Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Now, before we enter the slaughterhouse of the Alexandrian Cult to watch the qualified scholars butcher the Bible, let us line up the factors as they appear in the KJV1611 and see what kind of person we are dealing with. By the way, we will go by the scriptures instead of the 'original autographs'.
1. Whoever is being addressed is in the
same boat as the writer: Let us go in...
2. He is being told to leave something on the grounds that it is milk not meat: Therefore leaving the principles of...
3. He has laid a foundation and is being told not to lay it again: And this will we do if God permit...
4. He may be able to go on and he may NOT be able to go on: And this will we do if God permit.
5. If he does NOT go on, then something becomes an impossibility for him: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened...
6. If he does NOT then he cannot be renewed unto repentance and is rejected: Whose end is to be burned.
The change from US to THOSE and back to YOU is done with no apologies to no one and explanations to no one. So, the Greek scholars and educated pastors and boy preachers begin to explain and 'exegete' these passages by changing every word they can get their hands on just as fast as they can change it!
Here are some popular examples you will find from most pulpits in America today:
1. The standard interpretation placed on the passage by all popes, all Methodists, all Assemblies of God, Churches of God and Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Churches of Christ, Mormons and SEventh Day Adventists is that the man spoken of is genuinely saved and must "endure to the end" or he will "fall from grace" and 'lose it.' Most believe he can get it back although the text says that he can't! I wonder why they don't include that part in their 'teachings'!
2. The Scofield interpretation is that the man addressed is like the spies at Kadesh-barnea (Numbers 13,14) who went up to search out the land and turned back when "on the threshold of salvation." This was done by tying the chapter in with the discussion which went on in Chapters 3,4. The idea is they had the grapes in their hands and then fell away and could not be renewed again unto repentance.
Holes appear all over this one, too. No spy at Kadesh-barnea had been made a partaker of the Holy Ghost, not one spy in the group had been grounded in the principles of the doctrine of Christ, they tasted no heavenly gift whatsoever; if they had eaten the grapes they would have tasted an earthly gift. Nowhere do you read in Numbers that they were burned for not entering the land, not even Moses entered the land; and what is worse, most of them were not nigh unto cursing whatever problems they may have had.
Beyond this, it is incredible to think of lost Hebrews partaking of the Holy Ghost, tasting of the heavenly gift plus the good word of God & the powers of the world to come. The world to come is the Millennium anyway, not the church age. Every attempt to Greekify 'taste' is out of the ball park, for the word was left uncorrected by Jesus Christ in John 8:52 when dealing with a BELIEVER. To reduce 'taste' to an impersonal, objective, outward 'hearing' is nonsense. The believer does not see death (John 8:51) but if 'taste' means what the scholars say it means here, then no Christian who dies in the last 2000 years knew what the word meant. When you TASTE physical death, you drop dead - otherwise Christ would have corrected the 'misquote' (John 8:52).
3. The Dr. M.R. DeHaan interpretation: Grasping at verse 8, he decided that it was only 'things' that were going to be burned (that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected) and ran it to I Corinthians 3:12-15 where 'things' are burned. He completely overlooked the last word in the Old Testament where the context was someone whose 'end' was to be burned (Malachi 4:1-4) and he also overlooked II Samuel 23:6,7 where a Hebrew who as King of the Hebrews wrote a Psalm for Hebrews: the sons of Belial shall be all of them as thorns...they shall be utterly burned with fire.
When a man messes with the Book, God messes with his mind. Furthermore, many a Christian has fulfilled the backsliding conditions of Hebrews 6:1-4 and has not 'gone on' and yet later HAS repented and gotten right. The people of Hebrews 6:4-6 cannot get right again! DeHann missed it. He was a fine, "good, godly man" and greatly 'used of God,' and we thank God for his ministry. When he got to Hebrews 6:1-6, he would have done well to stick to the milk bottles.
4. The Oliver Greene interpretation: (OG was a precious saint and a great soul-winner for the Lord). He finally gave up on the passage altogether and decided that since no one could put it together, he would rather just get around it (instead of having to face it and upset some Baptists and Presbyterians); so Brother Greene decided it was hypothetical; that is, it couldn't happen but if it DID happen, then such and such, and so forth and so on. "If a Christian COULD lose his salvation, which any Baptist knows that he can NOT - then it would be impossible for him to get saved again."
Now, 100 percent of the Greek Scholars and Bible teachers will park in one of these parking spaces. Rather than give up their cherished denominational 'historic positions', they will make a liar out of God, or at least ignore what God said. That is the characteristic approach of Fundamentalists in the Laodicean age.
5. Nicoll cancels God's will in verse 3 so that God will always permit it no matter what. He says the man in the passage is a Jewish convert to Christianity & he has exercised repentance and faith according to Paul's preaching and the heavenly gift is either forgiveness or the Holy Spirit.
