A clamour of protest will always be heard from those who believe that the free gift of grace can be forfeited. They will refer to, what I call, the “But what about …?” verses – their particular favourite being Hebrews 6:4-6. It is a perverse malady and sad contortion of the religious mind that it seeks to find reasons to be anxious. This incessant need to do something to convince God of their self-worth causes them to hijack Scriptural passages and fly them into church buildings, destroying all in their wake.
I greatly suspect that Hebrews 6:4 has been commandeered in the same misguided way as Hebrews 7 has been recruited to teach tithing as a New Covenant principle3 when Hebrews 7 has nothing to do with tithing anymore than Hebrews 6:4-6 is a discussion on eternal security. Hebrews 7 is simply overlaying the argument of the writer to the Hebrews that Jesus’ dispensation of grace and truth surpasses and outclasses the Mosaic dispensation of the Law [John 1:17].
Calvin understood that the purpose of Hebrews was not to convince the Jewish readers that Jesus Christ was the Promised Redeemer but rather, to show them what that meant, i.e. what exactly did Jesus’ death and resurrection accomplish? It is evident that the Jewish readers did not understand and it seems equally clear that the letter to the Hebrews survives today as a means of fully evangelising to anybody who –
• is still clinging to the Law as a means of procuring righteousness;
• is possessed of a lavish and inflated view of both the purpose and status of the Law (which can make nothing perfect but rather, to prove that nobody can make themselves perfect through it);
• has an impoverished view of the death and resurrection of Jesus (which has made perfect forever those who are being made holy [Heb. 10:14]);
• considers the Law to be operative still when actually, as the way of righteousness, it is obsolete [Heb. 8:13];
• is living in the shadowlands of the law and not the Promised Land of Grace;
• is struggling with the consciousness of sin;
• is burdened by the need to feel forgiven;
• is lacking assurance;
• does not always feel very saved because of his or her behaviour;
• is not experiencing the abundant life of Jesus Christ.
In short, Hebrews is a book written to and for those of us who have not realised the absolute finality of the Cross without which there is no prospect of resting in the reality of the resurrection. It is for those of us who still need to recognise that the goal of the Christian life is simply to believe in the lasting efficacy of the sacrificial death and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and enter in His Sabbath rest. The writer to the Hebrews is seeking to persuade us that we no longer need to live a religious life but rather, accept that Christ is our life and come boldly before the throne of grace and find help in time of need. The writer’s purpose is to demonstrate that either the Cross has said it all or has said nothing at all and by calling the covenant “New”, the “Old” has become defunct and obsolete [Heb. 8:13].
However, so insatiable is the religious appetite for the offal of Legalism that even if satan cannot keep us from realising that we are under the New Covenant, he has little difficulty in persuading us that we must try to live under both the Old and New Covenants simultaneously. In response, the writer to the Hebrews insists that we cannot live under both. We have to make up our minds – either we live under the Law or under grace but we cannot live under both for nobody can serve two masters.
Notwithstanding the fact that nowhere in the Scriptures do we find Law and grace mingled, the overwhelming majority of Christians live as though the Covenants have been conjugated instead of recognising that the Law has been abrogated. Nowhere in the Scriptures will we see the two covenants conflated. To mix Law and grace is both to rob the Law of its terror and denude grace of its freedom. To mingle Law and grace is to do what Jesus said was impossible, i.e. to put new wine in an old wineskin. To do so would be to ruin them both. Yet, because of the impoverished system of evangelism, Christians think that since they are now saved and are filled with the spinach of the Holy Spirit, they should or can, like some charismatic Popeye, obey (or at least, try to obey) the Law. How can two such contrary concepts be harmonised?
• Under the Law, we try to make ourselves acceptable to God only to discover that we cannot do so whilst under grace, we cannot but accept that God has made us acceptable.
• Grace is God giving righteousness whilst the Law is God demanding it.
• Right-standing is given by grace and not works.
• We either stand in His righteousness or in ours but we cannot stand in both.
It is for these reasons (and more) that the writer to the Hebrews affirms that Jesus is indeed superior in every way to the Old Covenant Levi because Jesus –
• is the better Messenger with a better message [Heb. 1:1-2:18] • is the better Apostle [Heb. 3:1-4:13] as evidenced by His superiority to Moses • is the better Priest compared to Aaron and Melchizedek, better oath and better sacrifice [Heb. 4:14-7:28]; • is the better Covenant (contrasting the New and Old Covenants [Heb. 8:1-9:28]); • is the better Sacrifice (the potency of Christ contrasted with the impotency of the Law [Heb. 10:1-31]); • is the better Way [Heb. 10:32-12:29] (essentially, faith versus works); • provides a better way of life [Heb. 13:1-25] (faith object and action).
