Charles Ellicott Commentary Hebrews 6

Therefore.—Since, for the time you ought to be teachers, you have so perilously sunk down into a lower state of Christian knowledge and experience.

The principles of the doctrine.—Rather, the doctrine of the first principles. The margin gives the literal meaning of the Greek, the word of the beginning. (Compare to Hebrews 5:12, the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God.)

Let us go on.—Better, let us press onwards to perfection. There is an urgency in the words that is missed by the ordinary rendering. The word “perfection” (teleiotes) corresponds to what is rendered “full grown” (teleios) in the preceding verse, and expresses maturity, fullness of growth.

There the contrast is with “babes,” and the whole context relates to Christian instruction—the elementary and the complete. The closeness of the connection would seem to show that the same meaning must be intended here also: “Let us—I, as your teacher, leading you on with me—press on to maturity of Christian knowledge.”

But if what precedes makes this reference clear, the following verses show no less clearly that teaching and learning are not alone in the writer’s thoughts. The relation between Hebrews 6:3-4 proves that, as is natural, he assumes a necessary union between learning and practice; indeed, the connection between immaturity of apprehension of Christian truth and the danger of apostasy is a thought present throughout the Epistle.

Hence, though the direct meaning of “leaving the doctrine of the beginning” is ceasing to speak of elementary truths, there is included the further thought of passing away from that region of spiritual life to which those must belong who choose the “milk” of the Christian word as their sole sustenance.

Not laying again the foundation.—Better, a foundation. There can be no doubt that the particulars that follow are intended to illustrate the nature of the elementary teaching that will not be taken up in this Epistle. It will be observed:

1. that there is no disparagement of these subjects of teaching. They belong to the foundation; but neither teachers nor learners must occupy themselves with laying a foundation again and again.
2. That the subjects here specified are not in themselves distinctively Christian. One and all they belonged to the ancient faith, though each one became more or less completely transformed when Jesus was received as the Messiah.

Hence these were literally first principles to the Hebrew Christian—among the truths first taught and most readily received. We have many indications, both within and without the pages of the New Testament, that the tendency of Jewish converts was to rest satisfied with this class of truths.

Repentance from dead works.—Of “dead works” we read again in Hebrews 9:14, shall purge our conscience from dead works to serve the living God (see Note). The meaning cannot be “works that bring death,” as some have supposed; rather, works in which there is no principle of life, performed by those who are alienated from the life of God (Ephesians 4:18), in whom there is not the spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

The law, indeed, promised that the man who should do its statutes and judgments should find life in them (Leviticus 18:5, quoted in Galatians 3:12); but even these works are “dead,” for no one can show more than partial obedience, and the law exacts the whole.

The first step toward Christianity involved the acknowledgment of this truth, and the separation by repentance from all “dead works.” On the importance assigned to repentance in the Jewish creed, little need be said. The teaching of the prophets (Ezekiel 18:0, et al.) is faithfully reflected in the sayings preserved in the Talmud: “The perfection of wisdom is repentance;” “Repentance obtains a respite until the Day of Atonement completes the atonement;” “Without repentance the world could not stand.”

Faith toward God.—Rather, faith upon God. (Romans 4:5.) The Hebrew doctrine of faith connected itself closely with a cardinal passage of prophecy (Habakkuk 2:4, the just shall live by his faith); and there is a Jewish saying that on this one precept rest “all the six hundred and thirteen commandments of the Law.” (See the Note on Hebrews 10:38, and the Excursus on Romans 1:17, Vol. II., p. 274.)

This faith became new and living when the Jew believed in God through Jesus the Christ (John 14:1; 1 Peter 1:21). It is hardly necessary to say that it is of repentance and faith as a foundation, not as belonging to later Christian experience, that the writer speaks.

Of the doctrine of baptisms.—The meaning of these words has been much disputed. The order of the Greek has been thought to require the rendering baptisms of doctrine (or, teaching); and it has been believed that the writer in this manner seeks to characterise Christian baptism as contrasted with the Jewish ritual washings. Matthew 28:19, baptising them . . . teaching them, is often quoted in favour of this view. The whole question of baptism among the Jews of the Apostolic age is full of difficulty, since the first references to the rite in connection with proselytes belong to a much later date. But, setting this aside, we must surely regard it as most unlikely that the baptism specifically Christian would be marked as baptism of teaching.

Teaching would rather be the point of resemblance than the point of contrast between the Jewish and the Christian rite. We must, therefore, adhere to the ordinary view. The word doctrine, or teaching, seems to be introduced in order to avoid the ambiguity that would lie in the words, “a foundation of repentance, faith, baptism,” etc.; not a doctrine, but the repetition of a rite might seem to be intended. But what are we to understand by teaching regarding baptisms? Both the word itself and the use of the plural are remarkable. The word (which is not the ordinary term baptisma, but baptismus) occurs in Hebrews 9:10, Mark 7:4, in the plural, and in Colossians 2:12 in the singular; in the last of these passages it denotes Christian baptism, but in the others the ceremonial washings of the Jews.

We must not forget the importance that rightfully belonged to these washings in the Levitical law, as one of the appointed modes of removing the uncleanness that excluded from every sacred place. The baptism of John attached itself to passages in the Scriptures in which this symbol was taken up by the prophets with profound spiritual application (Ezekiel 36:0, and others). Both John’s baptism and that of Christ, therefore, would, from the Hebrew point of view, be “washings”; and the teaching that every new convert must receive would include instruction on the symbolical purifications of the Old Covenant and the New. (See the very interesting Notes in Vol. II. on Acts 18:24–25; Acts 19:4.)

