the letter to the Hebrews was addressed.

In the letter itself Lane (lviii) discovers two additional arguments that plead against Jerusalem as the address. The first argument is the generous act of support as a service of love for the brotherhood (6:10 and 10:32-34). This could not refer to the needy church in Jerusalem, because it was constantly in need of help from abroad. Lane writes that the church in Rome was known for its service of love. He refers, among other things, to the letter of Ignatius to the Romans, where this church is said to be “in the forefront of love.” This is not convincing. First, many churches are said to have practiced the ministry of charity (Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:31). In other words, what is said here in our letter about serving in generosity is not proof that we are dealing with the church in Rome. Second, the church characterized by Ignatius as generous and loving is the same church to which Paul wrote, and it was not a separate Jewish-Christian community, as is being suggested.

Jerusalem: a Better Solution?←↰⤒🔗

It is also important that the ministry of charity, mentioned here in Hebrews, fits very well with the image of the church in Jerusalem. Luke tells us that the members shared their possessions with all who were in need (Acts 2:45; 4:34-37). It is true that the church at Jerusalem, after the persecution that began under Saul, continually needed and received financial aid (Acts 11:29-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Acts 24:17). But outside help does not preclude a helping hand within the church. It is difficult to imagine that the Jerusalem church was entirely dependent on the collections as organized by Paul, especially since raising the funds for this aid took quite a bit of time. Therefore, there is good reason to apply what is mentioned in 6:10 and 10:32-34 to the church in Jerusalem. Nor does it conflict with 13:5: “Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have” (see 13:16). This admonition also fit the early situation, when Ananias and Sapphira paid for their ambitious greed with their deaths (Acts 5:1-10). Finally, when we consider that the letter was written before 70 AD, this testimony about serving in love fits (either earlier but also still at the time of writing) more with Jerusalem rather than with Rome.

Lane’s second argument from the letter itself is the use of the term hēgoumenoi, “leaders,” in 13:7, 17, and 24 for the office-bearers in the church. This term is not used elsewhere in the New Testament, but it does appear in later Christian literature of the first and second centuries. This is done by members of the church in Rome: Clement Romanus (1 Clement 21:6) and Hermas (Visions 2.2.6; 3.9.7). The term would therefore point in the direction of Rome. This, too, is not a convincing argument. It is true that an author may adapt his word choice to the language of his readers if he deems it necessary. But it can also happen that an author in a letter simply follows the language of the community in which they live or are temporarily staying. In other words, if it is true that our author used a term that was common in the church in Rome, then this might very well indicate that they themselves belonged to this church in Rome or that they were staying there at the time of writing.

The same applies to the proposition that the letter’s destination has to be Rome because Clement Romanus quotes this letter and therefore was familiar with it (Lane: lviii). Quoting, and thus knowing, this letter may also be due to the fact that it was written at Rome.

The mention of Timothy in 13:23 and the author’s intention to visit the readers with him need not argue against Jerusalem as the address. Timothy was one of Paul’s traveling companions on his way to Jerusalem at the end of his third missionary journey (Acts 20:4). We may conclude from this that it is likely that he arrived in Jerusalem with Paul and stayed there for a while, becoming acquainted with the church there and the church with him.

In this context, the phrase “those from Italy” (hoi apo tēs Italias) in Hebrews 13:24b should also be mentioned. Lane (571) notes that one of the oldest manuscripts from Egypt, the Codex Alexandrinus [A], from the fifth century, and a sixth-century manuscript, the Codex Euthalianus [H], feature a note at the end that the letter was written “in Rome” [A] and “in Italy” [H]. Hughes (1977, 16) also notes Syriac and Coptic translations. However, Lane points to Acts 18:2 where the same words appear and clearly mean “from Italy” in the sense of: now being outside of Italy. In the case of Acts 18:2 the verb determines this meaning: “coming from Italy.” Lane’s discussion of this word on page 567 shows that others believe that this phrase could very well mean “the brothers of Italy” in the sense of Italian Christians in Italy. Clearly, this phrase does not constitute evidence for Rome either. But neither does it argue against its origin in Rome.

The aforementioned arguments regarding the where? of the addressees do not convincingly point in any particular direction. The traditional arguments in favour of Jerusalem are certainly no weaker than those for Rome. Critical studies have challenged this tradition since the mid-nineteenth century, but the outcome has remained divided. Partly through the discoveries in the Judean Desert at Qumran, Jerusalem has regained favour as a destination. This means that the content of the letter needs to be decisive—although the answer to the following question concerning the when? will strongly point to Jerusalem.

c. When?←↰⤒🔗

In addition to indications from the letter itself, a letter from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians is often used to determine, as far as possible, the time of writing. The starting point is that Clement was bishop of the church in Rome around 90 AD, so his letter must have been written in the last decade of the first century. This was at the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian, who is often noted as a persecutor of the Christians. That Clement was bishop of the church in Rome at that time would then correspond with what he writes in the first paragraph of his letter. There, Clement apologizes for the time it took him to write. He gives as his reason “the sudden and successive disasters and calamities” that befell them, which he describes in more detail in the fifth paragraph.

