The Theology of Hebrews 6:4

Hebrews 6:4-6 is the classic Arminian text to argue against the Calvinistic doctrine of perseverance. It has certainly been understood in quite a variety of ways – and one’s precise interpretation of the phrase “having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit” is, in particular, especially weighty, because it may influence or even determine his understanding of some very important doctrines. So in any translation we certainly must have the goal of bringing out the sense of the verse as accurately and understandably as possible, without giving any additional reasons, over and above the explicit testimony of the text, to embrace a particular theology – which is actually quite a difficult task, I think, in this passage.

Our first question, on this topic, involves the meaning and usage of the term “metochos” (partaker of/partner in). I think the basic, perhaps the exclusive, sense of its verbal cognate, “metecho,” is “to have a share in” (or you could also say, “to partake of”). However, the problem arises if you assume that the noun-form, “metochos,” has the same nuance of meaning. If it did, the natural translation would be, “one who has a share in [the Holy Spirit]”, or “one who has partaken of [the Holy Spirit]”. This is what certain translations have done, but I think the inference is unwarranted. Simply because, when we see this noun form used elsewhere in the NT, it doesn’t seem to mean “a partaker of” something, but rather, a partner, or one who has fellowship with a group of people because of a common experience with them. For instance, in Luke 5:7, the word is used of Peter’s fishing “partners” in another boat – those who were joined together with him because of a shared experience in an activity, or a shared pursuit in the same business.

Unfortunately, we don’t really have very many uses of the word in the New Testament (that passage in Luke is its only occurrence outside of Hebrews); but as far as I can tell, that’s the basic meaning of the word.

So, it may be good to avoid the translation, “partakers of,” or “having become partakers of” – simply because it strongly implies that the persons being spoken of are in fact Christians, when it seems that the point of the passage is only to show that they have much in common with Christians. They have shared in the same experiences, they have seen the same powerful workings of the Holy Spirit, they have tasted many of the blessings which are poured out upon the Christian Church – they are, in outward appearance, Christians; but they are not in fact regenerate. I think the point is that there may be “Judases” in the congregation, who are, in a real sense, partners with the true believers, sharing everything in common with them – and when these “fall away” (not fall into sin, but utterly apostasize/finally denounce Christ), then their outcome will be as Judas’ outcome was. They are as the seeds which fell on stony ground, and grew up admirably, but never had any true root. That’s at least how I see it. But it’s a very difficult passage, and I admit there are other possible interpretations. For instance, that it is a warning given to true Christians, to prevent them from apostasizing, and which is always effective. In this case, it would involve a hypothetical situation, that never actually occurs – as if one were to say, “If you fall off that cliff, you will not survive” – to ensure that no one does get close enough to fall off. The statement is true, but the situation is hypothetical. I’ll also admit that the predominant reason I don’t accept the Arminian interpretation, that someone who is truly elect/regenerate may finally fall from grace, is because of systematic theology (ruling out that interpretation from the beginning, because I am convinced of contradictory interpretations of other clearer passages).

But besides these systematically-derived ideas, I have a few contextual reasons for denying that the subjects of this passage are, in fact, genuine Christians. These are as follows.

First, I think the broad context is important: the author had just been speaking of the generation of Israelites that perished in the wilderness. They had been given the promise of a rest, but, because of their unbelief, God swore to them that they would never see his rest. The author is intentionally making this example pertinent to the community of professing believers to whom he is writing. He admonishes them to beware, “lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in apostasizing from the living God” (3:12). His point in this history is to show that, even if one is a part of a covenant people, which has been given many gracious promises, he will never truly experience them if he displays his unbelief through final apostasy. Just as there were imposters and apostates in the old covenant community, so there may be in the new. This is not to say that they were truly regenerate, but that they were truly in a covenant relationship with God, as the outward members of the church are today. But even having experienced the covenant blessings of God, yet as unbelievers, they did not obtain the final reward. This point is evidently clear in chapter three, and the same train of thought is carried through the next two chapters, and is the reason for the admonition at the beginning of chapter six. So for that contextual reason, I would say that it is likely that those being spoken of are imposters who are recognized members of the covenant community, but not truly regenerate.