To prosecute his case, the writer to the Hebrews provided the court with no fewer than one hundred and forty-four Old Testament quotations and allusions whilst his opening arguments would leave the court of religious opinion in little doubt as to what verdict to return. He presented irrefutable testimony that Jesus was a better messenger and the New Covenant outclassed the Old Covenant in every regard. The writer to the Hebrews set forth Jesus’ provenance beyond all reasonable doubt, demonstrating that Jesus –
• is the Son [Heb. 1:2] and therefore, speaks with greater authority than the prophets; • is the Heir of all things [Heb. 1:2]; • is the Creator of the universe and therefore, God [John 1:3]; the Architect is greater than the building and He created Abraham, Moses, Levi, the Temple and everything in it; • is the exact imprint (carbon copy) of God’s very being [Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:6]; • is the sustainer of all things by His powerful word; • is the Master of the universe; • has made purification for sins (this is the first reference to His soteriological purpose for coming; He accomplished what no prophet, priest, king or angel could and by the one sacrifice, He made forever perfect all those who are being made holy [Heb. 10:14].
Turning to the sixth chapter as his argument gains momentum, the writer to the Hebrews says –
>>Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do, if God permits. For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him up to contempt. For land that has drunk the rain that often falls on it, and produces a crop useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed, and its end is to be burned. Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things – things that belong to salvation.
Now, let me ask a simple question – what was the writer’s primary interest here? Surely it was not the issue of eternal security but rather, he was seeking to address the malignant thought which was spreading among the community that unless the Levitical sacrifices as prescribed in the Torah (the Law) were adhered to without deviation and to the letter, there would be no certainty that the people’s sins would be forgiven. As we know, many of the epistles were written in response to questions and concerns which arose in the fledgling communities. This was the context into which the Apostle John wrote his first epistle. In “The Bonsai Conspiracy”, I dealt with the Apostle Paul’s rebuttal of the agitators who had managed to infiltrate the Galatian community. Here, in the Hebrews setting, it seems that the people were also being coaxed back to being under the law.
The entire tone of the epistle to the Hebrews betrays the communities’ obsession with the need to make sacrifice for sin. The argument of Hebrews is that Jesus’ atonement effected for all time the permanent at-one-ment with God and by Jesus having done so, the Levitical system was made redundant. In saying, “See, I have come to do Your will,” Jesus abolished the first in order to establish the second. The now obsolete Law is described as fading away for a good reason because although it is no longer legal tender, there is still a great deal of it in circulation. By analogy, when the Bank of England withdraws a note from circulation, they issue a date after which that note will no longer be accepted. Most recently, the date for the withdrawal of the old £20 note was set for 28 February. Up until that time, one could spend the old £20 notes in the shops but after that date, they were no longer legal tender. From 1 March onwards, the old note became invalid irretrievably. In the same way, we cannot bring the Levitical currency to the counter of heaven and expect it to be accepted.
The situation which confronted the Hebrew community was dire and required some hard-talking. Allow me to offer my own paraphrase –
“Let me put this to you as crudely as I can and I make no apologies for doing so. This is a serious matter. I had envisaged that by now, we would have dispensed with this kids stuff and been pressing into the mature things of God. We would be on meat and not milk. I had hoped that our ministry to you would have been sufficient to enable you to leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and you would not be harping back to that old self-help rubbish which was, after all, only a ruse to get you to see sense and come to Christ. But here we are again. No wonder the Apostle Paul speaks about being in the pangs of childbirth. I feel like this business of being a Christ-planter is one long unending contraction pain without an epidural in sight.
Let me spell it out to you, my beloveds. If what you are telling me is that even though having been enlightened, by which I mean, been given incontrovertible evidence that Jesus is the Messiah; and even though you have tasted the heavenly gift and knowing full well that the gift of God is eternal life; and even though you have shared in the Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the word of God by biting into the sweet fruit of grace and seen that it was good; and even though you have seen the authentic manifestation of the Spirit so much so that you have even experienced the powers of the age to come, you think that on balance because of this itch you call the consciousness of sin that it would be best to return to the defunct never-did-anybody-any-good Levitical system, then you are out of your minds!