Why Prior to 70 AD?←↰⤒🔗

The theme of Clement’s epistle is the warning against the sin of destructive “envy and jealousy.” He starts with examples from the Old Testament. In paragraph 5, he writes: “Let us take noble examples from our own generation” (“those closest to us”). He then mentions “the good apostles” Peter and Paul, and in paragraph 6 mentions a “great multitude of chosen ones with them” who suffered “shameful abuse” and “tortures” and were killed, but thus became a very good example in their midst. This can hardly refer to a persecution at the end of the first century. According to Lightfoot’s commentary (2:32), this refers to the persecution under Nero in 64 AD. Edmundson (191) concludes, based on the formulation in paragraphs 1, 5, and 6, that this cannot refer to the time of Domitian, but must refer to the period immediately following the bloody persecution under Nero. As such Clement would have written this letter very shortly after this terror. Edmundson’s conclusion is confirmed by recent research that not only questions the persecution under Domitian (R. Riesner: 343), but even denies it (K.L. Gentry). These facts, that Clement quotes Hebrews and that he wrote his letter shortly after the persecution by Nero, demonstrate that our letter most likely dates from shortly after 64 AD, and thus before the year 70.

There are further indications that argue for the letter to the Hebrews being written before 70 AD. J.A.T. Robinson (200) arrives at the same conclusion based on the fact that our letter does not make any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. He considers this all the more strange because this destruction put an end to the animal sacrifices as prescribed in the Old Testament. Mentioning this fact would have greatly strengthened the argument of the author of Hebrews. The fact that it is not mentioned indicates that our letter was written before 70 AD. This argument is even stronger when we consider that in 8:13 the author states that the old covenant is becoming obsolete and ready to vanish. He does not say that it has already disappeared. This argument from the letter itself is confirmed in 13:10. There it is stated in the present tense: “We have an altar, from which those who serve the tent (tabernacle) have no right to eat.” The word “tabernacle” is indeed used here, but in contrast to “we” (Christians), who have our own altar. It is clear that the concrete reality of the time of writing is being referred to. Where this applies to one part of the comparison, the Christian Lord’s Supper, then it also applies to the other, the Jewish sacrificial meal. Therefore, it can be concluded on both external and internal grounds that the writing of this letter most likely took place before 70 AD.

The Serious Nature of the Matter←↰⤒🔗

It has been mentioned earlier that J.A.T. Robinson (207) and B. Lindars (2:20-21) speak of a very urgent nature of our letter. This serious aspect becomes increasingly evident in each admonishing passage: “Let us hold fast to what we have heard, for otherwise we too may not escape the judgment of God” (2:1-4); “Let us not rebel and fall away from the living God, like the Israelites in the wilderness” (3:7–4:13). The grave nature grows further in intensity through the warning about the impossibility of repentance in apostasy after having been enlightened. This serious matter reaches a climax in the final admonishing section, 10:19-13:19. In 10:30-31, the ominous words about covenant vengeance and the retribution of the living God resonate with the listeners. And in 10:25, the readers hear the author declare that the Day is drawing near. For our study, this text is particularly important in the context of the letter. Here the readers are admonished not to neglect mutual worship, but to encourage one another in love, “and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” We capitalized the word “day” on account of its absolute usage.

The vast majority of commentators, including Reformed expositors such as F.W. Grosheide, believe that this “day” refers to the day of Christ’s return on the clouds. It is understood as the day of the final judgment. We read in Grosheide (243), “The absolute tēn hēmera [the day], Matthew 25:13; 1 Corinthians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 5:4, and also ekeinē tēn hēmera [that day], Matthew 7:22, and so on, can only point to the great day when Christ returns.” But Grosheide himself points to the very remarkable you see that precedes the day. The readers should not neglect the assembling of the congregation in communal worship; and even more so, says the author, “as you see the Day drawing near.” Grosheide explains this striking you see in the second person (the person addressed) as highlighting the force of the admonition. Although this explanation is possible, it sounds rather shallow and certainly does not explain it sufficiently.

If we take Grosheide’s explanation as it is, this means that the author and his readers see the approach of the great Day of Christ’s return to earth to judge the dead and the living. Does the author really say this? “Brothers and sisters, you see the approaching of the great Day, the final Day, the Day of the Second Coming.” If we take the author seriously, he must not only be convinced that his readers truly see that Day coming, but also that they are right. If they did not see the Day coming, the admonition loses its force. Worse still, the author would be misleading his readers, which is impossible. Or we must assume that the author was honest in his judgment, and that his readers were truly convinced that the Day was coming, but that they were mistaken. They would then be following in the footsteps of the sects, who throughout the centuries have repeatedly “seen” such a predictable return of Christ coming, whether or not they predicted it by calculating the exact year and date. We need to assume that he himself truly saw that Day approaching. For him, it was an ominous, terrifying reality. And the words you see must also mean that his readers saw it coming. The Day was truly approaching. It was visible to everyone.

It is clear that the writer makes no mention of the immediate return of the Lord or anything directly related to it. He does not mention a coming of Christ to judge the living and the dead, nor that the Day also has the perspective of salvation. For that reason the question is legitimate whether he would not mean something else by the Day. We will therefore first deal with the question of the proper meaning of the Day” in this letter. And then we will examine the evidence concerning “the day of the LORD” in God’s words spoken by the prophets earlier in the Old Testament, as well as in God’s words spoken “in the latter days” by the Son in the New Testament (1:1-2; 2:3). Both should receive further attention.

