Hebrews 6
LenskiCHAPTER VI
A Call to Christian Maturity, although It Is Impossible to Restore Those Who Commit the Sin against the Holy Spirit, v. 1–8.
Hebrews 6:1
1 The writer expects his rebuke to take proper effect. That is why Christian rebuke is administered, to be promptly effective. The writer tells his readers that they are again like children who need milk and the ABC of teaching instead of solid food. But he will not dismiss them as such children; this rebuke is to drive the sluggishness out of their ears (5:11) and to make them recover something of their maturity. Διό connects; with the whole rebuke and not merely with 5:13 or 14.
Therefore, leaving the discussion of (what constitutes) the beginning of (the connection with) Christ, let us bring ourselves (in our discussion) to (what constitutes) the (proper) maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of (the) doctrine concerning baptisms and laying on of hands, and concerning resurrection of (the) dead, and concerning eternal judgment. And this we will (now) do if God, indeed, permits.
Λόγος is again “discussion,” Eroerterung, as it was in 5:11, 13, the genitive τῆςἀρχῆς names the contents, and the second genitive τοῦΧριστοῦ him with whom the beginning of Christianity is connected. The participle is the aorist because leaving this discussion is a single act that is preliminary to turning to things that are more advanced. The Greek is compact but entirely clear; in English we must use more words in order to bring out the thought which the terse genitives convey. The writer says: Let us turn from the ABC matters of Christianity, from what is milk for a child, and discuss matters that are more mature and advanced. He lifts his readers out of their low state for which he has scolded them in 5:11–14 so that they might at least in part attain the maturer state in which they ought to be. By expecting something better from them and even acting on that expectation he draws them to live up to that expectation. That is good spiritual psychology.
“Let us bring ourselves,” namely in this our logos or discussion, “to the maturity,” to what constitutes the proper maturity in this discussion in which this degree of maturity is needed. Again, as in 2:5; 5:11, this is by no means an editorial “we”; the very sense of the verb is against such a view. It is the middle voice and cannot mean: “Let me carry myself to the proper maturity.” The writer includes his readers and wants them to betake themselves with him to the maturity of understanding and judgment that is needed for discussing what lies beyond the ABC of Christianity. This is his constantly fine attitude toward his readers; he lifts them up to his level wherever he can. While he, indeed, imparts he knows that they will the more readily receive when he draws them up to his own level. Τελειότης corresponds to τέλειοι used in 5:14 and signifies a “maturity” that is above the stage of a νήπιος or “child.”
The participial clause explains: “not laying again (in our discussion with each other) a foundation of repentance from dead works,” etc., not starting again from the very bottom like laying a foundation for a house. Surely, it will not be necessary to do this again. Surely, after the rebuke that has just been administered to them (5:11–14) the readers will be able to recover from the immature way in which they have been acting.
Three appositional genitives describe what is meant by “foundation.” It would be one “of repentance from dead works—of faith toward God—of doctrine.” The third needs objective genitives to explain with what such doctrine would have to deal: it would have to be “doctrine concerning baptisms and laying on of hands,” etc. All these things are the elements, the ABC of Christianity. The readers can surely recall them without having them discussed anew; they can now surely advance with the writer to the further things such as solid food for adults to give them manhood strength.
All these genitives refer to basic Christian and not to the old Jewish teachings; yet they refer to what the readers as former Jews learned when they were brought to Christ. If this letter were intended for former Gentiles, some at least of these genitives would be different. The first two matters that grounded them in Christianity were “repentance and faith.” As Jews they lived in “dead works,” in outward observance of law. The Gospels and Paul’s letters abundantly describe such “dead works.” They were “dead” indeed, no spiritual life produced them, for this life produces fruit that is of an entirely different kind.
Of the many passages that might be cited here besides 9:14 let us mention only Matt. 7:16–20; 25:44–45. On μετάνοια see the verb in Matt. 3:10: “to perceive or see afterward” thus “to change one’s mind”; but this meaning is immensely deepened in the Scriptures and signifies the inner change of heart by turning from sin and guilt to cleansing and forgiveness by God’s grace under the power of the law and the gospel. This word looks backward to guilt and forward to God’s pardon. Here “from dead works” makes this word look back to these. Repentance frees from this millstone.