Even after having weighed up the evidence, you have resolved to reject the blood of Jesus in favour of the never-can-make-anything-perfect by the same tired old sacrifices of the blood of bulls and goats. And even though God Himself has told you in no uncertain terms that He has no interest in your meaningless self-improvement-God-mollification programmes and in any case, He has done away with the whole rotten lot of it by the expedient offering of His own Son for us, you are, nonetheless, telling me that the Body of Christ you have no desire for but instead, the blood of bulls and goats have you prepared for Him. Well, if that really is your position, I have got to say, “Houston, we have a problem” because you are holding Jesus in contempt, trampling on the Son of God and making His sacrificial death and resurrection a mockery and a laughing-stock. And brothers and sisters, let me tell you that as long as you insist on crucifying again and again the Son of God and holding him up to contempt by trusting in this other stuff, it is impossible to renew you to repentance. So, knock yourself out!”
[Sub] But What About … Hebrews 6:4-6?
“Alright,” I hear you say, “that was a fancy piece of avoiding-the-question footwork but answer this question – Do these verses not prove that we can lose our salvation?”
No, it does not teach anything of the sort!
“Alright then, clever clogs, what the hell does it mean?”
“For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then fall away, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding Him up to contempt.” [Heb. 6:4-6]
Alright, try this on for size. At first glance, these verses appear to suggest that Christians could lose their salvation. However, to understand these verses, we need to consider the basis upon which we are saved. We are justified by faith apart from works, are we not? Justification means being made acceptable to a holy God, i.e. being made righteous [2 Cor. 5:21]. Moreover, we are saved by the Life of Christ [Rom. 5:10]. As such, I can say without fear of correction or contradiction that “to be saved” means “to be rescued completely from peril and returned to safety”. Further, I can assert that the life which I live now is not my own life but Christ’s Life [Gal. 2:20-21]. Our understanding of this raises an important question – If what we do with our life cannot save us, how can what we do with it cause us to lose our salvation?
An example of this truth can be found in the Apostle Paul’s writings to the church in Corinth where not only was one man openly sleeping with his step-mother, the man held it out as being illustrative of what it meant to be free in Christ and was venerated as a trophy of grace. One might say that Corinth was Law-less rather than Law-free. Nevertheless, when the Apostle Paul wrote his corrective letter to the Corinthians, he never took them back to Moses, i.e. he never put them under the Law and yet, he dealt with them firmly.
[Box] God affirms you before He afflicts you.
[Box] 1 Cor. 1:4-9 I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in Him in all speech and all knowledge – even as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you – so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift [charismata], as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus, who will sustain [i.e. “validate” – see also Phil. 1:6] you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
The Apostle Paul uses this passage to affirm and put the Corinthians safely into the matrix of Eternal Security by beginning his appeal in the context of assurance before he rebukes and seeks to correct them.
[Box] 1 Cor 3:16 “Do you not know [the Apostle Paul used this phrase nine times in Corinthians but only once elsewhere] that you [plural] are God’s temple [singular] ….”
Although the believers in the church in Corinth were living lives which where no doubt contrary to that expected of Christians, at no time did the Apostle Paul make mention of the loss of salvation but rather, he affirmed them in their identity as children of God whilst simultaneously, rebuked them and tried to correct their error.
In view of this, I would suggest that Hebrews 6:4-6 does not refer to the loss of salvation. This is all the more apparent when we consider that if we were to take this text to mean that one can lose one’s salvation, we must also insist that it means “Once lost, always lost”! Having “lost” our salvation, we could never get it back as the Hebrews verses say that “it is impossible to renew such one to repentance.” Incidentally, is it not curious that those who teach these as anti-security verses are also the same folks who urge people to recommit their lives to Jesus after having fallen away? What would be the point of that since no one could be restored?
The Case of the Apostle Peter’s Denial [Matt. 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:55-62; John 18:15-18,25-27]
If that were so, we would have to do some serious rewriting of the New Testament because poor old Apostle Peter would be in some very hot water.
In Luke 22:31-33, how can we forget Jesus’ pained voice when he said, “Simon [Peter], Simon [Peter], behold, Satan demanded [or obtained permission] to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.” The Apostle Peter responded, “Lord, I am ready to go with You both to prison and to death.” Yet, despite his bravado, the Apostle Peter proceeded to deny Jesus three times. The Apostle Peter had to learn two valuable lessons. He had to learn (1) who he really was; and (2) that his faithlessness did not disqualify him. However, according to the “once lost, always lost” interpretation of Hebrews, the Apostle Peter would have fallen from grace and thus, by that reckoning, must have lost his salvation.
