5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. 6:1 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 toward God, 2 and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. 4 For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. Hebrews 5:12-6:6
I recently contributed to a discussion on verses 4 to 6 above, and thought it would be helpful to share some of my thoughts here for those who are interested.
As you may know, these verses have proven to be a major stumbling block for many believers. They seem to suggest that it is impossible to repent and come back to the Lord after having “fallen away”. This is an obvious problem for those who have “backslidden” at some or other stage of their Christian walk, and who are trying to come back to the Lord.
It is also, and especially, a problem for those who have come back to the Lord after a period of backsliding, and who are haunted by the possibility that the Lord has not accepted them back or fully forgiven them.
Theologians generally try and escape the severity of these verses by going one of two routes:
1. They argue that the term “fall away” implies a total apostasy and denial of the faith, and not just a falling into sin.
2. They argue that the people referred to by the author were not really saved to begin with, and that they rejected the fullness of the revelation or enlightenment intended to bring them to salvation. If you reject the conviction of the Holy Spirit at such a level, then there remains nothing else that will convince you, hence the “impossibility”.
A Third Approach
However, there is a third way to approach these verses, and that is to look at the “big picture” of Hebrews. When we interpret the passage against the backdrop of the entire letter, especially with due consideration to the immediate context of verses 4 to 6 (beginning in 5:12), we find a message that is immensely positive and encouraging, and actually means the exact opposite of the above interpretations.
Let me start by pointing out that the error of both interpretations is the failure to interpret verses 4 to 6 in the light of verse 1. Does it not strike us as odd that the re-repentance that is prohibited in verse 1 is suddenly portrayed as a desirable but unattainable ideal in verse 6? In verse 1 we are told that repentance should not be repeated. In verses 4 to 6 we are told that repentance cannot be repeated. The author seems to be telling his readers that they are trying to do something that cannot be done, and that it cannot be done because it should not be done. Herein is the solution to the dilemma, as we will see in a moment.
“Once” and “Again”
To understand this, we need to understand the way in which the author juxtaposes the words “once” and “again” throughout the letter (e.g. 9:25-10:14). “Again” signifies the imperfection of the Old Covenant sacrifice, and “once” the perfection of Christ’s.
Keep in mind that the recipients of this letter were Hebrews, i.e. Jewish Christians. Also keep in mind that the Jewish nation as a whole rejected Christ due to the fact that they could not make sense of Christ’s Messiahship against the backdrop of their own religious traditions. The very shadows and types of the Old Testament that were intended to prepare the way for the Messiah actually blinded them to the Messiah. Jewishness, if not correctly understood, can prove to be a handicap in one’s grasp of New Covenant truths. It would appear that this was the problem addressed in the letter to the Hebrews.
To view the cross through an Old Covenant “lens” is to underestimate the finality of it. It is to see it as a sacrifice that should ideally be repeated regularly, in line with all the other sacrifices of that dispensation. This view would, quite obviously, manifest as an understanding of repentance as an associated act that also needs to be repeated again and again (repentance being the subjective response to the objective act of sacrifice).
And so the Hebrew Christians were not advancing towards maturity as they were laying again and again a “foundation of repentance from dead works” (verse 1, boldfaced in the text), in line with their understanding of a sacrifice as something that needed to be repeated again and again. This manifested itself as a need to have the “basic principles” taught to them “again” (5:12) which is, according to the Hebrews author, tantamount to feeding on milk, i.e. the first step associated with growth.
The impossibility of “repenting again” (6:4-6) is stated to emphasise the doctrinal absurdity of the idea, as unthinkable and impractical as “crucifying once again the Son of God” (6:6; 9:25-26). It is NOT stated as something that needs to happen but is now prohibited by an angry God who has run out of grace. In the New Covenant the repentance of regeneration happens once, because it is not the effortful turning of a human being, but rather the “perfecting for all time those who are being sanctified” 10:14. (This type of foundational repentance should not be confused with daily and ongoing “repentance”, which is legitimate and necessary, and not referred to in these verses.)