Second, in the immediate context, we have a striking change in pronoun reference in verses 4-8. In 6:1-3 the author is using first person pronouns (we, us); and in 6:9 and following he is again using the first person. But in 6:4-8, he is speaking of “those,” and “they”. Which to me indicates that the persons being referred to are not true Christians. “We” will go on to perfection, but “they” who fall away will not be renewed to repentance. Yes they are a part of “we” in an outward sense – but in fact, they are not we. As I John 2:19 says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us” – or else “they would have remained with us”.

And finally, even if we take “metochos” to mean, “they have received the Holy Spirit,” that still leaves open the manner and extent of this reception. It is certainly true that the cross purchased blessings for all men, and that among those blessings may be included things such as the Spirit’s reproving the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8) – in this sense, they may have been said to have “received” the Spirit. In other words, they were beneficiaries of his ministry. Compare, along those lines, II Timothy 4:10 – God is the “Savior of all men everywhere, especially those who believe”. So, perhaps, the whole world, in this new redemptive era, has “received the Spirit,” in his more extensive ministry following Christ’s death (and much more so those who are a part of the Church even in an outward sense only). But that does not mean that they have received him in the Ephesians 1 sense of his indwelling them as a guarantee of glorification, or in the Romans 8 sense, which strongly argues that, if one has the Spirit, he is Christ’s, and will finally be glorified.

8 Responses to “The Theology of Hebrews 6:4”

  1. Chris says:
    November 24, 2006 at 10:04 pm

    I always understood that passage as the unforgivable sin. This made me look up Still Sovereign where Wayne Grudem analysis warning passages in Hebrews.

    “What does it mean to become a ‘partaker’ (or sharer) in the Holy Spirit? It cannot mean that people are given a share of the very being of the Holy Spirit, because, as God, the Holy Spirit cannot be divided into parts and cannot give away any share of his being, and because the term metochos never means ‘to have a share of the being of another person.’ Therefore to become a ‘partaker’ of the Holy Spirit means to be associated in some way with the work of the Holy Spirit and to share in some of the benefits the Holy Spirit gives [...] For example, the phrase may mean simply that these people had come into the church and there had experienced some of the benefits of the Holy Spirit in answers to prayer or even in using some spiritual gifts. All that we can say with confidence is that they were partakers of some of the benefits that the Holy Spirit gives.” (pgs. 148-9)

    He then goes on with an analysis of Luke 5:7.

    “Peter and the disciples could be associated with those companions and to some degree be influenced by them and even gain some benefits from them without having a thoroughgoing change of life caused by that association.”
  2. pitchford says:
    November 25, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    Thanks for the Grudem quotation — I think that’s what I was trying to get at with the term “metochos,” but he said it better.

    Nathan

  3. Dave says:
    November 26, 2006 at 11:39 am

    Nathan,

    Though you may already be planning to, I just wanted to encourage you to post this on Reformation Theology. I think your treatment of this age-old difficult text is honest, careful, and succinct. I’m convinced that others would be greatly blessed and helped to read it.

    To the Cross I run,

    Dave

  4. pitchford says:
    November 26, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    Well, actually I wasn’t planning on posting it there — I almost didn’t even post it here. The whole thing was just copied and pasted from a couple of e-mails I wrote on the topic, over the past couple of days — so it obviously lacks any semblance of a well-ordered flow-of-thought, such as a posted article of any nature really demands.

    But maybe I’ll post it anyway, since I always let you talk me into your hare-brained schemes (e.g. posting Shai Linne’s rap lyrics…).

    “…Holding high my chains undone,”

    Pitch

    May all blessings flow to you from the Cross (Ephesians 1:3).

  5. Bob Hayton says:
    November 27, 2006 at 11:10 am

    Nathan,

    I disagree with you here. Not with your theology or interpretation of the passage, but with your desire to amend the translation.

