John Calvin Commentary Hebrews 6

Therefore, leaving, etc. To his reproof he joins this exhortation—that leaving first principles they should proceed forward to the goal. For by the word of beginning he understands the first rudiments, taught to the ignorant when they were received into the Church. Now, he instructs them to leave these rudiments, not that the faithful are ever to forget them, but that they should not remain in them; and this idea becomes clearer from what follows—the comparison of a foundation; for in building a house we must never leave the foundation, and yet to be always engaged in laying it would be ridiculous.

For as the foundation is laid for the sake of what is built on it, he who is occupied in laying it and does not proceed to the superstructure wearies himself with foolish and useless labor. In short, just as the builder must begin with the foundation, so he must also continue with his work so that the house may be built. The case is similar with Christianity; we have the first principles as the foundation, but the higher doctrine ought to immediately follow, which is to complete the building. Those who remain in the first elements then act most unreasonably, for they set no goal for themselves, as though a builder spent all his labor on the foundation and neglected to build up the house. So then, he would have our faith be founded at first in such a way that it afterwards rises upward, until by daily progress it is at length completed.

Of repentance from dead works, etc. Here he refers to a commonly used catechism. It is therefore a probable conjecture that this Epistle was written, not immediately after the promulgation of the Gospel, but when they had some kind of polity established in the Churches; such as the catechumen making a confession of his faith before he was admitted to baptism. And there were certain primary points on which the pastor questioned the catechumen, as it appears from the various testimonies of the Fathers; an examination was conducted especially on the creed called the Apostles’ Creed. This was the first entrance, so to speak, into the church for those who were adults and enlisted under Christ, as they were previously alienated from faith in him. The Apostle mentions this custom because a short time was fixed for catechumens, during which they were taught the doctrine of religion, just as a master instructs his children in the alphabet, so that he may afterwards advance them to higher things.

But let us examine what he says. He mentions repentance and faith, which include the fullness of the Gospel; for what else does Christ command his Apostles to preach, but repentance and faith? When, therefore, Paul wished to show that he had faithfully performed his duty, he affirmed his care and diligence in teaching these two things.

It seems then (it might be said) unreasonable that the Apostle should instruct that repentance and faith be omitted, when we ought to make progress in both throughout the whole course of our life. But when he adds, from dead works, he intimates that he speaks of initial repentance; for though every sin is a dead work—either as it leads to death or as it proceeds from the spiritual death of the soul—yet the faithful, already born again of the Spirit of God, cannot properly be said to repent from dead works. Regeneration is not indeed made perfect in them; but because of the seed of new life which is in them, however small it may be, this at least may be said of them: that they cannot be considered dead before God. The Apostle then does not include, in general, the whole of repentance (the practice of which ought to continue to the end), but he refers only to the beginning of repentance, when those who were recently and for the first time consecrated to the faith commenced a new life. So also the word faith refers to that brief summary of godly doctrine commonly called the Articles of Faith.

To these are added, the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. These are some of the highest mysteries of celestial wisdom—indeed, the very goal of all religion—which we ought to bear in mind throughout the whole course of our life. But as the very same truth is taught in one way to the ignorant and in another way to those who have made some proficiency, the Apostle seems here to refer to the common mode of questioning: “Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead? Do you believe in eternal life?” These things were suitable for beginners, and that only once; therefore, to turn back to them again was nothing less than to go backward.

Of the doctrine of baptisms, etc. Some read them separately as “of baptisms and of doctrine”; but I prefer to connect them, though I explain them differently from others. For I regard the words as being in apposition, as grammarians say, in this form: Not laying again the foundation of repentance, of faith in God, of the resurrection of the dead, which is the doctrine of baptisms and of the laying on of hands. Therefore, if these two clauses, “the doctrine of baptisms” and “the laying on of hands,” are included in parentheses, the passage would read more smoothly. For unless you read them as in apposition, there would be an absurd repetition. For what is the doctrine of baptism but what is mentioned here: faith in God, repentance, judgment, and the like?

Chrysostom thinks that the author of Hebrews uses “baptisms” in the plural because those who returned to first principles, to some extent, nullified their first baptism. But I cannot agree with him, for the doctrine had no reference to many baptisms; rather, “baptisms” refers to the solemn rites or the designated days for baptizing.

With baptism, the author of Hebrews connects the laying on of hands; for just as there were two kinds of catechumens, so there were two rites. There were heathens who did not come to baptism until they made a profession of their faith. Then, for these, catechizing usually preceded baptism. But the children of the faithful—since they were adopted from the womb and belonged to the body of the Church by right of the promise—were baptized in infancy. After infancy, having been instructed in the faith, they presented themselves as catechumens, a step which, for them, took place after baptism. Then another symbol was added: the laying on of hands.