This is confirmed by the words in verse 1 “let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works”. Thus the entire passage speaks against re-repentance, and identifies it as the cause of the Hebrews’ spiritual immaturity. The “impossibility” of verse 4 is intended to reinforce this truth, revealing that the New Covenant was never intended to provide an opportunity for re-repentance (Also see 10:26). In fact, this is not merely undesirable but impossible as we are no longer the ones overseeing the act of sacrifice. This Lamb was provided by God, and he only provided one.
The reason for a single sacrifice, resulting in a single repentance, is simple, and clearly stated in other passages in Hebrews:
Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (10:25-26)
He entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. (9:12)
And the clincher:
Since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins. But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins… And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (10:1-4, 10)
Note that Christ came to not only forgive our sins, but to “put away sin”, to secure an “eternal redemption”, and to sanctify us “once for all”. Also note that the Old Covenant sacrifices could not provide any of this. If they did, two things would have happened:
1. They would have stopped being offered. In other words, the “repetitious” cycle would have ceased.
2. The worshipers would no longer have any “consciousness of sin”.
Clearly the Hebrews never understood this. The absence of both these elements in their (Old Covenantal) understanding of the cross manifested itself in a constant need to re-repent. Indeed, the need for repentance flows from a consciousness of sin. If the sin is not “put away”, the effects of the repentance would be short-lived.
The superiority of Christ’s sacrifice is thus best expressed in a new type of repentance that mirrors the completion and perfection of Christ’s sacrifice. The repentance on earth is what the sacrifice is in heaven. It reflects the perfection thereof, and thus it cannot be repeated.
The point is that these “problematic” verses of chapter 6 are intended to liberate, not condemn. They have nothing to do with the unpardonable sin, and everything with the glorious reality that to fall into sin is not to entirely undo the benefits of the cross, calling for a ritualistic repetition thereof. All that is needed is to get up and carry on, mindful of a secure salvation that has perfected us, even though we stumble and fall regularly.
In Conclusion
Much of my early Christian life was spent around believers who regularly ended up on the carpet between the front pew and the pulpit of the church, crying and begging for forgiveness. Sundays were mostly “repentance day”. We were evangelized. And then we were evangelized again, and again, and again. I think part of it had to do with the revival culture of the denomination, and the romance of tent evangelism, and the sovereignty of the altar call, and the centrality and supremacy of the sinner’s prayer, and so on.
As a kid I was given a little red Gideon’s New Testament containing a neat blue line on the back page where you were supposed to enter your “salvation date”. I changed that date so many times that I eventually lost track.
Strangely, in the midst of all the feverish activity there was a severe lack of spiritual maturity, both in my life and the lives of many others.
I could never understand this strange dichotomy, until I discovered the letter to the Hebrews. And then it became clear. We were like a man who got stuck in a revolving door. We were running, yes, but we were running in circles. We kept on repeating our entrance, and we never got anywhere. The very thing that was intended to make our spirituality “take off”, anchored it to the ground in a devastating way.
And oh boy, were we ever “conscious of sin”!
The letter to the Hebrews blew my mind. It provided a blue print for spiritual growth, and taught me that faith is to grasp the reality and finality of my own salvation. It showed me that humans once were the active agents in the ritual of sacrifice, but that God took over from us with one final, perfect sacrifice. We were now at rest, for God had finished his work. And it was so perfect that even the very thought of trying to repeat it bordered on blasphemy.
In fact, I began studying the book of Hebrews so much that I believe I have found a most likely candidate for authorship, but that is another story for another day…
(Please note that this short explanation merely scratches the surface and obviously does not deal with any of the questions that will/may arise from it. Yet it provides a basis from where one can do your own study. But feel free to ask questions. I’ll gladly respond.)
Justice of God 
So glad to read this liberating post. I have heard another application recently that coincides with your post and hopefully I do it justice here. It went something like when we don’t take ownership for our sins or wrongs and come before the Lord on the basis and dependence of the blood of Jesus. This falls inline with the daily repentance not the initial once and for all repentance. If we try to cover up or excuse or shift blame etc.. for our wrongs then what other sacrifice is there? In other words we have been given complete access to the throne of grace via the precious blood of Jesus. We don’t need to try and cover our own (butts) sins but instead depend fully on His once and for all sacrifice. Your thoughts?