The Judgment is Approaching←↰⤒🔗

It has already been noted that the seriousness of the admonishing sections in the letter does not appear to stem from the readers’ perception of the approaching day of the Christ’s return. Rather, the threatening element of God’s terrible wrath is identified as something imminent, giving this letter its grave and serious character (2:1-4; 3:7-4, 13; 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 12:29). What, then, is it that the author and the readers perceive as approaching? The letter appears to give us a clear indication in 8:13. There, the character of the time in which they find themselves is indicated as the time—the Day—of the coming to an end of the old covenant. That old covenant is “not far from becoming obsolete and ready to vanish away.” Literally, the Greek says: "near disappearing" (engys aphanismou). In 10:25, the present participle is used, not the preposition (engys); The Greek literally says: “you see the Day approaching” (blepete engizousan tēn hēmeran). We may conclude that what they see approaching is the disappearance of the previous sacrificial system with its animal sacrifices and physical purification rituals, as pertained to the old covenant. This old covenant is already being replaced by the new covenant with the better mediator and its better sacrifice. The old covenant is nearing its disappearance. We note here that the Day in Hebrews apparently does not coincide with, and is not the same as, the day of the return of Christ Jesus to judge (all) the living and the dead.

This raises a significant question: How will this impending disappearance occur? Will it be rather gradual? Will those who at that time still maintain this old system with its animal sacrifices, meals, and washings in the temple voluntarily abandon it? The answer is unequivocally clear. The Jews, whether they were the Sadducees or the Pharisees or even the Essenes of Qumran and elsewhere, or any other group, would certainly not simply abolish the animal sacrifice in the temple on their own initiative. In other words, that disappearance would have to be forced upon them. There was only one possible way: the violent and definitive destruction of the place of sacrifice, the temple. It must therefore be this destruction that the author sees approaching! This destruction is therefore the characteristic of the Day in 10:25. This combination of 8:13 and 10:25 essentially allows for only one explanation. It is this (threatening) destruction by violence of the system that characterizes the old covenant, along with the destruction of the place where this system is maintained, that gives this letter its intense gravity. This destruction also forms the historical context for the expressions concerning God’s fierce wrath and punishment, as spoken of in the Gospels (see below).

If this combination of “the Day approaching” and the proximity of the vanishing away of the old covenant with its old system is correct (and everything points to it), then we find here a confirmation of our conclusions regarding the who, where, and when.

Our explanation is supported by the Old Testament references of various prophets to “the Day of the LORD.” S. Braaksma (38-39) provides an overview of the places where the prophets mention “the Day of the LORD.” It is not necessary for our study to provide a comprehensive overview of the use of this expression. It is sufficient to show that the expression is used on more than one occasion. In Amos 5:18-20, “the Day of the LORD” is called “a day of darkness and not of light.” And in verse 27, the LORD says that he will lead his people into exile. “The Day of the LORD” here is therefore the day of God’s judgment on Israel, as it occurred when Israel was taken away into the Assyrian exile. In Isaiah 2:12, Isaiah speaks of another “day of the LORD of hosts against all that is proud and haughty.” The context speaks of the people of Judah and Jerusalem in their idolatry. Zephaniah speaks of “the great day of the LORD,” which is near and hastening (1:14). It is “a day of wrath, of distress, and of anguish...” (1:15) for Judah and Jerusalem, because of their sins. Because Zephaniah prophesied in the days of King Josiah, we may assume that this “day of God’s wrath” refers to the destruction by the Babylonian army. In Lamentations 1:21, the poet laments that his enemies rejoice because the LORD “has brought about the day that [he] announced”; see also 2:1, 21, 22. Here, therefore, we are looking back to a “day of the LORD” that belongs to the past. It will, as in Zephaniah, refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah by the Babylonian armies. Furthermore, in Isaiah 13:6 and 9, we read about yet another day: “Wail, for the day of the LORD is near. It will come as destruction from the Almighty,” and, “Behold, the day of the Lord is coming, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger.” This “day of wrath” will come against the destructive conqueror Babylon. Even after the Babylonian exile, “the day of the LORD” is again mentioned as a day of wrath (Malachi 3:2 and 4:1), this time in connection with the coming of the Lord himself, announced by his herald.

This overview clarifies two things. First, we see that the real point of “the day of the LORD” is not its chronological aspect, but its character as a day of covenant vengeance, of wrath and destruction. That this day can also be a day of salvation can be left aside here. And secondly, the Old Testament shows that “the day of the LORD” is not always about the same day. These are clearly different “days,” which simultaneously have in common that they are times, moments, when the LORD pours out his righteous judgement on Israel and Judah, and also on other peoples. In this light, it is not surprising that the New Testament, using the expression the Day, can also refer to different moments of the revelation of God’s wrath in post-Ascension history: one at the destruction of the temple and the temple-city of Jerusalem, and one at the return of Christ with the final judgment.

Further support for this interpretation is found in the New Testament. Using the terminology of our letter: here we have the final speaking of God through him who is his Son (1:2). When the author writes about the great salvation that God gives (2:3), he says that it was first declared by the Lord himself and then faithfully handed down to us by those who heard it from him. We mention these words because they indicate that the author views the content of the Gospels as words first spoken by the Son of God himself and then reliably passed on to him and to his readers.