Many scholars cut the gift down to 'enlightenment'. But since that item was mentioned already just before this, the stratagem is rather threadbare. According to some, the man is a genuine born-again believer on Christ. As such, they say he could take a fatal step which was 'a crime' and could wind up cursing Jesus Christ back in the synagogue. Thus, he loses it! The persons described cannot again be brought to a life-changing repentance.
That is the 'scholarship' of the Expositor's Greek Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicoll with the works of James Moffatt, Newport White, W.E. Oesterley, Marcus Dods, James Denney, R.J. Knowling, G.G. Findlay, Alexander Bruce, J.H. A. Hart, J.B. Mayor, David Smith, R.H. Strachan. Between them, they cited more than 2000 references from classical Greek writings, and analyzed more than 4000 Greek words using the opinions of more than 40 Greek lexicographers and referring to a dozen different editions of the Greek New Testament. Greekitis is terminal!!!
They decided a born-again child of God could lose salvation if he was a converted Jew!
That is the logical terminus of poking your nose around in unavailable 'original autographs' that 'are verbally and plenary inspired' while being dead-set on making a liar out of God.
6. Arthur W. Pink says that none of those spoken of in the passage were 'true Christians'. That is, they could partake of the Holy Ghost and still be lost! To arrive at this ridiculous position, Pink alters the word partakers to companions so we get an 'external partaking' instead of an 'internal partaking'. Natural tasting doesn't refer to any tasting found anywhere in the scripture (John 8:52 and Hebrews 2:9) but according to Pink, Christ didn't really die in Hebrews 2:9: He just tasted death. He says, by the same token, the born-again Christians of I Peter 2:2 did not really have Christ; they just had 'tasted Him'.
Observe, (if you still have any respect for the Greek scholars) that the 'original greek' in every passage cited is the same word: geuomai. Why didn't the Greek scholars haul up the Greek this time? Easy - it didn't confirm their system of private interpretations. They will go to the Greek to get rid of the partaker but they will ignore it like the plague when dealing with the 'taster'. Really 'godly', wouldn't you say? (I wouldn't, but would you?) If they shall fall way is, according to Pink, 'scarcely a fair translation.'
Now, since God always messes with the mind of any rascal who messes with the Book, we should not be surprised to find Pink finally caught in a net of his own weaving at this place, and like Dr. Guillotine who was beheaded on his own invention, Pink finally arrives at his miserable end. Pink says, Now it is impossible to renew again unto repentance those who have totally abandoned the Christian revelation.
AGAIN? Why, Arthur W. Pink was a five-point Calvinist who believed that no one but the elect were even capable of repentance. God had to grant repentance even to the elect. What is an unsaved apostate headed for Hell doing trying to repent again? He couldn't have repented the first time according to every book A.W. Pink wrote since he wrote "The Sovereignty of God".
Reliable scholarship? ha!
7. Harry Ironsides, the milkman: "...those involved had only been enlightened in regards to the claims of Jesus. They had tasted without eating. They couldn't have really partaken of the Holy Spirit because the definite article is purposely omitted in the original" The original? I didn't know that Ironsides had the 'original' of Hebrews. I didn't know anyone had one!
Ok, one more look at these irrational, illogical, insensible, fanatical, mixed-up hoodlums who devote their 'godly' lives to kidding Christians into thinking that they are 'soldiers of the faith' taking a 'militant stand' when are nothing but confused children with the egos of Adolph Hitler or Pope John Paul II.
8. Here is Freerkson of Falwell's Liberty Baptist College. He states that, "The author of Hebrews does not believe that his readers can lose salvation." The proof for this is v. 9, while carefully canceling vv. 1,2; 10:26-30; plus 3:6, 14; and 4:1-2). The readers are all LOST, according to Freerkson. He cites Kent to prove his point. The way that you convince yourself that nothing found in verses 4,5 means what it says is by noting that "The verbal forms are participles, and they contain no regular finite verbs."
Wouldn't you be in a mess if you didn't know Greek like Freerkson knows it? Hmmmmmmm?
The structure makes interpretation difficult, he states. The whole passage was written to the reader so that he might know the security which they possess, so as to gain assurance.
What? This is a passage on assurance of salvation? It speaks AGAINST insecurity regarding the believer's salvation. It does? Where? If the things that accompany salvation (vs 9) are not repentance (v.6), the Holy Ghost (v.4), the word of God (v.5), the doctrines of Christ (v.1), and resurrection and judgment (v.1), what are they? Greek verbs and participles?
Freerkson and the faculty at LIberty Baptist College don't know where they are at, what they are doing or what this is all about. They supposedly have been trained to train "Christian Champions for Christ, but they must come to some conclusion here or people will think they are chumps, instead of champs, so Freerkson finally throws the whole passage down the tube and says that it (along with Hebrews 10:27-33) was hypothetical.