Coupled with this contrite repentance is “faith toward God,” for the two always go together. “Repentance” sometimes includes “faith” without special mention of it; it is properly added here. If former Gentiles were addressed, we should expect the mention of turning away from dumb idols to the living God (1 Cor. 12:2). But why does the writer not say “faith in Christ” instead of “faith based on (ἐπί) God”? Because he refers to faith that is based on God who spoke concerning Christ in the Old Testament. The Jews did not need another god, they needed faith in the God whom they knew, genuine trust in him and in the revelation of his Word.
Hebrews 6:2
2 The third elementary characteristic of Christianity is “doctrine.” This is added without a connective because it is an integral part of both repentance and faith without which neither can be laid down as a foundation. “Of doctrine” is also an appositional genitive to “foundation”; but the four modifying genitives are objective: doctrine “about baptisms,” etc. These are connected by τε … τε … καί which join more closely than three καί would. These four form a closely connected whole. These Jews were taught what their baptisms meant for them (Titus 3:4–7). The plural is concrete to designate the actual baptisms the readers had received; the singular would be abstract to indicate what baptism as such means. We cancel the R.
V.’s margin “washings” which is due to the supposition that the doctrine about Jewish lustrations is referred to. The Jews know all about them without Christian doctrine.
The governing genitive is generally placed before its dependent genitive, but even B.-D. 444, 4; 474, 4, registers an exception here. This placing does not seem to be due to mere rhythm but to a desire to weld this genitive more closely to its dependents. “Baptisms” and “laying on of hands” go together just as we still use the latter in our form of baptism. It is the old symbolic act that dates far back into Judaism and is benedictional by praying for God’s blessing to descend upon the person indicated; it is at the same time symbolic of that very blessing. While it bestows nothing and, when it is joined to baptism, does not mediate the gift of the Holy Spirit, it does go with the words of prayer that accompany the act of the hands and ask that the Holy Spirit received in and through baptism continue to bless the person baptized. The other uses of the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6; 8:17; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6) need not be discussed here.
Repentance, faith, baptism go together, which is another reason for placing “baptisms” forward. So also “resurrection of (the) dead” and “judgment eternal” (i. e., never to be altered) go together. Except for the Sadducees, the Jews, too, believed in these, but not as being connected with Jesus, who is the Resurrection and the Life and the Judge at the last day. The foundational doctrine of Christianity gave Jews what they could not attain in their work-righteousness and empty Judaism: the sure hope of a blessed resurrection in Jesus and the certainty that they would be justified in the eternal judgment.
Four items taken from the start of the Christian life and two from its consummation at the last day suffice for summarizing the foundation of Christianity, which it should not be necessary to lay again for the readers of this letter; they should stand on this foundation and permit this letter to discuss what will strengthen them and mightily further their Christianity. We note the reading διδαχήν, the accusative in place of the genitive. It is not well-attested textually and only confuses the wording and hence requires no further discussion.
Hebrews 6:3
3 Despite the handicap that exists in the readers the effort to which they are invited in v. 1 is now to be made: “And this we will accomplish if God, indeed, permits!” The reading varies between the future indicative (volitive) “we will,” etc., and the aorist subjunctive (hortatory) “let us,” etc. The latter seems to be a conformation with the subjunctive of v. 1 and unnecessarily repeats the hortation, whereas the former: “we will,” etc., properly answers the “let us,” etc., occurring in v. 1. What is being proposed (τοῦτο) is what is indicated in v. 1, namely to carry ourselves forward to the proper maturity. The proposal cannot be to lay the foundation anew, for this is negatived in v. 1, nor is it done in what follows. What is proposed is a mutual proceeding: “we will do or accomplish”; the writer cannot succeed unless his readers rouse themselves and cooperate, for the success of what is to be accomplished hinges also on them.
That is why the ἐάνπερ clause is added: “if God, indeed, permits (or: will permit).” In the case of the writer this means that God must aid him in the writing of what follows, and that God must aid the readers in overcoming the sluggishness and dullness of their hearing (5:11). On him depends the success of all our preaching and our hearing, which, like the writer, we feel especially when our hearers have begun to close their ears and need to be rebuked as is done in 5:11–14. On the part of the writer the clause implies the earnest prayer: “May God permit me to accomplish my part for the readers!” It implies likewise that the readers pray: “May God permit the accomplishment in us as far as our reading and our hearing of this letter are concerned!” There is no doubt regarding God, for the conditional clause is one of expectancy. This expectancy rests, as it should always also in our case, on humble dependence.
