To try to go back from the new to the old is to misunderstand the very nature of the Old Covenant to begin with. It's to try to have the Old Covenant on its own, not as something that leads to Christ, but as something that you could have after abandoning Christ. Welcome to Mid-America Reformed Seminary's Roundtable Podcast, a broadcast where the faculty of Mid-America discuss everything from Reformed theology, cultural issues, and all things seminary. This is episode 84, and I'm your host, Jared Luchibor. Thank you for tuning in. In today's episode, Dr. Marcus Minninger, professor of New Testament Studies, will speak to Hebrews 6, perhaps one of the most well-known passages in scripture, more so for its striking language of apostasy in the Christian community. I'm just going to leave it to Dr. Menninger to elaborate a little bit more on this text. Check it out. Today I'm going to talk about a controversial subject, or a subject that at least gets a lot of discussion, maybe some confusion, which is how to understand the author to the Hebrews in chapter 6 of Hebrews, where he says, particularly in verses 4 through 6, that it is impossible to restore again to repentance someone who has fallen away from faith. More specifically, it says, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come and then have fallen away, in the case of people like that, it's impossible to restore them again to repentance. since they crucify again to themselves the Son of God and put him to open shame." A lot of questions have come out of that passage. There are other apostasy passages, as they're known in the book of Hebrews, but this one is probably the most pointed in certain respects. And the question comes up, what is being said here, and in particular, does this articulate a kind of one-and-done soteriology? that someone who has come to Christ in some respect, has had an experience as described there in verses 4 and 5 of the blessings of Christ, even says here, been made partakers of the Holy Spirit or made a partaker of the Holy Spirit, someone who's experienced that and then falls away, cannot be renewed again or restored to repentance, does that mean that someone who falls away from Christ once can't come back to Christ and still regain or have a status of being saved, being in Christ in a saving way? Of course, when we ask that question, is this a one-and-done soteriology to say yes would go against not only the historic teaching of the church throughout the ages, even early on in response to say something like the Donatist controversy or something of that sort in the early church with people who repudiated Christ and then returned to the church, But it also contradicts aspects of the New Testament's own teaching. We can see, for example, someone like the Apostle Peter, who denied Christ three times and then was restored later, or teaching in a place like 2 Timothy 2, 16-26, where Paul prays that Christians who have left the faith—it appears that this is a fair way to read. He talks about various people who have left the faith, fallen into error after once having believed, fallen into grave error that puts them outside of the faith, that he prays that they would repent. There's a variety of things in the New Testament then and elsewhere that would suggest that this is not a one and done soteriology as such, But the question becomes, if it isn't, what does it actually mean? People have said different things. Some have taken the track of saying, well, it's sort of just overstatement. It means that it's difficult for someone to be restored once they have experienced all these different things and then fallen away. They would be in somehow a more hardened position experientially at that point because they had experienced so much and then fallen away. So it means that it's difficult, but of course that's not what the text says. It says it's impossible and doesn't seem very reputable overall to take it as an overstatement to say something's impossible when it's not would seem to be problematic in quite a number of ways. Some have said, well, it just means that it's humanly impossible to restore them to repentance, but that doesn't really solve anything either because isn't repentance always something that's humanly impossible to bring about? So why would that just be not worth stating at that point? There have been a variety of other viewpoints. One of the more common ones of late has been to say that the repentance being spoken of, the repentance that the person in this situation having fallen away, their initial repentance must not have been genuine anyway, so they are not a true believer and therefore it's impossible to restore them because they just weren't saved to begin with. That, of course, to read it that way, kind of gets around certain difficulties perhaps theologically, but it doesn't make a lot of sense of the phrasing itself. The phrasing in verse 6 of chapter 6 seems to assume an identity between the first repentance, whatever someone had previously confessed and experienced when they first came to Christ, And the second repentance, because it talks about being restored to repentance, right? So having this repentance a second time. If the first repentance were just a false repentance, then several things don't make sense. First of all, why would it even matter to say that someone can't be restored to false repentance? That isn't worth talking about, really. It wouldn't be of any use anyway. but also secondly along with that, why couldn't they be restored again to a false repentance? The whole premise of the statement in verse 6 seems to revolve around the idea that the first repentance was in fact valuable in and of itself in some sense when it occurred because it would be desirable in theory for someone to be restored to it, but It's impossible. So there have been these different explanations, none of which seem to make good sense of the text or, or complete, you know, sufficient sense of the text. And, um, it's a text that I've wrestled with a lot and I've come to a different viewpoint, uh, my own viewpoint. So, um, let the listener beware. Uh, this is something I've. worked on over the years and still working on now to