Hebrews 6:4-6 10:24-30

[Michael_Howard]

As a Protetsant I struggled severely with these verses as they seemed to stand in direct conflict with my "once saved always saved mentality’…

I read commentaries and asked questions, but the answer always seemed to be, "These verses do not apply to the saved, but only those who appear to be saved’, the justification being that if they fall away they never had saving faith to begin with.

These verses are still complex, but I think perhaps I am beginning to understand them a bit better in light of the Catholic teaching. So, I will throw these “ideas” out there to see if any of you have reached smiliar conclusions.

Hebrews 6:4 (to paraphrase) speaks of a believer in Christ who has tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the Holy Spirit…Might this be a reference to the Eucharist and Baptism?

Verse 5 …tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come) …Eucharist/Pentecost perhaps?

Verse 6 …by falling away they are “re-crucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt”

10:24… Is an exortation not to forsake the assembly
**(**Forsaking of the Mass on obligated days of worship perhaps?)

**Verse 26…**Deliberate sin after recieveing knowledge of the truth (perhaps this sin is the same as *verse 24, turning away from the Mass and Eucharist which is the same as abandoning Christ)…*No sacrifice for sins remains! (26) only judgement and fire!

**Verse 29…**Considering “unclean” the blood of the covenant that cleansed us…Last Supper institution &
Crucifixtion?

I would like to know if anyone has seen these ideas in these verses or if there are Catholic works out there on Hebrews chapter 6 & 10
:) Thanks for listening

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Verse 6:

I think it may be saying that expecting those who have turned against Jesus after having known Him have about as much chance of repentence as those who originally had Jesus crucified: the Romans and the leaders of the Jewish people. Just as they did not repent and followed through on the crucifixion without a change of heart so to those who have known and turned away from Jesus. I think it relates to hardening of heart.

Jesus said don’t cast your pearls before swine. I also see a connection to this as Paul seems to be saying we have hope for you but not for those who have fallen away. St. Paul admits that he himself was a terrible sinner who repented and converted. However, he seems to be saying that repentance is less hopeful once you have really seen the light of Jesus and then turn against Him. After all, Satan was an angel who turned against God and he does not repent. Satan at one time must have seen the light of God.

The online bible here has some footnotes:
usccb.org/nab/bible/hebrews/hebrews6.htm

 

[Todd_Easton]

I haven’t seen a Catholic commentary that goes into such detail as you are probably looking for, perhaps, if they are available, the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible Book of Hebrews or the Navarre Bible Book of Hebrews does, but the online Protestant commentary at crosswalk.com, John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, though anti-Catholic seems to speculate similar identifications, such as:
illumination = baptism
taste of the heavenly gift = eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ
the assembly = public worship service

bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=heb

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am no expert on this passage, but I do read it with similar insights. Perhaps someone a bit more seasoned than I will point out any mistakes I make.

The passage being discussed is prefixed by a lengthy reference to the foundations of being a Christian.
What I see in this is the attempt of the author to move the Hebrews away from a temptation that they are struggling with.

Since the audience is presumably “Hebrew”, and dead works are mentioned, the temptation is likely the Jewish ritual law.
– and probably the jewish expectation of being justified through works of the law (torah).

There is a comparison of the Hebrew experience with the new testament.
In the liturgy (mass), we have the liturgy of the word, and the liturgy of the Eucharist. On the road of Emmaus, Jesus spoke (word) and then broke bread (Eucharist). This pattern has its roots in the Jewish celebrations in the synagoge and temple.
The temple had the ark with the ten commandments (originally), and the Synagoge had a tabernacle with the torah in it.
This Synagoge/Temple experience is what the Hebrew would be familiar with, and the circumcision, reading of the law + sacrifices was their way of taking an oath.

So here is my view of the passage:

Heb 6:2
In the early church, baptism and confirmation were often celebrated together, as if one thing, so these appear together as being the elementary act of entering the church.

baptized= aboliutions
confirmed= laying on of hands

After this elementary act, the person is legally dead.
(e.g. colossians 2:12) Fortunately, the torah’s curses do not apply to people who have died, so the Hebrew is safe from the curses of the Mosaic law.

Now (Heb 6:4) the author needs to show why the Hebrew can’t go back to the Mosaic law and just be re-baptised and confirmed at their whim if they change their mind again.

First the author lists baptism, confirmation, and eucharist (which includes the reading of scripture.) to show that everything that the Hebrew had the christian has. But he does it using descriptions which are very much from the old testament Hebrew experience.