Hebrews 6:4
4 “For” explains that success might be impossible, that even God could not permit such a thing. For those who were once enlightened and tasted the heavenly gift and became partakers of the Holy Spirit and tasted God’s excellent utterance and (his) powers of the eon about to come and fell away, it is impossible again to renew them unto repentance since they are recrucifying the Son of God and exposing him to public ignominy.
We note that this statement as well as the following one (v. 7, 8) are objective, are written in the third person. This statement presents the fact regarding what “is impossible” in the case of certain persons. The writer does not say that among his readers there actually are, or that he fears that there are, persons of this kind. His statement constitutes a warning: those once converted may fall so that it becomes “impossible to renew them to repentance.” The readers are to apply that fact to themselves. One may go so far that even God’s grace can no longer reach him; the judgment must then take him in hand and send him to his doom (10:26–31). What is said is not written in order that we may judge others as to their fall and pronounce it irreparable, but so that each of us may check himself lest he fall and be doomed.
In a study of what is said here and in 10:26–31 regarding the sin against the Holy Ghost we should begin with the passages found in the Gospels, namely Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:28, 29; Luke 12:10, where Jesus warns the blasphemous Pharisees against committing this sin as they were beginning to do; we should also consult 1 John 5:16. Both those who were never converted and those who have been converted may fall into a state in which they make repentance impossible. They may already in this life reach a state that is similar to that of the damned in hell, yea, a state that is similar to that of the devils, for whom there is no repentance, no pardon. Although this is terrible beyond words, it is, nevertheless, true. Repentance may be lost and found again; it may also become impossible exactly as is here stated. God alone knows when the latter occurs; we can have only fears. The opposition of those who have never repented may grow so that they place themselves into a state where repentance and thus forgiveness become absolutely impossible.
This is rightly called the sin against the Holy Ghost, who is mentioned in this verse and in the three passages found in the Gospels. It is he who works repentance; to sin against him to such an extent that this is made impossible for him is to fall into the hands of the living God (10:31). Let us add that any person who fears that he has committed what has by another name been called “the unpardonable sin” by that very fear proves that he has not committed it, that the door to repentance has not been irrevocably closed against him by God. Those who have fallen as is here described never show such fears; their horrible fear sets in at death.
The Greek can separate ἀδύνατον from πάλινἀνακαινίζεινκτλ.; this cannot be done in English as our versions show. “Impossible again to renew” simply states the fearful fact; v. 8 indicates what alone remains. The four participles, all aorists of fact, have one article and thus describe the same persons; the accusative makes them the object of the verb “to renew again unto repentance.” The descriptive participles furnish a complete picture. “They were once enlightened” by the Holy Spirit by means of the Word of the gospel; the aorist states the fact as an actual occurrence. The darkness was driven out, the Light, Jesus Christ, the light of his saving truth filled their souls.
Ἅπαξ, “once,” is in contrast with πάλιν, “again” or a second time, v. 6. How one who has once been enlightened can deliberately return into darkness is beyond explanation, but only because an unreasonable act admits of no reasonable explanation, and all explanations which explain must of necessity be reasonable. In Matt. 22:12 the man who is confronted with his unreasonable act is speechless; no reasonable explanation is possible. In Luke 19:20, 21 the unreasonable act is defended by an attempt to make it appear reasonable; but this show of reason is at once blasted by the unreason it seeks to cover up.
The Novatians and the Montanists used this passage as Scripture proof for their penitential discipline, and they influenced many of the older writers. They had “to be enlightened” and also “to renew” and to “recrucify” (v. 6) refer to baptism and so claimed that the fallen could not be baptized a second time, but that they might obtain forgiveness by repentance. But “those once enlightened” never equals those once baptized. We need not, of course, separate the baptism of adults from their enlightenment, for all who come to true enlightening and faith themselves insist on being baptized as they also desire the Lord’s Supper and all the other blessings of the church. “Light” and “to enlighten” are derived from the Old Testament and in the New Testament have no connection with the pagan mystery cults and the words that were used in their rituals or with the so-called “shock of enlightenment” that is found in the Masonic initiations of today. The aorist states the past fact that these persons were once enlightened; but this tense in no way denies the process involved, which leads up to faith and the adequate knowledge of Christ.