Hi Seth. Thanks for the comment.
I agree that “our access to the throne” is always based on the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The best treatment on this subject (that I am aware of) is Watchman Nee’s first chapter in The Normal Christian Life.
I think the Hebrews author’s point is that the once-for-all sacrifice is intended to facilitate a transition from death to life and that it cannot be “applied” more than once, the assumption being that the “wilful” sins of an unbeliever are not only forgiven but done away with as a result of the once-off sacrifice. In this sense there is “no sacrifice left” to deal with the type of sins that characterise a spiritually dead individual.
However, to be regenerate is not to be perfect, but to still fail and sin, albeit not in the same way as an unbeliever. And so there is a continual application of the blood to cover these sins, as is evident from the rest of Hebrews. We find the same distinction in 1 John. On the one hand we read “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning”, and on the other “But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.” So it seems to be the practice of sin that is at stake here, as opposed to the accidence of sin. The foundation of repentance is intended to deal with the former, the ongoing work of the Advocate with the latter. To view the accidence of sin on the same par as the practice of sin is to have one’s conscience falsely defiled, to underestimate the efficacy of the cross as God’s instrument of execution, and to be tempted to repeat the whole affair to set it right.
As regards your reference to covering-up or shifting blame, both these are human efforts of justification and they indeed obscure the cross. This is why salvation starts with confession – a slipping out of the fig leaves in order to be clothed with the skin of the sacrifice who has died in your stead!
Hi Tobie
I was recently confronted with a Pentecostal teaching on the blasphemy against the Spirit. As it goes with a lot of Pentecostal teachings the gist of it was that one of the people saw ‘the manifestation’ that happened in the church, called it the work of satan and was subsequently ‘revealed’ to have committed the blasphemy against the spirit. Of course if this is true then I am lost. What makes these teachings so difficult to resists is that they are always presented with testimonies of remarkably serendipitous events that makes the whole thing very compelling as a whole. I went back to your videos on True Christianity but found that I was lacking the second video on the unpardonable sin. I have always taken Hebrews 6: 4-6 and Hebrews 10:26 as an explanation of the unpardonable sin. Can you perhaps point me in the right direction? Vriendelike groete. Marinus.
Hi Marinus – great to hear from you! If my memory serves me correctly, then that is the single session from that series that was never recorded due to a misunderstanding with the cameraman. But I do have an audio from a previous True Christianity series. I’ll look for it and get back to you. As far as Hebrews 6:4-6 & 10:26 are concerned, my views are as set out above. The problem with the all-too popular view that God bans people out of his kingdom for all eternity for a single misstep does not square with multitudes of passages dealing with his patience and lovingkindness. It is destined for men once to die, and after that the judgment (Hebrews 9:27), but this view suggests that God judges some before they die.
PS: I started writing an “in a nutshell” closing paragraph after the last sentence above, but it fast became a blog post – so I’ll just convert it into one. And if I can find the TC audio I’ll add it. Give me a day or three, if that’s ok. Regards to Carla and the kids!
Hi Tobie. We went back and watched the true Christianity video again and discussed it in detail afterwards (me and Carla). Huge blessing to us. Your interpretations have always made the most sense – but what got me initially is that the Pentecostal ‘teaching’ was, as it often is, filled with remarkable and serendipitous testimonies of events surrounding the teaching. I have always placed high emphasis on serendipitous experiences – it forms a major part of my own faith system. And since me and Carla are not the ‘cleanest clothes’ in the bin we are vulnerable to testimonies of people who ‘have it made’. Anyway we feel better now :-). Still looking forward to your post though. Groete.
Hi Tobie.
I have made a massive personal breakthrough recently when I stumbled upon the Youtube channel Soteriology 101. The guy (Leighton Flowers) is neither Fully Armenian nor Fully Clavanist – they call their view Provisionist and I am almost ashamed to say that I haven’t heard about it before.