In these Gospels we encounter the expression “the day of the Lord” several times in various formulations. Some examples include: “the day of judgment” (Matthew 10:15; 11:22; Jude 1:6); “the great day of their [God and the Lamb’s] wrath” (Revelation 6:17); “the day of the Lord” coming like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:2); “the day of the Lord (Jesus) (Christ)” (1 Corinthians 1:8; Philippians 1:6, 10). In these instances, and in all the others, the day of Christ’s return is always indicated with a further qualification. The additional qualifications and the context consistently make it clear that the day of Christ’s return is meant for judgment (and full redemption). Now, this absolute word pair the Day is also used several times for Christ’s return for judgment on the clouds (namely in Matthew 25:13; Romans 13:12; 1 Corinthians 3:13—in a different sense in 1 Thessalonians 5:4). The context makes this clear each time. But as we showed earlier, the context of Hebrews makes it clear that this refers to a “Day” that precedes the “last day” (John 6:39-40, 44; 11:24).

The Judgment of Jerusalem←↰⤒🔗

The teaching that the apostles heard from the Lord and passed on to their readers also included what he had said about the fate of Jerusalem. The Lord had spoken of Jerusalem’s total destruction and the complete destruction of the temple. It would be so radical that not a stone would be left standing upon another (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6). The abomination of desolation would be seen in the holy place, (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14; Luke 21:20; see van Bruggen (1988: 306). In Luke 21:20, we read Christ’s words, “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.” We also find this prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction in Luke 19:41-44. There, it is expressed in a lament about Jerusalem’s unbelief and culpable blindness during the royal entry into Jerusalem according to Zechariah’s prophecy. We can compare this with a similar lament at the end of his reproaches to the Pharisees and Scribes in Matthew 23:37-39. In verses 37-38, Christ decries that Jerusalem repeatedly killed the prophets and was always unwilling to be gathered by its God. Therefore, “see, your house is left to you desolate.” Van Bruggen (1990: 416) explains this “being left” as “forsaken (unprotected and lonely: like chicks without the mother hen).” The leaders of Jerusalem refuse to accept the protection against God’s wrath that Christ provides. Without this protection from the Mediator, whom they will reject and kill, and with the God of the covenant against them, they are abandoned to their own sinful and blind understanding, and therefore utterly lost.

It is remarkable how often the Lord Jesus Christ spoke of and warned about this coming wrath for the destruction of Jerusalem. It must have left a deep impression on those who, in faith, heard him announce it again and again, considering how often it is recorded in the Gospels. The author of Hebrews will have been familiar with these predictions. For they were part of the Word of God, first spoken by the Lord and then faithfully handed down to him and to his readers. Guided by these words of revelation, and also being inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is not surprising that between 65 and 70 AD he could say, “It is approaching; it is imminent!. The old is close to vanishing away. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the angry Covenant God, who said, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay.’” (Deuteronomy 32:35; Hebrews 10:30)

The fact that the letter to the Hebrews does not mean the day of Christ’s return by the Day also aligns with Christ’s teaching. He makes a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the destruction of the temple with the destruction of the city and the judgment of the people, and, on the other hand, his return as judge to judge the living and the dead. We see this in his discourse on the Mount of Olives in Matthew 24 (Mark 13 and Luke 21; see also Luke 17:20-37). The Lord shows that there is a parallel—but also a distinction, and that the one is not the other. There is no opportunity or need to elaborate more on this here. As a reference, see van Bruggen’s commentaries on the aforementioned Scripture passages.

The following points can be considered as additional support. In the Old Testament we have a parallel for the absolute use of the term the Day, connected with God’s wrath, in Malachi 4:1. The prophet says there: “For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” Precisely because “the Day” in Malachi refers to “the Day” of the Lord’s own coming to his people (3:1-2), and because here too the element of God's vengeance is clearly present, it is not inconceivable that the author of Hebrews had Malachi’s words in mind with this absolute formulation. The author’s words, “as you see the day drawing near,” are close in meaning to Malachi’s “for behold, the day is coming.”

From the New Testament we receive further support from the use of the expression “this generation” as it is used in the Gospels. Of the thirty-three instances that this word appears in the Gospels, it comes directly from Christ’s mouth twenty-seventimes. He always refers to the generation of his days. Of these twenty-seven times, it appears nineteen times in the expression “this generation.” And the context is always one of sin and judgment. "This generation" rejects both John (the Baptist) and the Son of Man (Matthew 11:16; Luke 7:31). At the end of his speech to the Pharisees and Scribes, Christ speaks of their completing the measure of their ancestors: “Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth...” All this bloodshed will be “charged against this generation,” Matthew 23:32-35; see Luke 11:50). This is repeated in Matthew 24:34 (Luke 21:34).

We also point to Matthew 10:23, to the Lord’s teaching of the apostles, where this parallel occurs: “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” In light of the texts cited here, this coming is difficult to explain as a return on the clouds. Instead, it fits quite naturally with a coming with judgment upon Jerusalem—its people and temple. This element of the Son speaking God’s words strengthens the basis for explaining the Day as referring to the day of judgment on Jerusalem and not the day of Christ’s coming on the clouds.