But... the writer of Hebrews didn't say 'IF' it were possible for us to sin willfully, nor did he say, 'IF' it were possible for any man to draw back. Not once did he say 'IF' it were possible for them to fall away... Not once did he say 'IF' he could trod under foot the son of God... Not once! Freerksons hypothetical case is hypothetical and not even a good conjecture.
You see, there wasn't one hypothetical statement made in ANY Greek text, let alone the Greek text that Freerkson uses. The optatives and subjunctives are all missing from Hebrews 6. You see, these hypocrites use the Greek to correct the English until it reinforces the English; then they drop it like a scalding hot dish rag. They simply lay down their Greek lexicons and grammars and pretend they said nothing since they refuse to line up with the hallucinations of the scholar who is slipping all over the passage like a greased pig on ice.
Talk about CONCEIT! Talk about MEGALOMANIA! It would take a pope to keep up with these "Champions for Christ" that come from the "World's Most Unusual Brownie Center."
If the writer of Hebrews had wanted to present an hypothetical case, all he would have to do would be to use the Optative Mode on some Greek verbs so it would "If it would or could be possible..." He didn't do it. There is NO Greek text that reads in this fashion. They lie - they lie - they lie! (See Hebrews Commentary pages 123 for the detailed account as to how they played with the Greek for this passage - I don't even want to type it all.) That is how they make their living; they are pathological and chronic liars!
With no Greek authority for saying the case in Hebrews 6 was hypothetical, and with all Greek texts and all Greek manuscripts, confirming an English text, they could not understand it because they had rejected part of the Bible through unbelief. They simply and coyly overlooked all of the Greek that they had learned and pretended that the Greek had no bearing on the passage they had privately interpreted.
Still... they muddle on, making mish-mash out of the living words of the living God. They say, The word tasted often carries a broader meaning so he cites Hebrews 2:9 and pops up with this: These people have partaken of the heavenly gift and of the Holy Spirit. They have fully experienced the Word of God and powers of the coming age.
So - the conclusion? The 'reader' then is a saved unsaved man who never got saved but wasn't lost!
In one last mighty effort to untangle himself from the mass of spaghetti he has entangled himself as a teacher of Champions, Freerkson says, "this participle has the same basic form...which have been translated substantially...our version translates it circumstantially (adverbiallyi)...the fifth participle and the first four...commonly treated as circumstantial with a casual idea, as in our authorized version.
Ah yes! Here we go again. We go out where we came in: Greekitis.
You can't understand your own Bible in your own language, so now you are
going to pose as a savior for all the novices as stupid as you are and
then strut your knowledge of some other language before them so they will
accept your misunderstanding of the passage as sound exegesis.
What do you say, that for variety's sake, we just pretend for a moment that not one man who corrected one syllable of one word anywhere in the Authorized Text had anymore idea of what he was talking about than Jesse Jackson lecturing on the NRA. Let's pretend for a moment that all we have is TRUTH, and the author of the TRUTH to rely on, and by comparing spiritual things with spiritual (I Corinthians 2:13), we will arrive at the TRUTH, because the Guide into all truth (John 16:13) came to represent Him who was THE TRUTH! (John 17:17)
Abandoning every qualified Greek exegete, every qualified Greek authority, all Greek texts, all Greek grammars and grammarians, all Greek lexicons, and all of the commentators without one exception, let us see WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES according to what it SAID!
Here ya go!
Now, the references for those Biblical truths could be found in Hebrews
3,4,6,10, Matthew 24,25, Revelation 2,3,12,13,14,22, James 5, Jude, II
Thessalonians 2. No one has to change ONE word in ONE
verse in ANY chapter listed. No Greek text is necessary for an understanding
of one statement given above. No Fundamentalist scholar needs to
be called in to be consulted about his "qualified opinion" on One word
in ONE passage listed. The scriptures are absolutely self-explanatory and
as clear as a plate glass window with the pane knocked out!
And there on your table, served up by the Holy Spirit (with 'pitchers' and silver) is the strong meat of Hebrews 5:14; beefsteak, pork chops, broiled hamburger, barbecued beef, sirloin steak, fried chicken, roasted lamb, spare ribs, wienerschnitzel, bratwurst and wild turkey with deer meat and quail. James Gray and G. Campbell Morgan missed a good 'feed.'
The Scholar's Union has never been anything but a Milkman's Union faking it out by pretending that their linguistic knowledge made them of full age and able to handle strong meat. They were nothing but spoiled brats: babes, unskillful in the word of RIGHTEOUSNESS. To the Bible believer who believes the Book many of these 'giants of the faith' and 'qualified, accredited, recognized authorities' are nothing but a pitiful JOKE. They are diaper clad infants in a "bawl room" in the church nursery playing with beads and rattles.
This is a section of Hebrews Commentary by Peter S. Ruckman