Through this and the guidance of one of the elders in my new “Pentecostal partially prosperity church” I was able to make peace with so much of the past through coming to grips with the amount of sin that God is willing to allow in order to refine us. Learning that (although I was aware of the concept it never hit home) God will literally “speak to us through our Idols” in an effort to guide our hearts closer to his own, instead of just “overwhelming us with the truth” brought a lot of peace with it when I was able to submit to the fact that God has morally justifiable reasons to “deceive us” – this is too difficult for me to unpack here but of course I don’t believe God is outright lying to anybody.
That said :
I became aware of an alternative interpretation of Hebrews 6:4 which I also quite like and if you have time I would like to know what you think.
The interpretation also rejects that the person referenced is either:
1. Not fully a believer (the Calvinist view) or
2. A person who was saved and apostatized (the “full” Armenian view)
At the risk of devaluing your view I will say that I understand your opinion to be that Hebrews 6:4 is an unattainable hypothetical.
The alternative interpretation is that the Falling away – although very strong language – still doesn’t go as far as implying loosing your salvation. That the context is that of verse 1 and 2 – pressing into maturity. So that this would be the same kind of scenario as
1. Galations 5:4 even though they have FALLEN FROM GRACE they are still considered brothers
2. 1 Cor 11 : 29 – 30 the JUDGEMENT that people eat and drink on themselves, causing them to fall sick and die, still cannot be said to imply – losing salvation
So the person who is guilty “not pressing into maturity” is sternly warned that there is a severe penalty attached to a casual approach of and in neglecting their salvation although in the end they will still be saved “through the fire”
While watching this I realized I have never read your words on eternal security. If you have a post on this will you please link it? Can’t remember if this is in the original Big Picture videos
Regards
Marinus
Hi Marinus – thanks for this. I think my view as presented above is mostly – as is the habit of “views” – packaged as a response to what I consider to be a misinterpretation of the Hebrews passage. Thus, I am revolting against the notion of reading an eternally unpardonable sin into the passage, by emphasising that the re-repentance that is unattainable in verses 4-6 is in fact prohibited in verse 1, and that the later verses dare not be interpreted without the hermeneutical key of the first verse, and, of course, the preceding verses in chapter 5. Thus, Hebrews in its whole has to do with the efficacy of Christ’s death – to such an extent that a constant type of new-years- resolution-repentance, in order to deal with sin, is rendered obsolete and silly. This does not mean that there are not those who “fall alongside” and decide, for whatever reason, not to get up and embrace the glory of the New Covenant benefit of a secure salvation. Their fate is a different discussion, and not addressed in the post above. And, of course, they are not some mystical non-compliant-to-Hebrews 4-blessings category of Christian humanity, but simply each and every believer who was truly regenerate and died during a season of sin or what we would generally refer to as a “backslidden state.” (I fully concur with your “1” and “2” above, and your last paragraph. That is how I see the implicit warning attached to rejecting the good news of the Hebrews verses. Again, that would be a different post. “What if…?”) Which, of course, raises the issue of eternal security 🙂 I haven’t blogged about it, but I have always suspected that the key is to be found in that little adjective that describes the quality of the type of life that becomes ours at the moment of salvation, namely “eternal”. And I have no problem with the notion of fake salvations that can simulate real fruit for even extended periods, although I do not believe that God would allow this lot to befall anyone who approaches him with sincerity. (I needed to say that because a Calvinistic remnant somewhere deep within sent a shudder down my spine at the writing of those words, softly whispering “Perhaps you are one of them…?”)
Any chance of ever writing that post “what if?”. I am really making progress and I would live to read it?
Any chance of ever writing that post “what if?”. I am really making progress and I would live to read it?
Hi Marinus. I think I’ll get carried away. There is a lot on my mind regarding this issue. I think, quite frankly, that the biggest hindrance to thinking clearly about this issue is our current-day concept of the nature of God’s judgment and the eternal consequences thereof. I think there is much more involved here than what we have been led to believe. Greater blows, fewer blows; more tolerable day of judgment; greater judgment; etc. If there is a relativity aspect to it all, it changes much. Problem is that we have been duped into thinking that any talk along this line amounts to rank heresy. And so we have elevated a Greek pagan view of the afterlife to the status of absolute and unquestionable orthodoxy. (I wonder where the real heresy is) But let me not get started… I will certainly think about a post.