The conclusion of our survey is that Hebrews 6:6 should be read in the context of a letter addressed to Jewish Christians in Palestine, between approximately 65 and 70 AD. It is the time when a war against the Romans is threatening, or perhaps has just started. Members of the church are in danger of no longer holding firmly to the words of Israel’s God, as he spoke to them through the Son via his apostles. R.N. Longenecker (162) writes that around 1920, A. Nairne “convincingly demonstrated that [Hebrews] was written in that tense period before 70 AD, when Jewish Christians in Palestine and throughout the Diaspora were confronted with the greatest test of their loyalty: whether to their people or to the Messiah. The letter to the Hebrews was written to urge them with great conviction not to return to Judaism but to continue holding on to Christ.” When one fails to rely on the Christ of God, who is God's Son, one is no longer in fellowship with the living God. It means rebellion against God and missing out on the salvation in Christ Jesus, of which God’s words testify.

2. Hebrews 6:6: No Repentance Possible Since They Crucify the Son of God Again←↰⤒🔗

Introduction←↰⤒🔗

We will now pay closer attention to Hebrews 6:6. What does it say first of all to the original readers? Is the statement difficult to understand in light of the gospel of grace when it is said that it is impossible to restore to repentance those who have fallen away from the faith after having been enlightened? Or does this warning reveal the truth of God’s covenantal words in both the old and the new covenant, which consist of two parts, a promise and an obligation, as well as two sanctions, namely the blessing and the curse? Will the context in which the letter was written—as noted above—be able to help us understand these words, which do indeed amount to a serious threat? Based primarily on the content of the letter, as indicated above, we believe that it was written to Christian Jews in Palestine around the mid-sixties of the first century.

Verse 6 continues the main clause that starts in verse 4 with the words, “For it is impossible...” This impossibility is then stated in verse 6a: “...to restore them again to repentance.” Specifically who are meant with “them” and what is happening to them is described in the translation in five subordinate clauses (the Greek text uses five participles here). The first four phrases note positive aspects, which contrast entirely with the fifth relative clause as it brings out a strong negative element. Verse 6b provides the reason why restoration to repentance is impossible. They crucify the Son of God once again. As with the first part, so here too we pose three questions: For whom is something impossible? What is impossible? And why is this impossible? We will answer the first question briefly, as it does not pertain to our verse. But we cannot avoid this either, because what is said of them in verses 4-5 is an essential part of the sentence.

For whom is it “Impossible”?←↰⤒🔗

Restoration to repentance is impossible for those who, in the first place, “have once been enlightened.” The meaning of these words is made clear from 10:32-34. Here the verb is used again: “Recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings.” The enlightenment is the work of Christ (John 1:9) through the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:18) with the gospel (Ephesians 3:9). They were positioned in the light of the gospel of salvation through Christ and walked in that light when they accepted the gospel in faith and lived by that light. This actual enlightenment was evident from the fact that then, in the beginning, they endured suffering for Christ, either by undergoing it joyfully themselves or by supporting others who experienced the struggles (10:32-34). These verses from chapter 10 show that the enlightenment refers not only to an initial beginning, but also to its continuation. The enlightenment started with the preaching of the apostles (Acts 2-5), but was also nourished and maintained under pressure by that same preaching (Acts 8:1-4; 9:31).

Furthermore, they had then “tasted the heavenly gift.” This “tasting” involves more than sampling; it is about eating, experiencing and savouring what one eats. The heavenly gift is likely Christ Jesus himself with all his treasures and gifts, since the Spirit is specifically mentioned next. Moreover, 10:29 speaks of the contemptuous trampling of the Son of God, of the scorning of his sanctifying blood, and of the insulting of God’s Spirit. They had heard the gospel of the salvation of sinners through Christ and his atoning sacrifice, and they had accepted it with joy.

They had also “shared in the Holy Spirit.” The Spirit was poured out on the entire church on the day of Pentecost. And those who subsequently joined the church through faith in the gospel of Christ Jesus, the Son of God, also shared in the gift of the Spirit. The question of the extent to which this was the case, given the possibility of falling away, need not concern us here. It is clear that they too had experienced the work of the Spirit through the gospel, by being able to endure pressure.

Furthermore, it is said of them that they had tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come. The apostolic preaching had nourished them and their faith had been sustained by it. Their faith had been strengthened by seeing and possibly experiencing miracles of healing (see 2:3-4). Another possibility is that this tasting of the powers of the coming age refers to experiencing powers of new life through faith in Christ, such as perseverance under pressure (10:32-34). In these expressions, the treasures and gifts of Christ, bestowed by the Spirit and displayed in the gospel of Christ, are depicted in all their richness. As a result of these gifts from God, the recipients were active, professing members of the church.

Despite all these rich gifts from God, there was the serious danger of falling away. This falling away (parapiptein[1] , falling short of the goal) parallels here the “falling away from the living God” (3:12), the “drifting away from the goal, the safe harbour” (see 2:1), and the “trampling underfoot the Son of God” by profaning the blood of the covenant (treating it as unholy), by which he was sanctified (10:29). It implies a “rejection of him who is speaking,” that is, refusing God (1:1-2; 12:25). Ultimately, not going along with God on God’s path is blatant disobedience based on a conscious unwillingness. It is “deliberate apostasy” (Bruce: 124) that points to the difference between “sin with a raised hand” or “high-handed sin” (bitgāgā; van Dam) and sin out of weakness. There is no weakness or acting out of ignorance here. The four positive clauses make this very clear. Defiantly rejecting all these good gifts of God is the result of a conscious choice.