The christian process is called enlightenment.
As to exactly which sacrament is referred to by which statement is not clear. There is not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence. The holy spirit, for example, is present in each of the sacraments. For every sacrament (by definition) calls down the holy spirit (epiclesis).

So, at this point (Heb 6:4) the author has shown that all the rituals of the torah/mosaic law/dead works, has been replaced by the sacraments of initiation. (Baptism Confirmation and Eucharist)

If the Hebrews leave the church and revert to the Mosaic law (apostacy), their baptism still signifies the death and resurrection in Jesus, so that his life in them is subjected to contempt. I.E. the apostacy adds a personal sin to the crucifiction.

This is driven home by the analogy which follows:
Heb 6:7
The water is poured out on the ground regardless of results.
In like manner,
The gift of God is given to every baptized person.

To an audience transfixed on the easy temptation of ‘re-baptism’, however, the author has made a point.
Apostacy brings about a fresh curse, because christian initiation is also an oath.

The Hebrew is now in a position of deciding which curse he fears more, and so the author is going to spend considerable time showing how the priesthood of Jesus is superior to Moses. (Melchizedeck vs Levi).

That’s my best understanding of the passage.

Hope it helps.

 

[copland]

As I am a former Southern Baptist, I have faced this Hebrews 6 passage too. I found that I relied on J. Vernon McGee’s interpretation when I went to defend the “once saved always saved” idea. Now that I believe in the Catholic Church I feel a relief of not having to defend something that the Bible just does not support.

That being said, I always went with the avenue of saying that Hebrews 6 was not talking about salvation but rewards in Heaven because
9 But we are sure in your regard, beloved, of better things related to salvation, even though we speak in this way. To be honest about it, I have not even given this passage much though since I have shifted my theological views. I might do a little research and see what the Early Church Fathers have said about that passage. I am sure that you can find a sermon done by St. Jerome or someone else who has explained it.

 

[Michael_Howard]

copland:

As I am a former Southern Baptist, I have faced this Hebrews 6 passage too. I found that I relied on J. Vernon McGee’s interpretation when I went to defend the “once saved always saved” idea. Now that I believe in the Catholic Church I feel a relief of not having to defend something that the Bible just does not support.

That being said, I always went with the avenue of saying that Hebrews 6 was not talking about salvation but rewards in Heaven because
9 But we are sure in your regard, beloved, of better **things related **to salvation, even though we speak in this way. To be honest about it, I have not even given this passage much though since I have shifted my theological views. I might do a little research and see what the Early Church Fathers have said about that passage. I am sure that you can find a sermon done by St. Jerome or someone else who has explained it.

Thanks copeland. I am just trying to these passges in a different light. Some of what I tossed out there is simply "ideas’…but they do make more sense in light of the Catholic understanding of salvation. Honestly in the past I stayed away from discussion on these passges simply for the fact that they always seemed to lead to fighting and bickering amongst the “once saved always saved crowd”. I hope to spend more time researching these passages as well. let me know what you come up with.
Peace of Christ to you:)

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Re: The Hebrews 6:6 area:

We always over-complicate simple messages.

If you don’t know Jesus (ignorance) that’s one thing. However if you know Him and turn against Him, that’s even worse. To me that’s a big part of what Paul is saying. There is depth. It relates to the hardening of the heart when you rebel against your Father in Heaven as opposed to being spiritually lost.

Think of the prodigal son, and Jesus message to the Pharisees that since they say “they see” their sin remains.

Some road signs along the journey - hope helpful.

I find the Scripture to be one big message broken into smaller messages that each shed light on each other - it’s so beautiful and amazing - glory to Jesus!

 

[mercygate]

This should really be two threads. My interest is in Hebrews 10:29. I, too, was struck the other day by the Eucharistic overtones of this verse:

Do you not suppose that a much worse punishment is due the man who disdains the Son of God, thinks the covenant-blood by which he was sanctified to be ordinary, and insults the Spirit of grace? Liturgy of the Hours

How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of thecovenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? RSV

Do you not think that a much worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, considers unclean the covenant-blood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace? **NAB **(As is often the case, the NAB is a little odd.)

The Eucharistic import of this verse (of which the LOH version is, to my mind, the cleanest translation) is emphasized by the admonition in verse 25 not to “stay away from our assembly.” The assembly on the first day is when the church gathered together to break bread (Acts 20:7).

An indicator that this verse refers to the Eucharist is the word “covenant-blood.” The only place where Jesus himself uses the word “covenant” is at the Last Supper for “my blood of the covenant.” This pointed use, taken together with the priestly and sacrificial imagery thorougout this letter, point to a very belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and also to a belief in the sacrificial aspect of the Sacrament.

Man! How come I never saw that before?