If they shall fall away. — Rather, and (then) fell away. There is no doubt that the ordinary translation is altogether incorrect, the Greek admitting of one rendering only. At the same time, the suspicion sometimes expressed that this is one of the (very few) instances in which our translators have been misled by dogmatic bias seems altogether unfounded. On tracing back the translation we find it due, not to the Genevan versions, in which the influence of Calvin and Beza is predominant, but to Erasmus, Luther, and Tyndale. The contrast with the preceding description is presented in the fewest possible words. The successive clauses have shown that all the marks of the divine working in and with His word (Hebrews 2:4) have been found in these men, who, notwithstanding, “fell away.”
To renew them again. — A second time to make “the old” into a “new man.” In this place “renew” is distinctly used in reference to the action of man. Similarly, by the side of 1 Peter 1:3, “God... who hath begotten us,” we may set St. Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “In Christ Jesus I have begotten you;” so also St. Paul can say, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit;” and St. James can speak of a man’s saving a soul from death. In these and the many other examples of a similar kind there is no thought of human power acting by itself, but of the human appropriation of divine power, in accordance with the laws of the kingdom of God. The verse before us is often read as an assertion that men who have thus fallen cannot be renewed; and therefore it is the more necessary to lay stress on the simple meaning of the words, as relating neither to the absolute power of God, nor to the efforts of the Christian teacher in unassisted human strength, but to the economy of God’s spiritual kingdom, in which Christ’s servants achieve every great result by claiming and obtaining the “fellow-working” of their Lord.
Seeing they crucify. — The apostasy was indicated by a single word; these added clauses describe the depth of the fall, whilst they explain the futility of all effort towards recovering the fallen. Both the writer and his readers knew well what was involved in “falling away” in such a case as this. To go back to Judaism implied an acceptance of all that Jews had said and done against the Son of God, a return to the bitter hate cherished by the falling nation against the Crucified, a repetition in spirit of all that Pharisees had done, and without the palliation of ignorance; for the highest evidence for Christianity — that of true and deep Christian experience — had been given to them. Again, the words used clearly describe a continuing state. Not the punishment for a past act, but the hopelessness of an existing state, is brought before us here. It is therefore of those who, with a distinct conviction of the divine mission of Jesus, have deliberately joined His foes, unite in denouncing Him as a “deceiver” (Matthew 27:63), rejoice in His shame, and thus “for themselves crucify a second time the Son of God,” that the writer says, “It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance.”
That this impossibility relates to the action of man is shown very clearly by the writer’s words in Hebrews 6:3, “This will we do if God permit;.... for it is impossible.” He is ready to lead his readers on with him — unless, indeed, he is addressing any whom no man can thus lead. In that case the means which God has appointed have no application; such wilful and persistent hardening of heart must be left with Him.
The perplexity and trouble of mind to which these verses have given rise will furnish an apology for the length of these remarks. It is a true Christian instinct that has protested against the misuse of this passage by men who have doubted whether those who, after receiving the knowledge of the truth, fall under temptation, can again receive forgiveness; but the difficulty has been met by hazardous expedients. Some have denied that Hebrews 6:4-5 necessarily describe real Christian experience. By others it has been held that “impossible” was not intended to express more than the great difficulty of the attempt; others, again, have believed that in Hebrews 6:6 the writer brings before us a supposed case only, one that cannot really occur. The passage, together with Hebrews 10:26-29; Matthew 12:32; 1 John 5:16 (see the Notes), occupied an important place in early controversies, as those of the Montanists and Novatians, who refused absolution to those who, after baptism — or, in the language of the early Church, after “illumination” (Hebrews 6:4) — fell into heinous sin.