When we take into account certain data about the church in Jerusalem, as found in the book of Acts, then, humanly speaking, the sin of apostasy is not unexpected. Acts 21:20-21 records the response of James and all the elders of the church in Jerusalem to Paul’s account of his apostolic ministry among the Gentiles and its fruits. These leaders glorify God and then say, "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed." And they add, apparently with approval, “They are all zealous for the law." They point out that false rumours about Paul are circulating in Jerusalem, as if Paul were teaching “all Jews among the Gentiles” (in the Diaspora) to forsake Moses and that they no longer needed to circumcise their children or live according to Jewish customs and practices.

Here, being a Christian is clearly combined with being a typical Jew (Hebrew) in strict adherence to the ceremonial laws of Moses, as they were elaborated and practiced in those days. This combination as such is not prohibited in the New Testament. A Jew can remain a Jew and live as a Jew. Paul himself writes (1 Corinthians 10:32) that one should not be a stumbling block or a cause of offense to either Jews or Greeks. This means being a Jew with the Jews and a Greek with the Greeks. Therefore, he accepts the elders’ advice to observe certain rules of purification along with others, thus demonstrating that he “also lives in observance of the law” (Acts 21:23-24).

The danger, however, lies in the elders’ characterization of the Jerusalem Christians: “They are all zealous for the law.” The context reveals that this zeal for the law is specifically an eager devotion to the Old Testament ceremonial laws, as these were then a characteristic of the Jewish national race. Christ and “Moses” here very easily turns into Christ in “Moses,” with “Moses” being the superior one and Christ being required to serve “Moses.” This is the misconception challenged in Hebrews. It is not difficult to imagine how a choice would have been made in a situation appropriate for this characterization, in the political crisis. Zeal for the law, a hallmark of the Jewish people, easily entailed zeal for the people and for maintaining the Old Testament status quo. Thus, in Palestine in the years between 60 and 70 AD, the choice came down to either choosing to rely on Christ alone or to remaining with Israel, with “Moses.” This is the same struggle as Paul’s, only with a different emphasis on a different matter: not righteousness through the law as such, but the ceremonial observance of the law.

What is Impossible?←↰⤒🔗

The letter states that it is impossible to “restore to repentance” any apostate believers in Jerusalem shortly before 70 AD. The Greek words, as formulated here, must have sounded strange to the first listeners. We have here a conglomeration of “renewal” (restoration) as a concept and as a word. The concept of “(once) again” is expressed in the preceding adverb (palin) and, in a double (intensifying) way, in the compound verb “to restore [them] again” (ana-kainizein: ana—“again," and kainizein—“to make new” [derived from kainos]). These words thus convey the idea that it is truly impossible to again renew or refresh people who have fallen away (apostasized) in this way.

The letter speaks of a “new covenant” that is better than the old and replaces it (8:8, 13 and 9:15). This aligns with Paul’s speaking of the regenerated person, transformed by God’s Spirit, as a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17); and as the “new self created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24). But Hebrews 6:6 states that restoring someone who has fallen away is not possible in the situation described.

Noteworthy again is the formulation: “to restore unto repentance.” We might expect “to be made a new man through repentance.” Throughout the Scriptures, the call goes out to those who hear that they would repent. And in the way of repentance, which means a change of mind, a person is renewed. Obviously this is the work of the Holy Spirit. Here, the opposite is stated: through renewal/restoration to repentance. This formulation is not without meaning. The author likely wants to express that a renewing, improving change must take place before it can even lead to conversion. This particular formulation thus underscores the “impossibility” of verse 4.

This is clearly not about daily or ongoing repentance. It speaks of a conversion whereby not believing in Christ Jesus changes to believing. An important aspect of this not-believing or actually believing should not be overlooked. This believing is and must be a belief in accordance with the prophetic announcement in God’s Old Testament words and, at the same time, in accordance with the apostolic preaching based on Christ’s self-revelation (1:1-2 and 2:3). It is about humbly bowing before the Christ of the Word, and thus about obediently accepting the Word of Christ.

That this is a decisive point is evident from Matthew 12, the chapter that speaks of the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit. In verses 18-21 Matthew quotes Isaiah 42:1-4 to demonstrate the messianic work and method of Christ. It is clear that the Lord Christ works precisely in accordance with what is written about him. When the Jewish leaders still maintain that he casts out the devil through Beelzebul, the prince of the demons (12:24), characterising it as the devil’s work—which, according to the Scriptures, is clearly the work of the Holy Spirit—then this is a sin against the Holy Spirit. And there is no repentance for this because there is a clear unwillingness at work here. It is about bowing to the words spoken by God, both through the prophets and through the Son.

When for Jewish Christians, amid growing national political tensions, the earlier repentance from unbelief to faith is reversed, so that they no longer accept him as he was proclaimed to them, then a new repentance, a second fundamental conversion, is not possible again.