This one passage strongly attests that this rite originated with the Apostles, which, however, was later turned into superstition, as the world almost always falls into corruption, even concerning the best institutions. They have indeed contrived the fiction that it is a sacrament by which the Spirit of regeneration is conferred—a dogma by which they have mutilated baptism, transferring to the imposition of hands what was unique to baptism itself.

Let us then understand that it was instituted by its original founders to be an appointed rite for prayer, as Augustine calls it. While they indeed intended this symbol to confirm the profession of faith that young people made after childhood, they had no intention at all of destroying the efficacy of baptism.

Therefore, the pure institution ought to be retained today, but the superstition should be removed. And this passage tends to confirm infant baptism (pedobaptism). For why should the same doctrine be called baptism for some, but the imposition of hands for others, unless it is because the latter, after receiving baptism, were taught in the faith, so that nothing remained for them but the laying on of hands?

This will we do, etc. A dreadful denunciation follows. But the Apostle delivered this strong warning so that the Jews would not indulge their own complacency and treat God's favor lightly.

It was as if he were saying: “In this case, there ought to be no delay, for the opportunity to make progress will not always be available. It is not in human power to leap all at once, whenever one pleases, from the starting point to the goal; but progress in our course is the special gift of God.”

For it is impossible, etc. This passage has caused many to reject this Epistle, especially since the Novatians armed themselves with it to deny pardon to the fallen. Therefore, those in the Western Church, in particular, refused the authority of this Epistle, because the sect of Novatus troubled them; and they were not sufficiently familiar with the truth to be able to refute it by argument.

But when the Apostle's purpose is understood, it then becomes evident that there is nothing here that supports such a delirious error. Some who hold the authority of the Epistle sacred, while they attempt to dispel this absurdity, yet do nothing but evade it. For some interpret "impossible" to mean rare or difficult, which is entirely different from its meaning.

Many limit it to that repentance by which catechumens in the ancient Church were accustomed to be prepared for baptism, as if, indeed, the Apostles prescribed fasting or similar things to the baptized. And then what significant thing would the Apostle have said by denying that repentance, an accompaniment of baptism, could be repeated?

He threatens with God's severest vengeance all those who would cast away the grace that had been once received. What weight would the sentence have had to shake the secure and the wavering with terror if he only reminded them that there was no longer room for their first repentance? For this would apply to every kind of offense. What then is to be said? Since the Lord gives the hope of mercy to all without exception, it is entirely unreasonable that anyone, for any reason whatsoever, should be excluded.

The crux of the question is in the word fall away. Whoever then understands its meaning can easily extricate himself from every difficulty. But it must be noted that there is a twofold falling away: one particular, and the other general. He who has offended in anything, or in any way, has fallen away from his state as a Christian; therefore all sins are instances of falling away. But the Apostle is not speaking here of theft, or perjury, or murder, or drunkenness, or adultery; rather, he refers to a total defection or falling away from the Gospel, when a sinner does not offend God in some one thing, but entirely renounces His grace.

And so that this may be better understood, let us consider a contrast between the gifts of God, which he has mentioned, and this falling away. For he falls away who forsakes the word of God, who extinguishes its light, who deprives himself of the taste of the heavenly gift, who relinquishes participation in the Spirit. Now this is entirely to renounce God.

We now see whom he excluded from the hope of pardon: namely, the apostates who alienated themselves from the Gospel of Christ, which they had previously embraced, and from the grace of God. This happens to no one except to him who sins against the Holy Spirit. For he who violates the second table of the Law, or transgresses the first through ignorance, is not guilty of this defection. Nor does God indeed deprive anyone of His grace so completely as to leave them with nothing remaining, except for the reprobate.

If anyone asks why the Apostle mentions such apostasy here while addressing believers, who were far from such heinous treachery, to this I answer that he pointed out the danger in time, so that they might be on their guard.

And this ought to be noted, for when we turn aside from the right way, we not only excuse our vices to others, but we also deceive ourselves. Satan stealthily creeps up on us and gradually allures us by hidden arts, so that when we go astray, we do not know that we are going astray. Thus gradually we slide, until at length we rush headlong into ruin. We may observe this daily in many people.

Therefore, the Apostle does not without reason forewarn all Christ's disciples to beware in time, for continued sluggishness commonly ends in lethargy, which is followed by alienation of mind.

But we must note in passing the names by which he describes the knowledge of the Gospel. He calls it illumination; it therefore follows that people are blind until Christ, the light of the world, enlightens them. He calls it a tasting of the heavenly gift; intimating that the things Christ confers on us are above nature and the world, and that they are nevertheless tasted by faith.