hopefully publish on. So it needs to be vetted out still. You can think about what you consider it and don't just swallow it whole necessarily. But I've become convinced that the writer means something altogether different than what has often been assumed. So how should we understand this text? In my own thinking, we need to read this text when it talks about not being able to be restored again to repentance in a much more redemptive, historically sensitive way, as I think the book of Hebrews generally encourages us to do in so many ways, to think redemptive historically. And in particular, I think that we need to understand the term repentance in this context as having a specific meaning that's particular to the Old Covenant, specifically that repentance here indicates entry into right standing in the Old Covenant specifically. that this is not the general use of the term repentance, which we see various points in Scripture, but it's a more specific use that we also see in Scripture. We need to understand that the term repentance can be used in various ways. Sometimes, to be sure, it refers to something that those who are entering into the new covenant or already in the New Covenant should do. Repent and believe, every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. For example, sermons and acts will give that exhortation that people repent and come into right relationship with the Lord through Christ, and those are, of course, our New Covenant texts, but the term repentance can also be used in a way that is specific to the Old Covenant in contrast to the New, something that gave right standing in that covenant, the Old Covenant, but was insufficient for right standing in the New Covenant. So there's different uses of the term. This second use of the term is something we can clearly see in a place like Acts chapter 19, one through seven. There, Paul comes across a group of disciples who, it says, only knew of the baptism of John, meaning, of course, John the Baptist, which the text specifically points out was a baptism of repentance. But these disciples that Paul came across, while they knew the baptism of John, had received the baptism of John, therefore, of course, had repented in that sense. did not have a sufficient or complete understanding, certainly of Paul's message, they did not know about the new covenant realities that John's baptism pointed ahead towards and prepared for. The reality of Christ's own coming, the reality of the coming of the Holy Spirit. And so Paul knew that something more was needed, that this repentance brought about in response to John's preaching and John's baptism, was good but not sufficient, they needed something more, and so Paul of course tells them the message about Christ, baptizes them with a new covenant baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit, and then that's accompanied by powerful signs of prophecy and tongues. So in that context, in Acts chapter 19, repentance, as signified and spoken about by John and his baptism, was an Old Covenant-specific reality that was insufficient in itself. People needed, upon the preaching of the apostles, to hear something further and to believe in the fulfillment of John's baptism in Christ, the Holy Spirit, etc., all these New Covenant realities. This second meaning of the term repentance then, that's something that's a specifically Old Covenant reality, the entryway into right-standing in the Old Covenant, only as distinct from the New, is what I think is, we should understand, occurs here in Hebrews chapter 6 verse 6. Now what leads me to say that it's that particular meaning of repentance that should be understood there, There's a variety of things. There's quite a few reasons to suggest that this contrast between Old Covenant and New Covenant is meant to be understood here. The first of those, and probably the most important, comes back in the immediate context of Hebrews 6, verses 1 and 2. which is the first place we see the word repentance used in Hebrews, the second place being in verse 6 of the same chapter, so it's the immediate context helps us understand what this word means. And there we need to note that the word repentance is used to help describe a foundation that the author urges the audience not to lay again. He says in verse one and two of chapter six, therefore leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and faith toward God, of instruction about washings and laying on of hands and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment. There's a foundation described there that starts with repentance and faith and then also includes washings, laying on of hands, resurrection, and judgment. This foundation is something that the author urges the audience not to lay again, as he says. Now, we need to understand the nature of this phrase, not to lay again a foundation. It's often been misunderstood or sometimes just overlooked and not explored in much detail, but There are several things about foundations that are crucial to understanding what's happening here. The first is that we need to understand that a foundation, as ancient authors would talk about it, is something that entails permanence. It is by its very nature permanent in the building. It also defines the very essence of the building or contains the key essential ingredients of the building as a whole and is something from which the inhabitant of the building gains confidence and certainty. And so we can see this in scripture when it talks about foundations. The permanence of a foundation is very clear. And in fact, the foundation itself is what imparts permanence to the building. In Psalm 103 8, in the Septuagint, it says, God establishes the earth on her sure foundation. It shall not be moved forever. So the foundation is what gives that building, as it were, the earth, permanence. Or in Proverbs 8, we see that to understand something properly requires understanding its foundations to understand creation properly, for example, or wisdom. You have to understand Job. Even in Job 38, the question is asked, to Job, were you there when I laid the foundations of the earth? If you don't understand the foundation of something, then how