The question can be asked whether this “impossibility” is caused by the condition of the apostate or by the angry God. This is not the first time Scripture says that renewal to repentance is impossible. Jeremiah is commanded no longer to pray for Israel (Jeremiah 14:11-12). In Isaiah 6:8-10, God instructs the prophet to tell the people that they will hear indeed, but without understanding. This is cited in the Gospels in connection with Christ’s speaking in parables, “so that hearing they may not understand” (Matthew 13:14-15). Here we are dealing with God’s judgment on Israel’s refusal to repent (Matthew 11:20) in obedience to the call to repentance of John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2) and of Christ himself (Matthew 4:17). In his method of working, Christ aligns himself with this judgment of the Father (Matthew 11:25-26 and 13:11-17; see Geertsema: 1998). In Matthew 13:11 Christ says that it is given to the disciples to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but that it is not given to others who harden themselves in their sin of unbelief. The picture of legalistic Judaism painted for us in Matthew 11-13 is essentially the same as that against which Hebrews is warning with such intense seriousness. And the judgment is also the same (see further the judgment announced in Matthew 23:29-36 and the lament in Matthew 23:37-38. Judas Iscariot can also be mentioned here: Matthew 26:24-25). Therefore, the answer to the question of the cause of the “impossible” must first be sought in God. In his anger over the terrible nature of this sin, he no longer wants that repentance to faith. God says, “It is enough.” And as a result, this categorical unwillingness to bow humbly to God’s words remains the attitude of the rebellious, apostate person. Hardening oneself in not wanting to leads to not being allowed to do so and therefore to no longer being able to repent. The terrible nature of this sin, as portrayed by the author, is evident from the reason he gives for the impossibility of restoration to repentance.

Why?←↰⤒🔗

The reason given reads: “...since they are crucifying once again the Son to their own harm and holding him up to contempt”. The two verbs do not refer to two different actions, but indicate the same thing from two perspectives. To crucify him again means to publicly expose him again to his shame; to hold him up to contempt. The second verb is used only here in the New Testament (in the Septuagint it appears with this meaning in Numbers 25:4; Jeremiah 13:22; Ezekiel 28:17). Crucifying implies an open, public rejection before the judge and to portray and expose him as a reprehensible deceiver who deceived the people, as he did the first time.

There is some debate about the meaning of this verb “to crucify (again).” The Greek text does not use the simple verb for “to crucify” (stauroun), as elsewhere in the New Testament. The author uses a compound verb with the prefix ana: anastaurountas. This preposition can mean “upwards” and “again.” With ana in the sense of “upwards” the meaning is “to lift up on the cross”; with ana in the sense of “again,” it means “to crucify again.” In Greek literature, this compound is used ninety-two times (TLG), but in different contexts and meanings. It occurs in the sense of “hanging on a gallows,” as happened to Haman in the Book of Esther. It has the same meaning in older extra-biblical literature about the Persians, where hanging on a gallows was a common punishment. This compound form is also used for impaling the heads of enemies or criminals on a high pole, while the body is thrown away. In the Christian literature of the Apostolic Fathers, this compound verb does not appear at all; nor does it appear in the New Testament, with the exception of our text. With the later church fathers, the compound verb is often used in quotations of our verse, where it is always understood to mean “to crucify again.” Moreover, the verb in this compound form is also used several times in the same sense as the non-compound form “to crucify” while the basic form is also used most frequently in extra-biblical literature (see Liddell-Scott and TLG). Taking stock of these uses, it appears that the compound verb can have various meanings in extra-biblical literature, including that of the non-compound form, while the meaning “to crucify again” does not occur except in post-biblical Christian literature. However, this certainly does not rule out the meaning of “crucify again” in our text, because the compound form in the Christian literature our text cites is consistently explained as “crucifying anew.” In fact, this indicates that it must also have that meaning in our verse. In addition to this external reason for retaining the meaning of “crucify again,” we can adduce an internal reason: that the author most likely chose this form, unique in the New Testament, because it allowed him to express the meaning of “to crucify anew.” This unique element of anew fits perfectly, both in the context of the text and in the historical context. Therefore, along with most exegetes, we affirm the meaning of “crucifying once again.”

There is a second matter that needs to be noted. Some exegetes (see Hughes: 213) have downplayed the gravity of the sin and the seriousness of the situation here by reading the adverbial present participle “crucifying again” not in the causal sense of “since [because] they are crucifying again” but in the temporal sense of “while” or “as long as” they do so. There is no good reason for this change. Bruce (124) calls it “a truism hardly worth putting into words.” And Hughes (1977: 213) rightly notes that this present participle clearly functions to provide a reason for the “impossibility. Using the truism “as long as” also eliminates the aspect of God’s wrath as the cause of the “impossibility.” Furthermore, throughout the letter, the admonishing passages clearly have the character of warning against falling into the sin of apostasy. A temporal translation and explanation effectively removes this character of the intensely serious warning. Because the context in this chapter and its connection with the other admonishing parts argue against a temporal “as long as,” we retain the causal “since/because.”

The words “to themselves” (New American Standard Bible); “to their loss” (New International Version); or “to their own harm” (Holman Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version) obviously do not mean crucifying them again for their own well-being, for their salvation. The contrast here is between regarding themselves and regarding Christ. Regarding the Son of God, they obviously cannot crucify him again. He is seated in heaven at God's right hand (1:3). But given the nature of what they are doing, it can be characterized as “crucifying” him again.

In order to emphasize the terrible nature of what some risk doing even more strongly, Christ is referred to here by the name the author gave him at the beginning of his letter: “the Son of God” (1:2, 5-13), “who is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, upholding the universe by the word of his power.” The use of this name should therefore deter them from continuing on their destructive path and should ultimately bring them to repentance. Continuing on that path means breaking with the true faith in Christ and will lead them to crucify Christ again.