Btw – I don’t even want to comment on your second paragraphs, simply because it hits to close to home. I believe what you say there, and I have come to believe it more than ever during the lockdown. Some of us are better artists – we carve out more sophisticated idols than others – and we use them to mock those with clumsy fingers and inappropriate tools. Yet we will never confess how much we need their presence so as to enable us to hide behind them. No wonder Jesus welcomed drunken tax-collectors and prostitutes and pig-sty dwellers whilst calling morally upright religious have-it-togethers the offspring of Satan. Some men’s sin run ahead of them, as Paul said. Others’ follow later. Maybe you are more blessed than you realise, for God has graciously allowed the intentions of your heart to bubble to the surface for you to see, enabling you to mourn about it before him. There are others who have deep and dark cavities within, unbeknown to them and the rest of the world, where those intentions will fester and grow, blocking them from ever experiencing real contrition.
Hi Tobie! Great post. I sent an email to b*********@mweb.co.za with some questions, if you don’t mind.
You are most welcome. I will respond to you via email.
I just discovered this while reading Hebrews and it really has significant meaning and changes the whole Hebrews reading. If the Hebrews were practicing re-salvation due to guilt from sin, they would have read this letter and 6:4-6 and understood perfectly, unlike us for 2000 years.
2.1 says they drift and 5:12 says they have an elementary principle wrong. This does not indicate the words used for a Jew turning away from Christ to Judaism.
But a basic principle many young Christians drift into is thinking they need to be re-saved due to guilt.
This is amazing, watch this…
Chapter 3 Examine yourself to see if you are in the faith by checking yourselves to see if any of you have an evil unbelieving heart that lead you to turn away from God. He is about to offer rest and he must not offer rest to an unbeliever
Chapter 4, Enter Gods rest where you can rest from your work where God is resting from His work. There you have access to the throne of grace and mercy.
Chapter 5 He starts to tell them about Jesus is a source for eternal salvation but cannot continue because they have an elementary principle wrong – they will not understand if he does not correct.
Chapter 6. Stop relaying the foundation of repentance, because it is impossible to “again renew” or renew to original state repentance, since this would require you to sacrifice Jesus again and cast shame on His original work – this is why He wrote the letter. Don’t treat Jesus like the old covenant. (again renew in Greek is a very very odd pair and must be specifically chosen)
Chapter 7 Jesus is the perfect forever High Priest, He saves to the uttermost, once for all sacrifice
Heb 8 Perfect new covenant, law on hearts, I will remember their sins no more
Heb 9 Christ purifies our conscience from guilt (dead works -> see 6:1) -> to serve him (see also the race), no need to sacrifice Christ over and over, 2X once for all sacrifice
Heb 10 Once for all sacrifice that cleanses for all time, where there is forgiveness no more need for offering for sin – the next part gets deep and I have not fully prayed over it… He seems to say in first part of 10 there is infinite grace, the second part (26 to the end) he seems to say there is infinite grace but there is consequence for its over use, either by fleshly death per Moses law or significant believers judgement loss. (1 Corinthian 3:10-15 here and in Hebrews 6:7-8)
11 The cloud of wittiness
12 The race you can run with endurance now that you are not burdened with the guilt of sin weighing you down – but make sure you are a believer unlike Esu. This offer is not to an unbeliever.
I am not going spell check or grammar… I just wanted to bang this out and share.
Thank you for the comment. I love the way you’ve unraveled Hebrews. This is indeed the way one should look at it:. A single golden thread celebrating the perfect and finished work of Christ. Once I understood those verses at the beginning of Chapter 6 the whole book unfolded in an amazing way.
Why is this not taught at a scholarly level. The Greek is there. You would nullify a lot of past work by disproving these are not Jews going back to Judaism. Plus you have to say “you were wrong”. Even the NAS has washings in verse 6:2 shows a biased reading.
At least scholars conflict over the Greek word for “fallen away” as this word choice is unfortunate.
Basic interpretation says let context interpret. 6:1 repentance interprets 6:6 as foundational repentance and 6:6 interprets 6:1 as Christian versus Jewish repentance. My research on the Greek in 6:1 shows Palin (the word “again” is very significant between both versus; in relation to its back to start or previous state meaning. Palin with the Greek word for renew is off the charts odd and should have been seen for what it is. Renewing back to original state repentance or a “redo”. You can renew a table, but that is different than when you renew a table -> again.