can you understand the thing itself, right? That the foundation defines the essence of a thing. What is most definitive of that thing is found in its foundation. We would say something is foundational or fundamental, the same basic word, to an entity because it helps define exactly what that thing is. The confidence that people derive from foundations, the Septuagint Isaiah 28 16, Behold I lay for the foundations of Zion a costly chosen stone a precious cornerstone for its foundation and he that believes upon it will certainly not be ashamed so the foundation gives confidence the implication then is that because a foundation defines the essence of a thing is permanent and is the source of confidence. The very notion of laying again a foundation or relaying a foundation implies starting over entirely. No one relays a foundation unless the building that they're inhabiting is fundamentally flawed. such that they have to start over again from the ground up, as we would say. The author then is urging in chapter 6-1, this is crucial to understand, the whole thrust of his exhortation is that the audience not seek to start over again. And once you understand that, then you have to ask, well, what are they trying to start over again with? And then we read the rest of chapter 6-1 and 2, where it gives us the ingredients of the foundation. The ingredients of the foundation, we should note, are all things that are taught and propounded and are crucial to the Old Covenant. Nothing in that foundation in chapters 6, 1, and 2 is specific to the New Covenant itself, but some of the ingredients of the foundation are instead specific to the Old Covenant in contrast to not found in the New. So we look at those elements. The first one is repentance. We just talked about that. It's clearly something that defined the message of the Old Covenant prophets such as John the Baptist. So it definitely has its roots in the Old Covenant. Faith towards God as well. Hebrews 11 says that the old members of the Old Covenant all throughout the Old Testament are the chief exemplars of faith toward God. Those are things that, of course, do in their own way find a place in the New, but they certainly are principally found, in Hebrews at least, in the Old. That's where they have their roots. Resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment, the last two items in the list, are also clearly parts of the Old Covenant belief. Again, read Hebrews 11. Abraham and others believe in the resurrection of the dead, and of course, as well the final judgment. Most Jews, non-Christian Jews even, believe in these things. But the key here is to note two things. One is the presence of the middle pair in the list, instruction about washings and laying on of hands. Those are clearly in Hebrews things that pertain to the Old Covenant only in contrast to the New. You can see that particularly if you look at Hebrews 9.10. where it talks about the various washings that are emblematic of, part and parcel of, the Old Covenant Levitical rituals on the Day of Atonement. Laying on of hands, of course, was a big part of Old Testament Levitical rituals as well on the Day of Atonement and at other times. And so it's especially that middle pair that shows that what's in view here, some of what's in view here are things about the Old Covenant that do not continue into the New. And then in addition to that, we need to notice what's not present at all in this list in Hebrews 6.1. You have some things that are in, all of them have their roots in the Old Covenant. The two middle ones are only pertinent to the Old Covenant and not the New. But what's especially lacking here is any specific or clear reference to something distinctive of the New Covenant. If you look throughout the whole New Testament and you look at places where the foundation is described for the New Covenant Church or members of the New Covenant Church, This is the only place where a specific reference to Christ or the Holy Spirit or something else very obviously particular to the New Covenant isn't mentioned. It's sort of strongly noticeable by its absence when you compare it to other lists or other descriptions. In other words, here's the point. The Hebrews audience is being urged not to start over again afresh, with a list of beliefs and practices, defining beliefs and practices, that all of them come from the old covenant, none of them come specifically distinctively from the new, some of them in fact are distinctive to the old in contrast to the new. The whole gist of it then is don't go backward to start all over again in the ingredients found in the Old Covenant alone over against the New. And of course the first thing in that list of ingredients is repentance from dead work. So we can circle back around and say this then. Repentance in this context is the gateway into right standing in the Old Covenant specifically. That's the way chapter 6 1 reads It's the repentance is the first item in this list of distinctively old covenant beliefs and practices and So then the author is saying don't go back. Don't go back to the old covenant to start over with only it removing all of the distinctive new covenant teachings and realities from your foundation which defines the very essence of your belief system and he gives as a chief reason for that then why don't you should you not go back well verses four through six help explain the word for there of course is explanatory. Don't lay again this old covenant foundation. Why? Verse 4, for in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, If we had more time, we could look at each of those, and they're each very clearly references to experiences of the New Covenant in particular. If you look at chapter 10, where that word enlightenment occurs, the only other place it occurs in Hebrews, it's clearly a word that refers to the beginnings of their New Covenant life, their beginning of their New Covenant faith and existence. But the list as a whole there in chapter four, people who have experienced these specifically new covenant realities and then have fallen away, it's impossible for people in that situation to be renewed again to repentance, meaning repentance just