Hebrews 6[:4–6]: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened.”
Hebrews 6[:4–6]: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened.”
§ 16. The strongest foundation of the Novatians is this statement: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and who have tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come to be renewed again unto repentance” (Heb. 6:4–6).
** The Photinians indeed cannot reproach us with these words (of Hebrews 6 and 10) because Eniedinus denies that this Epistle is canonical since some passages (Heb. 11:21; 9:19, 24) are cited from the Scripture of the Old Testament but are not extant, and since some words are not quoted skillfully (Heb. 1:6; 10:5, 3, 16). **
This passage confused the ancients, and thus various explanations have been sought.
** (1) Some of the ancients explain it as a reference to public repentance so that the meaning is that those who have fallen again must not be admitted to public repentance again. But at the time of the apostle, this was not used. (2) Some take it as a reference to repentance after this life, but that is absurd. **
(3) Some understand the word “impossible” to mean “difficult,” as it seems to be used elsewhere (Matt. 19:23, 26). Thus Hugh (De sacram., bk. 2, part 14, ch. 4), followed by [Alexander] of Hales (Sent., 4, dist. 14).
(4) Some assign this repentance to the work that is done in vain after this life, which the forgiveness of sins does not touch. So the Glossa interlinearis, on these words.
(5) Some—and, in fact, most—of the fathers understand “to be renewed unto repentance” to mean the repetition of Baptism, so that the meaning is that no remedy of baptismal repetition has been prepared for those who fall after Baptism.
** Chrysostom, Theodor., Oecumenius, Theophylact, Anselm, Sedulius, and others in their commentaries on this passage, as well as Augustine (at the end of Expos. inchoat. on Romans), explain it as a reference to the renewal unto repentance which occurs in Baptism and not as a reference to the renewal which takes place in the reconciliation after Baptism. **
See Epiphanius (Contra Catharos), Cyril (on John, ch. 17, bk. 5), Augustine (De vera et falsa poenit., ch. 3), Chrysostom and Oecumenius (commentaries on Hebrews, etc.). The Glossa marg. on this passage reads: “Note that Baptism renews because it removes all the oldness of actual sin, namely, fault and punishment. Repentance does not renew because, though it removes fault, it does not remove all punishment.” (In its own place [On Holy Baptism, Commonplace XXIII, §§ 128–64] there will be a statement as to what must be decided about this subject.)
Thomas ([ST,] part 3, q. 84, art. 10, resp. to no. 1):
Because among the Jews some washings were instituted by which they used to purge themselves of their uncleanness very often, some of the Jews believed that any person could be purified many times by the washing of Baptism. To exclude this, the apostle writes to the Jews: “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened” (namely, through Baptism, for it is known from Dionysius, Justin, and others that Baptism is called “illumination”) “to be restored again to repentance” (namely, through Baptism, which is the washing of renewal, Titus 3:5), “again crucifying the Son of God.”
(Through Baptism a person dies to Christ, Rom. 6:4; as Christ died once, so also one must receive Baptism just once. Through the repetition of Baptism the Son of God is crucified again, etc.) The opinion of these men is followed by Bellarmine (in De poenit., 1, ch. 13).
** And in [Bellarmine] (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, ch. 17, p. 83) and by Gretserus (Hyperasp.). And yet: (1) What sort of an argument would it have been for the apostle who is urging people away from so savage a sin as is under discussion? It would be as if I were going to talk someone out of homicide, theft, etc., and say to him: “If you have fallen into homicide, theft, etc., you cannot be rebaptized and thus renewed.” Yet he will be able to be renewed through reconciliation. (2) If this were the meaning, how would the word “impossible” fit here? For it is not impossible to be baptized a second time if you say that it is being put in place of what is unlawful. The response in [Heb. 6:]9 explains this impropriety clearly. **
(3) But the opinion of those people who take this passage to refer to the sin against the Holy Spirit is very suitable. Christ Himself says that this sin is not forgiven in this life or in the life to come (Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10). Thus all the descriptions of the subject must be diligently observed. From these descriptions it is obvious that the apostle is speaking about those: (a) Who have been enlightened, who have learned the light and clarity of heavenly truth. (b) Who have tasted the heavenly gift, the goodness of the Word of God, and the power of the age to come, that is, those who have sensed the sweetness of the Gospel with the deep taste of the Spirit and have experienced the foretaste of eternal blessedness. (c) Those who have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, through whom they have been marked and who gives testimony to their spirit [Rom. 8:16]. (d) Such people who nevertheless fall, if they fall away completely from the truth acknowledged and sealed in them, for the context here demonstrates that this kind of apostasy is meant.
** The words “once” [πάλιν] and “again” [ἀνά] must especially be observed in order that we may understand that the apostle is speaking about the total fall of willing apostasy. This total fall is called a “trespass” [παράπτωμα] in Rom. 5[:15, 20]. The apostle is speaking about this sort of fall in general, and he is confident that it could not happen to the Hebrews who had been elected ([Heb. 6:]9). But a fall of any kind, even against conscience, with the exception of the sin against the Holy Spirit, could happen to the elect Hebrews, because this could happen to anyone. Therefore he is not speaking about these. **
(e) “They crucify the Son of God again on their own account and hold Him up for display” [Heb. 6:6]. That is, if they deny the truth not out of a weakness or fear but fall away completely out of deliberate wickedness and against the internal witness of conscience and of the Spirit, they have progressed to that point of impiety in which they persecute Christ and His Gospel with their calumnies and reviling. Now, finally, the predicate follows: “it is impossible for them to be renewed unto repentance,” obviously because the means through which the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of people is something that they very stubbornly reject and thrust away. The judgment is the same about the other passages (Heb. 10:26–[31]; 1 John 5:16), whose explanation was given in On Actual Sins ([Commonplace XIII], vol. 2, disp. 13, § 109).
** Ambrose understands Heb. 10[:26–31] to refer to the repetition of Baptism. But the apostle does not say that a second Baptism but another sacrificial victim does not remain, and therefore there is no remission of guilt for those who sin willingly. Therefore we conclude that here also the apostle is not talking about any enormous fault, since he mentions “the acknowledged truth” and in addition indicates the type of sin: apostasy from doctrine as a result of a determined intent of the will and a blasphemous hostility, by which apostasy the Son of God is abused, the blood of His covenant is considered profane, and the Spirit of His grace is insulted. **