He calls it the participation of the Spirit; for it is He who distributes to everyone, as He wills, all the light and knowledge that one can have. For without Him no one can say, Jesus is the Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3); He opens for us the eyes of our minds and reveals to us the secret things of God.

He calls it a tasting of the good word of God; by which he means that God's will is revealed in it, not in just any way, but in such a way as to sweetly delight us. In short, this title points out the difference between the Law and the Gospel, for the Law has nothing but severity and condemnation, but the Gospel is a sweet testimony of God’s love and fatherly kindness towards us.

And lastly, he calls it a tasting of the powers of the world to come; by which he intimates that by faith we are, as it were, admitted into the kingdom of heaven, so that in spirit we see that blessed immortality which is hidden from our senses.

Let us then know that the Gospel cannot be rightly known otherwise than by the illumination of the Spirit, and that, being thus drawn away from the world, we are raised up to heaven, and that knowing the goodness of God, we rely on His word.

But here a new question arises: how can it be that he who has once made such progress should afterwards fall away? For God, it may be said, effectually calls none but the elect, and Paul testifies that those are truly His sons who are led by His Spirit (Romans 8:14); and he teaches us that it is a sure pledge of adoption when Christ makes us partakers of His Spirit.

The elect are also beyond the danger of finally falling away; for the Father who gave them to Christ His Son to be preserved is greater than all, and Christ promises to watch over them all so that none may perish.

To all this I answer that God indeed favors only the elect with the Spirit of regeneration, and by this they are distinguished from the reprobate; for they are renewed after His image and receive the earnest of the Spirit in hope of the future inheritance, and by the same Spirit the Gospel is sealed in their hearts.

But I cannot admit that all this is any reason why He should not also grant the reprobate some taste of His grace, why He should not irradiate their minds with some sparks of His light, why He should not give them some perception of His goodness, and in some way engrave His word on their hearts. Otherwise, where would be the temporary faith mentioned in Mark 4:17? Therefore, there is some knowledge even in the reprobate, which afterwards vanishes, either because it did not strike sufficiently deep roots, or because it withers, being choked.

And by this bridle the Lord keeps us in fear and humility; and we certainly see how prone human nature is otherwise to false security and foolish confidence. At the same time, our concern ought to be such that it does not disturb the peace of conscience. For the Lord strengthens faith in us while He subdues our flesh; and thus He would have faith remain and rest tranquilly as in a safe haven, but He exercises the flesh with various conflicts, so that it may not grow unrestrained through idleness.

To renew them again into repentance, etc. Though this seems hard, yet there is no reason to charge God with cruelty when anyone suffers only the punishment of his own apostasy. Nor is this inconsistent with other parts of Scripture, where God’s mercy is offered to sinners as soon as they sigh for it (Ezekiel 18:27), for repentance is required.

However, someone who has once completely fallen away from the Gospel never truly feels this repentance. For such individuals are deprived, as they deserve, of God’s Spirit and given up to a reprobate mind, so that, as slaves of the devil, they rush headlong into destruction.

Thus it happens that they continually add sin to sin until, being completely hardened, they despise God or, like people in despair, madly express their hatred toward Him. The end of all apostates is that they are either struck with stupor and fear nothing, or they curse God their judge because they cannot escape from Him.

In short, the Apostle warns us that repentance is not at the will of man, but is given by God only to those who have not completely fallen away from the faith. It is a very necessary warning for us, lest by often delaying until tomorrow, we alienate ourselves more and more from God.

The ungodly indeed deceive themselves with such sayings as this: that it will be sufficient for them to repent of their wicked life at their last breath. But when they come to die, the dire torments of conscience that they suffer prove to them that human conversion is not an ordinary work.

Since, then, the Lord promises pardon only to those who repent of their iniquity, it is no wonder that those perish who, either through despair or contempt, rush on in their obstinacy into destruction. But when anyone rises up again after falling, we may therefore conclude that he had not been guilty of apostasy, however grievously he may have sinned.

Crucifying again, etc. He also adds this to defend God’s severity against the slanders of men, for it would be completely unbecoming that God, by pardoning apostates, should expose His own Son to contempt.

They are then completely unworthy to obtain mercy.

But the reason he says that Christ would thus be crucified again is because we die with Him for the very purpose of afterwards living a new life. Therefore, when any return, so to speak, to death, they need another sacrifice, as we will find in the tenth chapter.

Crucifying for themselves means as far as it depends on them. For this would be the case, and Christ would be slandered, so to speak, triumphantly, if people were allowed to return to Him after having fallen away and forsaken Him.