The explanations often emphasize the passive aspect of the re-crucifying. All attention is then focused on Christ, who is, as it were, being nailed to the cross again and thus put to shame. He is the direct object. This aspect is certainly present and deserves full emphasis. But if it is true that the readers were Jews, members of God’s people in and around Jerusalem, then we must also take the active part of the verb seriously. Those performing the act of “re-crucifying” must then be Israelites who had crucified the Son of God earlier. They are, in effect, crucifying him a second time.

If the conclusions of our historical research are correct, the author is speaking here to Israelites living in and around Jerusalem, at least some of whom, some thirty-five years earlier, were also present at the first crucifixion. Along with the others, they too cried out, "Crucify him, crucify him!" What they were doing at that time, they are now in danger of doing again a second time. We may further assume that the author uses this compound verb “to crucify again” (anastauroun)—unique to the New Testament—to show precisely this aspect of their impending sin: “You are about to do this crucifying again! Realize well the inherent danger for you!” The Son of God has announced the terrible judgment on Jerusalem, which has rejected him. He said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world may be required of this generation” [Matthew 23:35: “that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth”]. “...Yes, I tell you, it will be required of this generation” (Luke 11:49-52).

In this way the author, as an admonishing under-shepherd, makes his readers aware of the seriousness of the Word of God, which is “living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword” (4:12). This living word in Hebrews 6:6 is none other than that ancient word of the living God, when, after the sin with the golden calf he revealed himself to Moses as “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” (Exodus 34:6-7).

The implicit admonition, “Do not crucify him again!” is intended to prevent these members of Christ’s church from clinging to their unity with those who rely on the old covenant, which is in the process of vanishing in a terrible way.

This concludes our investigation into the historical background and meaning of Hebrews 6:6. The task now remains to draw some conclusions and to identify implications to answer the questions posed at the beginning.

Conclusions and Consequences←↰⤒🔗

Conclusions←↰⤒🔗

Our first conclusion is that Hebrews 6:6, speaking of the impossibility of restoration to repentance for those who have fallen away from faith in Christ, addresses a unique situation. These people, who are in great danger of falling away, were present at and participated in the crucifixion of the Lord Christ on Golgotha. Together with their leaders at that time, they rejected him as an evildoer and a deceiver and called for his crucifixion. Therefore their renewed rejection of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God constitutes a “re-crucifixion” of him. If they persist in their apostasy, they are, as far as they are concerned, carrying out this crucifixion a second time. But then this is a unique act in a unique situation. The unique nature of this sin means that we cannot generalize the “re-crucifixion.” When “this generation” that crucified the Saviour had died, this sin was no longer possible. Rejecting him—even a second time—is possible, but crucifying him a second time is impossible. Christ was indeed crucified for our sake and for all, but not by all. Therefore, Chrysostom did not need to defend the possibility of repentance by distorting the text. The text therefore does not mean, in general, that restoration unto repentance is always impossible with all falling; there clearly is a difference between a “falling” (into sin) and the “falling away”—from the faith.

We have found a link between Hebrews 6:6 and Matthew 11-13, where Christ warns against the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable. It is sinning against the Spirit who gave the prophetic word. It is the sin of rejecting what is written as it is, and going against it because one no longer wants to accept it. This is not a falling into sin or being overwhelmed by sin, but a deliberate choice of going against what God is saying in his Word. It means knowing what the Word says and what one is doing—and also wanting to do it that way. That is the general aspect of this sin of re-crucifying Christ. This sin can still be committed.

Consequences←↰⤒🔗

If the conclusion is correct that repentance is by no means always impossible in falling away, then consistories, church members, family, and friends should not feel hampered or impeded by Hebrews 6:6 in pleading with God for repentance. On the contrary, when a member of the church lives in sin and is overcome by sin, leading to apostasy, there should be a cry to the Lord and a search for the lost sheep, to find and bring it back (Matthew 18:5-14; Hebrews 3:12-13; James 5:19-20; Jude 22-23). Or when there is a weak brother who no longer wants anything to do with the faith and the church because he was mistreated by another in the church, then prayer and efforts must be made to bring this sheep back. Christ came to seek lost sinners (Matthew 12:13; Luke 15:6-7, 9-10, 24). These are some examples of possible situations. The church, (that is, we) should not be slack in this regard in praying for and working towards the repentance of members who have fallen into sin and fallen from the faith. Persistently we need to repent of any laxity, but rather intensify this prayer and effort to help those who have fallen away and to make them experience the love of Christ.

On the other hand, we also need to draw the conclusion of the terrible consequences of wilful and conscious sin. Hebrews 6:6 warns most seriously against “sin with an upraised hand.” Especially in the church we should tremble and fear when there is a situation where people know God’s Word in what it says, as it is written, and then, perhaps guided by human hermeneutics, they neutralize or reason away the content of this Word and rob it of its power, because they do not want to accept what it says. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31). There is a possibility of rejecting the Word in such a way that God no longer allows repentance but leaves the proud person, who thinks he knows better than the living God, to himself.

Hebrews 6:6 remains a solemn warning also for us today—to abide in what is written, for that means abiding in the living Triune God. May this chapter assist us in keeping the fear of the LORD alive.