    The word metochos is an adjective, meaning “sharing or participating in”. Some lexicons I looked up stated it was used as a noun only in Luke and in Heb. 1:9, both times it had an article in front of it. The other times it is used in the NT, the article is absent and it functions as an adjective. The other three times besides Heb. 6 are all in Hebrews and should help to inform us as to the meaning of the word. 3:1, 14; and 12:8 all seem to point toward understanding it as “partaker” rather than “partner”.

    The noun form of this word (metoche) means “sharing, participation”. This word is used only once (2 Cor. 6:14) and is actually used as a strong synonymn with koinonia which means “fellowship”. Koinonia is almost always referring to the actual fellowship of believers. The verb form of this word also is used in seemingly synonymous parallel with koinonia in 1 Cor. 10:17, 21.

    Also, another word bears on this discussion. Summetochos is a closely related word and is used in Eph. 3:6 and 5:7. The first use would support the idea of “partaker” well. The second use is maybe not as clear. But 3:6 gives us yet another use of this kind of word in relation to the gospel or Christ or the promises of Christ where it clearly implies one who is saved.

    When you say “as far as I can tell, that’s the basic meaning of the word” I think you are wrong. Only two times does it clearly carry the meaning you provide–both times it has an article and is used as a noun. Three times it is used clearly in the alternative meaning, and the last usage is our text here. Me thinks you are relying on your theology too much and letting it cloud out the meaning of the word.

    Do other Bible versions translate the word “partner” in 6:4? If not, we should be all the more careful in just deciding to amend the translation. I would strongly suggest consulting BDAG and Kittel’s at length before concluding as you do. (I have not consulted them yet, they are available online for free {at least until the end of 2007} at BibleCentre.Net, if anyone reading this does not have access to them. Just click this link.) I have looked some at Colin Brown’s article on it, and admit the need to study further. But from what I have studied, and from what you said here, I think the evidence is too scanty to change the translation.

    I am not rejecting your interpretation, however. And I do realize that you said this was hastily written. I am not trying to be harsh here, just trying to argue my point.

    F.F. Bruce’s commentary on Hebrews gives a convincing discussion of the passage and concludes as you do (I am pretty sure, anyway), yet does not resort to redefining the term. He explains that Simon in Acts 8, and the people mentioned in Matt. 7:21-23, would be examples of those who have shared in the ministry of the Spirit and yet were unregenerate. I did look at Grudem’s discussion (pg. 797-798 in his Systematic–don’t have that other book mentioned above). And I agree with him that the term itself is not strong enough to force us to conclude the passage is referring to believers. But he does not convince me that the term should be seen as “partner” rather than “partaker”.

    Also with regards to your valid point about pronoun use, we do need to keep in mind the strong parallel between 6:5 and 2:1-4. “Good word of God” is “things which we have heard…so great salvation…spoken by the Lord”. And “powers of the world to come” is parallel to “signs and wonders, and…divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost”.

    And I could go on to argue “devil’s advocate” here. The passage does not have to conclude that salvation be lost if we see genuine believers in view. The warning could be seen as a hypothetical fall. Such a warning would be used by God to prevent all true believers from making such a fall. Also, the warning could be a potential impossibility only. The implication could be that true partakers, and truly enlightened people would not fall. Only those who claim to be true, but have not really experienced that.

    But I really do agree with your interpretation. And I agree the term does not have to mean “possessor” of the Holy Spirit or a truly regenerate person. Yet I still think Scripture is making a point with the use of that term (especially in light of Heb. 3 and Eph. 3). The point is that from the outside they appear just like genuine believers, but they aren’t genuine. It is not that they are conscious fakes, who just are buddies of believers. But they are a part of the covenant community in appearance, and also they may be deceived in their minds to think they truly are regenerate, but they aren’t.

