The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his132/hebrews.lzh/HEBREWS.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-30 | 13.5 KB | 284 lines

APO:Is Hebrews 6 a WARNING to Believers not to 'FALL AWAY'?  by Bill Bennett

   or addressed to the whole nation of Israel?

   Is this addressed to believers or unbelievers?

   "Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us
presson to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from
dead works and of faith toward God, of instruction about washings, and
laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, and eternal
judgment." (Hebrews 6:1-2 NASB)

   The question arises here, "Where the people addressed in this
passage Born-again Believers?"

   "..elementary teaching.."

   If you have a good reference Bible, you'll see that there is a
footnote with a 'literal' translation. It reads, "word of the
beginning".

   We would naturally assume this is referring to either:

   1. The FIRST Gospel presentation they heard, or 2. The FIRST
revelation they received about God, or 3. The FIRST written revelation
- the Old Testament.

   "word of the beginning" naturally sounds like the Old Testament.

   The author extensively QUOTES and makes a vast multitude of
references to the Covenants & Promises (chap 8-9), the OT law, the
Melchizedek Priesthood (chap 7), Levitical priesthood (chap 5-10), the
patriarchs (chap 11), OT blood sacrifices (chap 9-10), the atonement,
etc, etc, etc....

   There can be NO DOUBT the author is speaking of the Old Testament
when he says, "elementary teaching" - this is completely in the context
of the entire book of Hebrews.... Especially within chapter 6, where he
speaks of Abraham and the Melchizedekian Priesthood.

   To further illustrate this important point, let's look at way Jesus
Christ is addressed, if we can even call it that in verse one.

   "..elementary teaching ABOUT the Christ.."

   The first references to the promised Messiah (which is what 'christ'
means) is given in Genesis 3:15.

   "And I will put enmity Between you and the woman and between your
seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall
bruise him on the heel"

   "He shall bruise.." literally means, "He will CRUSH your head". That
is the destruction of satan. This is the first reference to Christ's
future reign & rule, but only one reference of many! In addition, the
Old Testament teaches the atonement, blood sacrifices etc. which we
already know the author refers to many times in the book of Hebrews.

   If this passage was addressed to believers, even immature believers,
why would the author say, "Therefore LEAVING the elementary teaching
about the Christ.."?

   Again, the greek yields some interesting language....

   The Greek word "aphiemi" means to forsake, to put away, let alone,
disregard, put off. It refers to total detachment, total separation,
from a previous location of condition. The Expostior's Greek Testament
translates Hebrews 6:1, "Therefore let us abandon [give up] the
elementary teaching about Christ." Alford comments, "Therefore leaving
(as behind, and done with; in order to go on to another thing)."

   A.T. Robertson states:

   "Wherefore (dio). Because of the argument already made about the
difficulty of the subject and the dullness of the readers. 'Let us
cease to speak...' ... to leave off or behind. Of the first principles
of Christ... Objective genitive Christou (about Christ). 'Leaving
behind the discussion of the beginning about Christ,'... [ I an
condensing here ]

   "Let us be borne on" (both the writer and the readers). The
Pythagorean Schools use 'perometha' in precisely this sense of being
borne on to a higher stage of instruction. .... "Unto perfection" Old
word from 'teleios' mature, adults as in 5:14. Only twice in the N.T.
(here and Col. 3:14). Let us go on to the stage of adults, not babes,
able to masticate solid spiritual food. The writer will assume that the
readers are adults in his discussion of the topic." ( Word Pictures in
the New Testament, vol. 5, pg. 373. There is MUCH omitted here.)

   The context is Old Testament centered, it is asking the hearers to
"leave something behind and go onto another thing"; and the subject is
"about the messiah" referring to the Old Testament promises.

   This verse does not address Jesus Christ, but things formerly said
about Him. the author wants to speak on adult terms about the REALITY
of Jesus Christ, His sacrificial atonement, and the New Covenant that
awaits all those who would receive Him. The issue being addressed in
this passage is not growing in Christian maturity, but coming to faith
in Jesus Christ.