as it's described in 6.1, repentance which is the gateway into right standing in the old covenant alone. Now, of course, many people throughout the history of God's covenant lived under the Old Covenant in right standing with the Lord precisely through this repentance and faith, but that whole life under the Old Covenant was meant to lead towards the coming of Christ and the Spirit in the New Covenant. What's being said here essentially is that the Hebrews audience needs to understand there is only one-way traffic between the Old Covenant and the New. There's no reversing it. The Old Covenant was designed by God as a good and gracious arrangement by which to live in relationship to Him. but a good and gracious arrangement that provided a pathway towards the New Covenant. And once you go down that pathway into the New Covenant and experience the realities of the New Covenant, the blessings of the New Covenant, as verses 4 and 5 describe, the saving usefulness of the Old Covenant is now complete because it's fulfilled its purpose, the Old Covenant, has fulfilled its purpose in bringing you to the New. To try to go back from the New to the Old is to misunderstand the very nature of the Old Covenant to begin with. It's to try to have the Old Covenant on its own, not as something that leads to Christ, but as something that you could have after abandoning Christ. Having confessed Christ and then gone back to a pre-Christian confession, as it were, the author says this is impossible to do, savingly. The Old Covenant that Abraham and David and others lived rightly under was always meant to lead to Christ. To go the other direction from Christ back to the Old Covenant and try to have the Old Covenant by itself is fundamentally impossible. We can think of it this way, the Old Covenant is like one of those movable tunnels or causeways that you find in the airport terminal when you go to your gate and you're trying to get from your gate where you're waiting to board and then you travel up that movable tunnel onto your airplane. That's the old covenant. But once you board the airplane and the causeway is then retracted and the plane pulls away from the gate and takes off into the air, it's impossible to go back and say, you know what? No, I'd like to do a do-over. I'd like to go back to that movable causeway, right? It's literally impossible. It means destruction. The causeway played its valuable, important role getting you to the airplane, but the point was to get to the airplane. not to go back and decide to stay in the movable tunnel by itself. It's a crude analogy, but you get the basic point. The bottom line, the impossibility of being restored to repentance in Hebrews 6, it seems to me means the impossibility of going from the New Covenant back through that gateway of repentance into right standing in the Old Covenant alone, or to put it in the words of 6.1, to try to go back and relay a foundation with Old Covenant materials alone, stripped of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the realities of the new. And so the author is truly saying this is simply, flatly impossible. You can't confess Christ and then go back to a supposedly pre-Christian confession, giving up on Christ as the fulfillment. To do that is to destroy the very old covenant itself, its whole purpose. and certainly cannot be done savingly. It also, as verse 6 says, is tantamount to crucifying the Son of God again, rejecting Him again, as so many did at His cross the first time, putting Him to open shame, saying, we will not have this one as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. We want the Old Covenant without Him. Again, to do that is impossible. A basic implication is that this passage, it seems to me, is not saying that if you fall away from Christ, you confess Christ and then fall away from Christ, you can never come back repentantly to Christ and be restored. It's simply not stating that. In fact, that's exactly what a person should do, and what this passage does teach helps underscore why, because it's saying there is salvation in no one else. Even the good, gracious Old Covenant that God Himself provided cannot provide salvation in and of itself. It was a means to a larger end. It was a means to Christ. And if the good, gracious Old Covenant can't provide salvation apart from Christ, of course nothing else can either. So there is salvation in no other. That's really, in many ways, the point. The preeminence, the exaltation of Christ over everything else. He's the one in whom we must rest. And the point of the author is to say that even in the face of persecution, even in the face of difficulty, whatever else may come our way, we need to persevere in Christ because He alone provides the sacrifice that takes away sin. He alone is the perfect, merciful, sympathetic High Priest who intercedes for us in our times of temptation. He alone is the one through whom the throne of God becomes a place of mercy and grace to help us in our time of need. So we need to cling to Him. We need to persevere in Him. We need to not give up. lose our confidence in him, but maintain it, and certainly not seek to go back to something else, whatever it may have been, that is apart from or stripped of the reality of Jesus Christ as the final sacrifice. that never turning back, turning away from, and continued perseverance in Christ is so crucial in the Christian journey. Thank you, Dr. Menninger, for giving us your two cents on such a difficult text of scripture, and for your continued labors in the New Testament department here at Metamerica Reform Seminary. Next time, President of the Seminary, Dr. Cornelis Venema, and Professor of Doctrinal Studies, Dr. J. Mark Beach, sit down to hash out a few systematic theological issues, beginning with this very intriguing one. What does it mean when we recite in the Apostles' Creed that Jesus descended into hell? Tune in next week to hear their answer. For more episodes, you can find us on our website at midamerica.edu slash podcasts and wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Be sure to search for and subscribe to MidAmerica Reformed Seminary's Roundtable. I'm Jared Luchobor, till next time.