Moreover, these verses also say that it is impossible to “restore again to repentance” those who have fallen away. Therefore, if we were to accept that one can lose one’s salvation, these verses must be saying, “Once saved, could be lost and if lost, always lost.”
Therefore, to use these verses to argue that Christians can lose their salvation and then, call the backslider to repentance is a contradiction of the verses because according to the text itself, there is no second chance. To my mind at least, the fact that the verses also refer to those who have “tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” does not necessarily mean that they are referring to a regenerate believer.
Just like the ten spies who entered into the Promised Land [Deut. 1:19-26], there are those who might have tasted the fruit but still do not believe. They are those who would come to the very threshold of faith only to turn back, experiencing the power of God in the flesh and yet, not coming to a spiritual faith encounter with Christ [Matt. 13:20-21]. Consider the example of Judas [John 6:70-71; Acts 1:17] who plainly participated in the life and ministry of Jesus but was never saved.
A potential objection to my view here is that the writer to the Hebrews used the same word in chapter 2 verse 9 when speaking of Christ tasting death on our behalf. However, it is worth noting that although Jesus did die physically, He did not die spiritually and hence, likewise, it could be that a person might experience the power of God physically and yet, remains spiritually unregenerate.
However, I believe that my view is supported by the fact that the writer to the Hebrews began by saying, “Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God …” [Heb. 6:1].
If you do not understand the basis of your assurance in God, you are in perilous danger. You have to understand that God does not look at our behaviour but rather, He looks at our identity. Both the Apostle Peter and the church in Corinth are evidence of that.
Eph. 2:8-10 >>For grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
1 Pet. 1:5 “… by God’s power [we] are being guarded through faith ….”
Heb. 12:2a “[Let us look] to Jesus, the Founder and Perfecter of our faith.”Paul Anderosn-Walsh
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
I would greatly apreciate if you could post a coment or some toughts about my question in the other topic, wich talks about Hebrews 10:26-29.
Also, the text you wrote is this new topic is very interesting, but I have some questions about it.
Notwithstanding the fact that nowhere in the Scriptures do we find Law and grace mingled, the overwhelming majority of Christians live as though the Covenants have been conjugated instead of recognising that the Law has been abrogated.
In Matew 5:17 Jesus says:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
The word destroy in this verse is: kataluo in greek, wich in the greek lexicon can be better translated as:
Kataluo - to dissolve, disunite (what has been joined together), to destroy, demolish metaph. to overthrow i.e. render vain, deprive of success, bring to naught to subvert, overthrow 1b. of institutions, forms of government, laws, etc., to deprive of force, annul, abrogate, discard of travellers, to halt on a journey, to put up, lodge (the figurative expression originating in the circumstance that, to put up for the night, the straps and packs of the beasts of burden are unbound and taken off; or, more correctly from the fact that the traveller's garments, tied up when he is on the journey, are unloosed at it end)
As it clearly states about law, Jesus did not came to Earth to abrogate the law, so my question:
1) My question: If Jesus did not come to abrogate the Law, who did it? The Father? The Holy Ghost? The church? The Apostles?
• We either stand in His righteousness or in ours but we cannot stand in both.
Question: But what happens if we stand in our righteouness? Even if it after starting in God's righteouness?
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works
Therefore, means (if my english is acurate) that he's concluding an idea previously stated, wich I think comes in the chpater 5:
5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Question: What is repentance from dead works? Wich seems to be "one of the first principles of the oracles of god".
“Alright,” I hear you say, “that was a fancy piece of avoiding-the-question footwork but answer this question – Do these verses not prove that we can lose our salvation?” – If what we do with our life cannot save us, how can what we do with it cause us to lose our salvation?
Question: Pr Paul where in the bible says this? Cause i can't remember any verse that would state something meaning it... (See my question about hebrews 10:26)
However, according to the “once lost, always lost” interpretation of Hebrews, the Apostle Peter would have fallen from grace and thus, by that reckoning, must have lost his salvation.
1) Am I wrong or the grace wasn't still "effective"? cause Jesus hadn't died yet....
Dear Pr Paul, I think these are a few questions that could iniciate a debate.
In the Precious Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thiago
Post edited by: Thiago Souza, at: 2007/01/02 21:18
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
The Grace Project is a christian charity which is supported by its friends & ministry partners if you'd like to contribute why not click & make a donation online.