   IF.... a big IF...

   If this passage is addressed to Born-again believers, then we have a
real situation on our hands. The author is telling the hearers to
"leave the basics of their faith behind. Leaving behind what they know
and trust about Jesus Christ - to go on to something else.....?"

   That would be encoraging apostacy!

   "It is the provisions and the principles of the Old Covenant, of
Judiasm, that are to be dropped. It is not a question of adding to what
one has. It is a question of abandoning what you have for something
else. This is precisely what the Holy Spirit asked the Hebrews to do -
to abandon the shadows, the types, the pictures, and the sacrifices of
the old economy and come to the reality of the New Covenant in Jesus
Christ. A paraphrase could be, 'Leave the pictures of the Messiah and
go on to the Messiah Himself,' or 'Drop the Old Covenant and accept the
New.'" (John MacArthur)

   The author of Hebrews is warning and encouraging unbelieving JEWS to
come to faith in Jesus Christ the fulfiller of the O.T. prophecies.

   When studying Hebrews 6:4-6, we have to ask if these folks the
author is addressing are really believers to begin with.

   "who have once been enlightened"

   This passage makes no reference to salvation. There is no mention of
justification, sanctification, the new birth, or regeneration. These
folks are not spoken of as born again, made holy or made righteous. In
fact, none of the New Testament terminology for salvation is even used.
"enlightened" simply isn't used anywhere else in the New Testament for
salvation - so why assume it means it here?

   In the septuagint, "photizo" is oftentimes translated, "to give
light by knowledge or teaching". This in no way means a person accepts
OR rejects what they have learned, it does mean they are intellectually
'tuned in'.

   Those who have been ENLIGHTENED, doesn't mean they accepted Christ.
So the enlightment the author is speaking of here is dealing with
comprehending the spiritual truth. By this time, the hearers were well
informed, fully aware of the spiritual significance of the message. It
doesn't mean they accepted the message.

   Nobody is the same after hearing the Gospel and understanding they
are sinners. Read 2 Peter 2:20-21 as an example.

   In Matthew 4:16 the same terminology is used, "...saw a great
light," but were these people saved? No, they may have even understood
completely the ramifications of Jesus' ministry, witnessed many
miracles, even sat and ate the multipled loaves of bread OR even
realized He was the messiah! However, their lives would never be the
same because now they had first hand knowledge of Jesus Christ.

   Peter has an interesting comment:

   "For if after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the
knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for
them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known
the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the
holy commandment delivered to them." (2 Peter 2:20-21 NASB)

   These folks were 'enlightended' and understood, but never believed
and received. They were 'taught' but never trusted, hence, the
condemnation is FAR WORSE than ever before! The 'light' they received
actually became the judgment AGAINST themselves.

   "tasted of the heavenly gift"

   When we see figurative language, it's best not to make it into
doctrine. Nobody literally 'tastes' a heavenly gift. The greatest
'heavenly gift' is Jesus Christ, and Him we're suppose to 'eat' not
taste. (John 6:51 & 6:35) Everyone on the earth 'samples' life and
partial blessings from God just by breathing air, enjoying nature, and
seeing God answer simple prayers such as making a vegetable garden
grow. If the text said "consumes the heavenly gift" would there be any
doubt that this individual was saved? But, the text only says "tasted"
- that's too fuzzy to be dogmatic.

   "had been made partakers of the Holy Spirit"

   The Greek word, "metochos" (translated partakers) has to do with
association, not possession. We see the same in Luke 5:7 as being
'associates' or in the same vicinity. When we invite someone over for
dinner, they may share in the same wonderful roast we eat, but that
doesn't make them automatically part of my family! In the same
vicinity, sharing in the same blessings, but separated from the
promises.

   Compare this to 1 Corinthians 7:13-14 for an interesting text with
some of the same interesting background.