    To conclude this long comment, while changing the term would make it easier on the Bible readers, it would obscure the true nature of the text. 1) They would not know that the same term is used in chapter 3. 2) They would not therefore be forced to wrestle with this passage. (Could not the wrestling that interpreters and exegetes are forced to do with this passage be intended by God as means of grace in their lives?)

    Do you have any more evidence supporting your desire to change the translation? Feel free to lay it all out. I am open to being convinced otherwise.

    God bless you, Nathan,

    Bob

  6. pitchford says:
    November 27, 2006 at 5:51 pm

    Bob,

    A few thoughts…

    1. Your initial reasoning baffles me a little: first, you say that one should not change the translation from “partakers of,” and then in support, you adduce the theory that, because the adjective, in this case, lacks the article, it cannot be a substantive. How do you use the supposition that “metochous” cannot be a substantive to argue for its translation as a substantive (“partakers”)? Either you must admit that it may indeed be a substantive, and hence “partakers” is a legitimate translation; or that, while not technically a substantive, the adjective is similar enough in meaning that the translation change to a substantive has no impact on the author’s intention; or that the translation should be emended to reflect the adjectival use. But here’s the catch-22 – admit the latter and you’ve already conceded your argument (that the translation should not be changed); admit either of the former, and you cut away the foundation of much of your later argumentation, which distinguishes between the substantival and adjectival meanings of the word. If I can’t compare the usage in Hebrews 6 with the usage in Luke because only the latter is substantival, then the difference between an articular and anarthrous usage is sufficient to warrant a translation change in Hebrews 6:4, to make the English strictly adjectival as well. On the contrary, I don’t think there really is much difference between the adjectival and substantival usages, and so I think we should be free to compare with all examples alike. And even if there is, there is no rule in Greek which demands that an adjective used substantivally have an article. Usually they do, but occasionally, you will find a clear substantive, that is also anarthrous. Case in point: Matthew 13:17 (“polloi profetai kai dikaioi…”). “Prophets” is clearly a noun, and the juxtaposition virtually demands that “dikaioi” be taken likewise as a noun, or the substantive “righteous ones”. But it has no article.

    2. Of your examples, only Hebrews 3:14, and Hebrews 12:8 really seem to indicate “partakers of.” I tend to take 12:8 with a little more hesitance, because the genitive in that case is impersonal. Since Hebrews 6:4 is used with a personal genitive, and since there seems, in some cases at least, to be a difference in the genitive following the adjective, dependent on its personality or impersonality, passages such as that in Luke, Hebrews 1, and Hebrews 3 would probably be a more viable comparison. So that leaves us with just Hebrews 3:14 as a probable contrasting usage. And even that reference is not explicit enough that some strong enough reason to do so might no change our interpretation of that verse.

    3. Your examples with the abstract noun “metoche” (and the verb “metecho”) actually support my reading, I think. In fact, those usages in I and II Corinthians were initially some of the passages that started my thinking along the lines I took in the original article (although I didn’t mention them, for brevity’s sake). I think you’ve hit a vital point, that “metecho,” and all of its various cognates, has a strong affinity with the term “koinonia”. I won’t go to the trouble of listing all the examples, since I’m confoundedly hurried, but I think that the basic meaning of “koinonia” is a partnership, or fellowship, or mutuality, that has its foundation in some common reality that everyone in the fellowship jointly experiences. If I enjoy being with someone merely because of our own, innate likenesses, then “koinonia” might not be the best term to describe the relationship. If I am joined together with someone because we both have the same goal (nationality, vocation, etc.), then I am closer to being characterized by a “koinonia” in that relationship. (and what better example of koinonia is there than that bond I have with you and all other believers simply because we are all, conjointly, in Christ). Now, keeping that in mind, look at the Corinthians examples, and the surrounding elements of Hebrews 6:4. It seems to me that, what is being emphasized, is commonality with the Church, on the basis of joint participation in something. And, if the word “metochos” has a clear history of usage in a similar sense, it may just be in keeping with the thrust of its immediate context in Hebrews 6 (that is, it may indicate partnership/fellowship with the believers on the basis of shared participation in the Spirit [or the Spirit’s ministry or works]).