And of laying on of hands.—This ceremony is repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament, and also in the New. Besides the sacrificial use of the symbol, we find imposition of hands connected with blessing (Genesis 48:14; Matthew 19:13, and others); with works of healing (2 Kings 5:11; Mark 8:23; Mark 16:18, and others); with ordination (Numbers 27:18; Deuteronomy 34:9; 1 Timothy 4:14, and others); and with the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6).

In every case the figure denotes either a transfer, or the communication of a gift from (or, through the medium of) the person who lays his hands on another. Neither transfer of guilt, nor blessing, nor miracle can be relevant here; nor is it conceivable that ordination could be referred to in such a context. As the passages quoted from the Acts of the Apostles agree with this in closely connecting the rite with baptism, we can have little doubt that the meaning in all is substantially the same. The believers in Samaria had been baptised by Philip; when Peter and John came, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. In the second case, which in other respects is similar (whether Paul himself baptised, or not, we are not informed), there is reference to the special gifts of the Holy Ghost which were bestowed: they spake with tongues and prophesied.

There seems no reason for believing that there was a designed connection between the imposition of hands and the bestowal of miraculous powers; such imposition was rather the recognised symbol of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, in whatever manner the Spirit might be pleased to work in those who received His influence. The early Church naturally retained the rite, making it the complement or adjunct of baptism; while the one symbolised the putting away of sin, the other was the emblem of the reception of new spiritual life. Historical testimonies extend as far back as Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Then the hand is laid on, calling for and inviting the Holy Spirit.” To trace the relation between this imposition of hands and the later practice of confirmation would lead us beyond our limits.

The two points that remain do not require an extended notice. We know (Acts 23:8) that, though the Sadducees denied that there was any resurrection of the dead (and the Alexandrian philosophy seems to have held only the immortality of the soul), yet by the most influential among Jewish teachers this doctrine was held and enforced, as indeed it was plainly taught in their Scriptures (Daniel 12:2). On the nature and extent of the resurrection—whether it would be universal, and whether it would precede or follow the Messianic age—varying opinions prevailed. Nor were the Pharisees less clear in their teaching of a future “judgment,” the reward of which should be “eternal” bliss for the godly, punishment for the sinners in Israel and for Israel’s enemies.

These doctrines, then, would place no obstacles in the way of a convert to the Christian faith. Instead of vagueness and discordant opinion he now received a clear statement of truth: the Messiah, Jesus, in whom he has placed his trust, will judge the world; and of this God has given a pledge in that He hath raised Him from the dead (Acts 17:31). It is noteworthy that, of the four particulars that are mentioned after repentance and faith, two relate to the commencement and two to “the last things” of the Christian life.

And this will we do, if God permit.—There may be some with whom it will be impossible for him thus to press on to maturity of teaching and of Christian experience. There is a case excepted by God Himself from all efforts of the Christian teacher; in this case, though nothing can avail except the laying of a new foundation of repentance, God has appointed no means by which such a foundation can be laid.

For it is impossible for those . . .—The connection of thought has already been explained (Hebrews 6:3); the general meaning will be examined below (Hebrews 6:6). It will be seen that the greater part of this long sentence is dependent on the word renew in Hebrews 6:6, “It is impossible to renew again to repentance those who were once,” etc.

Those who were once enlightened.—This metaphor is introduced again in Hebrews 10:32; neither there nor here does the context contain any notice or expansion of the figure. In that passage, however, it is applied generally to all who are addressed, and includes everything that was involved in the reception of the Christian faith. This inclusive application of the term (familiar from prophecy, from our Lord’s own words, from Apostolic usage; Ephesians 1:18; 1 Peter 2:9) throws light on the construction of the verse before us. As the words stand in the Authorized Version, enlightened is but the first term of a series; but it is far more probable that the clauses which follow should be regarded as explanatory of the enlightenment itself: . . . those who were once enlightened, having both tasted . . . and been made partakers . . . and tasted . . ..

Tasted of the heavenly gift.—On the first word, see the Note on Hebrews 2:9. From the clear parallelism which exists between these verses and Hebrews 2:3-5 we may infer that the salvation offered in the gospel (Hebrews 2:3) is intended by this gift. It is a gift which belongs to heaven , bestowed by Him from whom has come the heavenly calling (Hebrews 3:1; Hebrews 2:10). The following words at once recall Hebrews 2:4, gifts (distributions) of the Holy Ghost.

Tasted the good word of God.—There is a change of construction in the Greek suggesting that the words more accurately mean, tasted that God’s word is goody—tasted the excellence of God’s word, and of the powers, and so on. God’s word was spoken through the Lord (Hebrews 2:3); the Hebrew Christians had heard and received this word, and had proved its excellence for themselves. (Compare to 1 Peter 2:3).

Powers of the world to come.—Literally, powers of a coming (or, future) age. As was previously remarked, the last word is different from that found in Hebrews 2:5, the one relating to time, the other to the world as inhabited by man. Perhaps we may say that this is the only difference; the same future is contemplated in both places, namely, the age of the Messianic reign. We have seen that in the earliest days of the Church, little importance was given to the period separating the pre-Christian age from the full manifestation of the kingdom of God. Consequently, the “powers” received from God by those who believed (Hebrews 2:4) belonged to no earthly state. They were, in fact, as truly anticipations of a future age of glory as the “heavenly gift” was an anticipation of the “heavenly fatherland” (Hebrews 11:16).