Verses one and two. Heb 6:1-2 We now come to a careful study of the two Greek words translated “leaving” and “let us go on.” A correct understanding of these is absolutely essential to the proper exegesis of the passage we are treating. The word translated “leaving” is a verb meaning “to put or place,” with a preposition prefixed which means “off” or “away.” The preposition implies separation and is used with a case in Greek which implies separation. The case speaks not only of the literal removal of one object from the vicinity of another, but also of the departure from antecedent relations such as derivation, cause, origin, and the like. It contemplates an alteration in state from the viewpoint of the original situation. It comprehends an original situation from which the idea expressed is in some way removed. Thus, the basic idea in the verb is that of an action which causes a separation. The various meanings of the word are as follows: “to send away, to bid go away or depart, to let go, to send from one’s self, to let alone, to let be, to disregard.” It is used of teachers, writers, and speakers when presenting a topic, in the sense of “to leave, not to discuss.” In manuscripts of the Koine period, we have as reported in Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, the sentence, “Let the pot drop,” and the clause, “not to leave me to be neglected in a strange land;” also an appeal from a V 20, p 60 forsaken girl to her lover, “Oh, lord, do not leave me.” In Matthew 13:36 and Mark 4:36 this word is used of the sending away of the multitudes. Expositor’s Greek Testament translates it here, “Let us abandon.” Alford explains it in the words, “Leaving as behind and done with in order to go on to another thing.” To use the word “leaving” in the sense that a superstructure of a house leaves the foundation and yet builds on it, as is done by some expositors, is a case of English eisegesis (reading into the text what is not there). But such a usage will not stand the scrutiny of the Greek exegesis of this word (taking out of the text what is there), nor is it in accord with the historical background and the analysis of the book.
The word is an aorist participle. Greek grammar tells us that the action of the aorist participle precedes the action of the leading verb in the sentence, which in this case is “let us go on.” The aorist tense speaks of a once for all action. We could translate, “Therefore, having abandoned once for all the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection.” The act of abandoning is the pre-requisite to that of going on. One cannot go on without first separating one’s self from that to which one is attached. The word translated “let us go on” is first person plural subjunctive, which is used for hortatory purposes in Greek. That is, we have an exhortation here. Another way of exhorting one in Greek is to use the imperative mode. There is a classification of the participle in Greek which is designated, “the participle used as an imperative.” Our word “abandoning” is an imperative participle. It gives a command.
We come now to the word translated “let us go on.” The verb means “to carry or bear.” Moulton and Milligan report its use as “bring” and “carry,” in such sentences from early Greek manuscripts as: “Her tunic, the white one which you have, bring when you come, but the turquoise one do not bring,” and “Return from where you are before someone fetches you,” the words “bring” and “fetch” being the translations of this word. The word is in the passive voice, which means that the subject is passive or inactive itself and is being acted upon by some outside agent. Thus we could translate, “abandoning once for all … let us be carried along.” V 20, p 61
Now what does the writer exhort these Hebrews to abandon, and to what does he urge them to allow themselves to be borne along? Well, what does a mariner do when he is at a loss as to exactly where he is? He checks his position by his instruments. The aviator in a similar situation checks his course by the radio beam. An exegete in a similar situation will consult the historical background and analysis of the book. And that is exactly what we will do. We found that the writer proves twice over that the New Testament in Jesus’ Blood is superior to and takes the place of the First Testament in animal blood. After proving this, he shows that faith is the only way of appropriating the salvation which the High Priest procured for sinners at the Cross. In the light of this demonstration, he warns them against falling away. He exhorts them to go on to faith in the New Testament Sacrifice. Having left the temple sacrifices, and having identified themselves with the visible Church, from what could they fall away but from their profession of Christ as High Priest, and to what could they fall back to but First Testament sacrifices?
Thus the words, “the principles of the doctrine of Christ,” must refer to the First Testament sacrifices, for these Jews are exhorted to abandon them. Likewise, the word “perfection” must speak of the New Testament Sacrifice to which they are exhorted to allow themselves to be borne along. Our analysis has guided us to the correct interpretation.
A study of the Greek text here will substantiate this. The words, “the principles of the doctrine of Christ” are literally, “the word of the beginning of the Christ.” The phrase “of the beginning” does not modify “Christ,” for He had no beginning. It therefore modifies “word.” The phrase, “the beginning word of the Christ” refers to that teaching concerning Him which is first presented in the Bible. And what is that but the truth concerning His Person and work found in the symbolism of the Levitical sacrifices. The tabernacle, priesthood, and offerings all speak of Him in His Person and work. And this interpretation is in exact accord with the argument of the book. All dependence upon the Levitical sacrifices is to be set aside in order V 20, p 62 that the Hebrews can go on to “perfection,” as we have it here. That the word “perfection” speaks of the New Testament Sacrifice, the Lord Jesus, and the Testament He inaugurated by His work on the Cross, is seen from the use of the Greek word here, referring to that which is complete, and in Heb. 7:11 where the writer argues that if perfection (same Greek word) were under the Levitical priesthood, then there would be no further need of another priesthood. But since God has brought in a priestly line after the order of Melchisedec, it logically follows that completeness obtains under the New Testament which He brought in. He states in Heb. 7:19 that the law of Moses, namely the sacrificial law, made nothing perfect. That is, the Levitical offerings were not complete in that the blood of bulls and goats could not pay for sin. Neither was their completeness in what they could do for the offerer. But “this Man (the Lord Jesus), after He had offered one sacrifice for sins, sat down in perpetuity on the right hand of God” (Heb. 10:12). His sacrifice was complete. Thus, the writer exhorts these Hebrews to abandon the type for the reality, that which is incomplete for that which is complete. Before leaving this point, the English reader should know that the expressions, “the first principles of the oracles of God” (Heb. 5:12), and “the principles of the doctrine of Christ” (Heb. 6:1), are quite different in the Greek. The word “principles” in these verses comes from two different Greek words. The expression in Heb. 5:12 refers to the elementary teachings in New Testament truth, and the one in Heb. 6:1, to the teaching of the First Testament where Christ was first spoken of.