   "And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live
with her, let her not send her husband away. For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is
sanctified through he believing husband; for otherwise your children
are unclean, but now they are holy."

   We know 'sanctified' means 'to set apart' - presumably for God's use
or for God's specific blessings. It would sound incredible that God
would actually bless a godless man, but since there is an unbeliever in
the vicinity or associated to a believer, that person receives God's
favor for 'just being there'! Naturally, God wants the unsaved spouse
SAVED, and hopefully, with the quiet witness of the spouse ( 1 Peter
3:1 ) the unsaved person might be saved quickly, and the whole house
united in Christ.

   Essentially, God WANTS PEACE in the home - He has a HIGH REGARD FOR
MARRIAGE.

   Therefore, by association, the unbeliever is 'tasting' and
'illuminated' but still they have not 'feasted upon' and 'received'
Jesus Christ.

   "have tasted the good word of God"

   The Greek word here is not "logos" but "rhema". "Rhema" emphasizes
parts, not the whole. When in this context, we can see why the author
uses "rhema" instead of "logos". Elsewhere, 'logos' usually refers to
the whole, but here "rhema" is used to refer to a "smorgasaboard
attitude" towards the Word of God, they pick a little here, a little
there, but never get down to taking it all in and accepting it all.

   We've all met people that like to play "church" or use it as the
"social club". These people take the best part of the ministry and
leave the hard work for the REST OF US..... We wind up doing the WHOLE
THING, they do only what's necessary to keep enjoying the blessings.
It's partial involvement, not whole hearted commitment.

   King Herod is a fine example, he enjoyed hearing John the Baptist
preach, but when was he ever saved? (Mark 6:20) When did he repent?
Instead, at his reluctant command, John the Baptist was beheaded! When
push comes to shove, the 'samplers' never commit themselves, but only
bring greater guilt upon themselves.

   Is 'tasting' wrong?

   Absolutely not. As Christians, we want to be salt to the unsaved, we
and them to see the joy, peace & blessings we enjoy! We want them to
realize that without the Lord, they really have nothing worthwhile and
long lasting. When God blesses unsaved friends, THANK the Lord for them
being blessed so! It sure gets their attention, and hopefully, they
will realize that God has been VERY GOOD to them. We ultimately want
their response to be, "Lord save me!", so directing their attention to
the One from whom all blessings flow is a gentle reminder to Whom they
owe thanks.

   However.....

   The BAD NEWS is, if these folks understand the Gospel, have seen the
way God blesses and have even shared in those blessings.... and then
utterly reject God's grace & the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is
impossible to bring them BACK to the same point of repentance they were
once at.

   I cannot imagine anyone utterly rejecting the Lord after He pours
out blessing after blessing on their life, and they have FULL KNOWLEDGE
of what they are doing.... But we sure seem to see it happening. The
best time to repent and receive Jesus Christ as Saviour is when you
KNOW you need to be saved. To reject Him with full knowledge of the
implications is certain damnation. I hope everyone reading this
realizes this.

   Lastly, Hebrews was written about the time of the Titus' seige of
Jerusalem. Jerusalem fell to Titus around 70 AD. Could it be that God
in His mercy and perservence was offering Israel as a nation, ONE LAST
PROOF that Jesus was their Messiah, their only hope and salvation
before the judgment was executed against their unbelief? With the mixed
crowd in Jerusalem, we can expect a letter addressed to not a "church"
but a nation of people, some believers, some unbelievers - but all
needing the admonition and encouragement of the Lord to TRUST him. If
your city was under seige for 3 years, about to fall to imperial Rome,
wouldn't you need all the encouragement you could get?

   The siege of Jerusalem was so strong, when food ran out, women were
litterally eating the flesh of their children to survive. Titus ran out
of trees to make crosses to crucify the men of the city on.

   Bill Bennett

   This article originated on The Salvation Online Network