But you do have to take the next step as you could say this proves once lost always lost. But, the reason you don’t lay a second foundation for repentance (start of salvation) again is this would shame Christ’s original work. The whole book of Hebrews support this…
I am thankful to find someone else because I thought I was just being crazy… Is there anyone else who teaches this?
I have come across only two interpretations that are similar to the above (There may be more, of course): The Chinese Christian Watchman Nee, in his book Gospel Dialogue, and Roy Hession, in his book From Shadow to Substance. I have sent copies of those sections to a reader who asked the same question as you, and will be happy to send them to you as well, if you are interested.
Here is an excerpt from the mail that accompanied those copies. You may find it interesting:
The Greek used in Hebrews 6 for falling away appears nowhere else in the New Testament. It is parapiptó which means to fall (pipto) beside (para). Thus, a falling in relation to something or someone else. One could safely assume that this refers to falling alongside the path of salvation or, if you wish, alongside Christ. Note that the author could have used a different word to convey the state of the one who had fallen, e.g., exepesate (from ekpipto, i.e., falling off or falling out) which is used in Galatians 5:4, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” The clear intention here is severance, not falling alonside. Why not use this conjunction in Hebrews 6 if the author is referring to an eternal severance from Christ?
Similarly, the word apostasia is used in Acts 21:21 to refer to the gentiles forsaking the law of Moses, and in 1 Thessalonians 2:3 to refer to the falling away or apostasy of the last days. The word refers to a leaving or departure (apo – away) from a previous standing (histemi – stand). As above, the Hebrews author coud have used this term.
It appears that the Greek refers to falling whilst progressing, not to forsaking, desertion or severance. Verse 1’s prohibition to re-repentance seems to confirm this (starting again as opposed to getting up), and is clearly intended as a positive instruction to encourage progress, growth and maturity. It is highly unlikely that verse 4 would repeat the prohibition of verse 1 but with a completely different meaning and application.
PS: If this conversation intrigues you, then you may be interested in another one along the same lines, having to do with the fulfilment of the law, which is essentially what is at stake here. If so, you are welcome to send me a mail at bigpicture@mweb.co.za
You want to be blown away.
ESV renders 3:14: “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.”
Greeks would not have read “confidence” for the Greek word Hypotheses. They would have read and “heard” foundation or foundational. An everyday Greek reader or even a scholar would “hear” first and interpret meaning second, just like us. This word could mean either a concrete foundation or a much deeper abstract foundational meaning, the very basis or substance – possibly a “confidence or assurance” to stand on a foundation.
3:14 “For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original foundation firm to the end.”
Now why add the “original” or “beginning” to this foundation?
The writer starts Hebrews 1:3 …And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature. Nature is Hypotheses… substance… but a Greek reader would have heard “Foundation”. Jesus’ foundation is as strong as God’s.
Hypostaseōs is not the same Greek word for foundation in 6:1, themelios – translated as foundation. This word has a concrete foundation or an abstract meaning as well. The abstract for this word is less deep and broad in meaning than Hypostaseōs. The Greeks could instantly see the difference, but both have instant building foundation images.
What little research I have says the “average” Greek reader would have herd “stumble” for the word parapiptó. I would like to study the history of how this became fall away. Apistimi is used in 3:12 for fall away and means to turn away or revolt (the action of an evil unbelieving heart). My first thought is no one knew what to do with this verse with such harsh words and forbidding repentance over a stumble. But a Hebrew who was practicing a re-salvation or restarting salvation from the beginning would have read this though a “clear” intended lens.
Hebrews becomes an anti-establishment big machine church book when interpreted as assurance.
Lastly, did those writers put together that guilt is what keeps us from endurance, keeps us from serving a living God, the sin that so easily entangles?
This my blog as I study though this amazing book:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2265096707265781/?sorting_setting=CHRONOLOGICAL
That is indeed mind-blowing. Thanks. I find that just about every verse in Hebrews takes on a new meaning once we understand what the author had in mind.