But the question arises, if these Hebrews had left the First Testament sacrifices and had made a profession of Christ, why does the writer exhort them to abandon these? The answer is that the Holy Spirit had enlightened them (Heb. 6:4) so that they saw that the sacrifices had been done away with at the Cross, and that the New Testament sacrifice was the only way of salvation. They had acted upon that and had abandoned their dependence upon these, and had made a profession of faith in the New Testament sacrifice. Their former dependence upon the sacrifices had not resulted in their salvation for either one of the following two reasons. In the case of those Hebrews V 20, p 63 who lived before the Cross, that dependence was a mere intellectual assent such as they were giving now to the New Testament. And in the case of those who were born since the Cross, their dependence upon the sacrifices was of no avail since these had been set aside by God at the Cross. But under stress of persecution (Heb. 10:32–34) they were absenting themselves from the New Testament assemblies (Heb. 10:25), and were wavering (Heb. 10:23), literally “leaning,” that is, they were leaning toward the Levitical system again, and letting New Testament truth slip away (Heb. 2:1). The result was that their spiritual perceptions were dulled, had become sluggish (Heb. 5:11), and they themselves had become immature in their thinking along spiritual lines. This growing dependence upon First Testament sacrifices, they were exhorted to abandon, and abandoning these, they would be in that place where the Holy Spirit could carry them along in His pre-salvation work to the act of faith. We must be careful to note that these Hebrews had not yet finally and irrevocably discarded New Testament truth. The tendency was that way. The writer was attempting to reach them before it was too late.
If they would go back to the First Testament sacrifices, they would be laying again the foundation of the First Testament, and building upon it again. This foundation is given us in Heb. 6:1, 2. “Repentance from dead works” is First Testament teaching, was preached by John the Baptist, and is in contrast to New Testament teaching of repentance toward God (Acts 20:21). “Faith toward God” is First Testament teaching, and is contrasted to the New Testament teaching of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21). “The doctrine of baptisms” (same Greek word translated “washings” in Heb 9:10) refers to the ceremonial ablutions or washings of Judaism, and is typical of the New Testament cleansing of the conscience from dead works to serve the living and true God by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost (Titus 3:5). The “laying on of hands” refers to the imposition of the offerer’s hand upon the sacrificial offering of the Levitical system (Lev. 1:4), and is typical of the act of a sinner today laying his hand of faith upon the sacred head of the Lamb of God. “The resurrection of the dead,” an Old Testament V 20, p 64 doctrine, is more fully developed in the doctrine of the out-resurrection from among the dead (Phil. 3:11 Greek) which indicates that there are two resurrections, one of the saints, the other of the lost “Eternal judgment” of the old dispensation is in contrast to the “no judgment for the believer in Christ” of the new. Thus, these Hebrews are exhorted not to return to First Testament teaching, but to go on to faith in the New Testament Sacrifice.
Verse three. But coupled with this exhortation is an ominous hint, as Vincent calls it. It is in the words, “And this will we do if God permit.” Here are his words: “An ominous hint is conveyed that the spiritual dullness of the readers may prevent the writer from developing his theme, and them from receiving his higher instruction. The issue is dependent on the power which God may impart to his teaching, but His efforts may be thwarted by the impossibility of repentance on their part. No such impossibility is imposed by God, but it may reside in a moral condition which precludes the efficient action of the agencies which work for repentance, so that God cannot permit the desired consequence to follow the word of teaching.” All of which goes to say that while there is such a thing as the sovereign grace of God, yet there is also such a thing as the free will of man. God never in the case of salvation violates man’s free will. The choice must be made by these Hebrews between going back to the sacrifices or on to faith in Christ as High Priest. But their spiritual declension if persisted in, would result in their putting themselves beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit. This is implied in Heb. 3:7, 8 where they are warned that if they desire to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit, they should not harden their hearts, the implication being clear that they could harden their hearts to the extent that they would have no more desire to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. This shows that the “impossibility” of Heb. 6:4, 6 resides in the condition of their hearts, not in the grace of God. The translation of Heb. 6:1–3 is as follows: “Therefore, having put away once for all the beginning instruction concerning the Messiah, let us be borne along to that which is complete, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, V 20, p 65 and of faith toward God, of instruction concerning washings, imposition of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this will we do, if only God permits.”
Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the Greek New Testament: For the English Reader, vol. 20 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 59–65.
month of October 2023 Logos Bible Software Discount code MINISTRYTHANKS GET 10% Off 50 12% Off 200 15% OFF 500 |
Posts
.jpg?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/quality,q_70/resize,m_mfit,w_350,h_350/format,webp)