    4. Your examples in Ephesians indicate the same kind of usage – especially 3:6. There, the apostle is arguing that the Gentiles, who were estranged from God’s people, have now become united to them by virtue of a common participation in God’s promise. The major point is not that they have “partaken” of the promise – it’s that they have become united to Israel by virtue of a shared commonality in the promise. Which is, I think, the same major point in Hebrews 6.

    5. And so, after taking some more pains to trace out my previous lines of thought, I conclude in the same way: “As far as I can tell, that’s the basic meaning of the word.” I could be wrong, but if I am, I can at least assure you that I am not trying to obscure evidence in order to support my theology, as you seem to think. Oh, by the way, I did already consult BDAG and Kittel. But that’s neither here nor there, and so we move on to

    6. Your point about the obvious similarity of thought with 2:1-4 is good; but I don’t think that’s mutually exclusive with the position that sees some significance in the pronoun shift. They may rather be just complementary: “they” have experienced, in a sense, all the same things that “we” have experienced – but they are still just “they”.

    7. I agree with some of your other points, as, for example, that some degree of participation in the Spirit’s work does not indicate a regenerated nature, that a hypothetical but never-occurring reality may possibly be a reasonable interpretation of the passage, etc.

    8. Finally, I agree that it would be best to let the reader see the connection between 3:14 and 6:4. But in order to use that preference to argue for keeping the same translation by which they are both usually rendered, you have to assume two things: first, that the terms are being used in the same sense in both passages; and second, that this common sense is the one associated with the traditional rendering. I withhold judgment on the former point, lest I open up another discussion that I do not have the time to continue, but I will at least express my strong hesitancy with the latter.

    9. Finally, I never suggested a different translation in the original post, but it seemed at various points that you were supposing I was thinking of the translation “partners of”. I do not think this would be a good translation, since the genitive here (as elsewhere, for example, the Luke occurrence) does not constitute the object of the partnership idea, but the “third” reality in which different persons find fellowship. Hence, I would prefer something along these lines, “have commonly participated in the Spirit” (note my more adjectival translation as opposed to the traditional substantival – that, at least, should be amenable to you!) – or, if you would avoid the subtle insinuation that the Spirit is some impersonal, divisible essence, and if you are not too leery of dynamic equivalence, “have jointly experienced the works of the Spirit,” or something along those lines.

    Thanks for taking the time to dialogue – and thanks especially for the excellent research on cognates, synonyms, and their uses, as well as parallel theological concepts, such as Simon in Acts 8. They are very helpful and much appreciated. I apologize in advance if I misunderstood you, especially in your initial line of reasoning about adjectives and substantives.

    Many blessings from my Savior and yours, metoche mou!

  7. Bob Hayton says:
    November 28, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    Nathan,

    Actually I didn’t quite understand all the difference between adjectives and substantives. The lexicon seemed to distinguish, and the Luke and Heb. 1 examples were the only ones to have an article. I thought that might be important.

    I actually like your suggested translation “participated in” rather than what I thought you were suggesting “partners of”. I guess I did not really see a lot of proof initially, and just was a little wary of changing the passage to fit a theological grid. I am sure, however, that such happens a lot in the best English translations too.

    Thanks for responding. I think you answered some of my points well.

    God bless,

    Bob

  8. pitchford says:
    November 28, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    By the way, I’m not even sure how hard-core I would be about changing the English translations. Remember I said I copied and pasted from a couple of e-mails? Well, they were written to consult with a team that is translating the bible into Russian. Otherwise, I probably would not even have mentioned changing the translation. But if I did, it would be along the lines of what I said in the comment (I mentioned that in the e-mail, but it wasn’t part of what I copied and pasted, so I probably left a lot of ambiguity on that point in the original post).

    Anyway, thanks for the interaction. I especially appreciate your concern to allow the reader to see the parallel between 6:4 and 3:14, and let him wrestle through the issue himself.

    En Christo,

    Nathan

Leave a Reply