The connection by means of τε is close: “and have tasted the heavenly gift.” To the sense of sight that of taste is added in order the more to describe the inner, personal experience of salvation. As to taste of death (2:9) means to experience its bittterness, so to taste of the heavenly gift means to experience the joy of receiving that gift and of being blessed by the unmerited grace which bestowed that gift, yea, as a sinner on this sinful earth to experience the heavenliness of it. Recall “heavenly calling” used in 3:1.
We confess that we are unable to see why “once” should not be construed with all the participles save the last, “fell away,” which naturally needs no modifying adverb. To say that only the enlightenment is momentary while the other three are durative experiences is to have a wrong conception of the enlightenment. So we cannot restrict “the heavenly gift” to the Lord’s Supper, the Holy Spirit, faith, regeneration, the gospel, Christ, the forgiveness of sins; nor can we exclude the latter as though it does not come from heaven when in fact our acquittal is pronounced by the Judge on his heavenly throne. “The heavenly gift” is comprehensive, one grand whole, entirely “heavenly” in its nature, far above anything earthly; in Eph. 1:3 Paul writes: “All spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.”
The third participle names the heavenly source: “and became partakers of the Holy Spirit” (no article is needed, this is a proper name). Καί is in place and not τε because the experience is now carried down to what these people themselves “became.” “Partakers” places them among the rest, of whom the same thing can be said. They belonged to this heavenly company, the great Una Sancta. To be partakers or sharers of the Holy Spirit does not mean to divide the Spirit. He is a person, and those are partakers of him who with others receive him in their hearts with all that this saving, sanctifying presence means.
Hebrews 6:5
5 But this statement calls for amplification, for the Spirit does not descend from heaven and enter into our hearts. We need the statement “and tasted God’s excellent utterance and his powers of the eon about to come.” We get the Spirit by means of the ῥῆμαθεοῦ which is thus defined by C.-K., 650: “What God has said or uttered without reference to its extent … yet according to the connec.tion with special reference to the message of salvation,” dabar tob (Hebrew), “excellent utterance.” ΛόγοςΘεοῦ lays stress on the thought that is expressed in the Word, ῥῆμα on the fact that God spoke, although what he said is also included even as λόγος includes a λέγειν of some kind. We have, therefore, ῥηθέν, “uttered by the Lord” (Matt. 1:22), and λέγει, the Lord “says.” The difference remains. In all of God’s utterance his Spirit comes to enter our hearts and to dwell there, nor is there an utterance that is as καλόν as this, which brings all God’s heavenly gift to bless us for salvation.
That is why τε closely connects with God’s utterance “(his) powers of the eon about to come.” In Rom. 1:16 the gospel is called “God’s power,” not, indeed, his omnipotent power but his power “for salvation,” his power of grace. What is said regarding “the living λόγος of God” in 4:12, 13 is equally true regarding his ῥῆμα. The plural “powers” is clearer than the singular “power” would be, for the plural leads us to think of the many blessed effects which these powers work in us. They are “powers” of a higher world than the earth and its powers of nature, which are able to produce only natural effects.
“The eon about to come” already exists and will take the place of “this eon” in which we now live on earth. Rev. 21:1–5. Although this eon still continues, that eternal eon in which God exists already sends its powers down into our present eon, sends them by God’s utterance or Word and by the Holy Spirit who fills that utterance. Heavenly, eternal effects are thus wrought, which are to endure during the entire eternal eon to come: spiritual birth, renewal, sanctification, divine sonship, heirship, fear, joy, thanksgiving, glorying.
The writer again uses “tasted” but not because of a poverty of terms on his part—this epistle shows the very opposite of such poverty of expression—but because he intends to emphasize the experience of tasting and enjoying. We taste “the heavenly gift,” and that includes the thought that we also taste “God’s excellent Word and other-world powers” themselves by which the heavenly gift is made ours. Such a heavenly gift we already enjoy, but these powers that are operative in us promise far greater gifts to come (1 Cor. 2:9). We taste the sweet presence and working of these powers which fit us more and more for this coming eon into which we shall be presently ushered. In Hellenistic Greek the verb “to taste” may govern either the genitive as it does in v. 4 or the accusative as it does in v. 5 without a difference in meaning; the classics use only the genitive. The writer intends to make no difference, nor should we seek one.
We note that the light implied in the first participle, the heavenly gift, the Holy Spirit, the utterance of God and the other-world powers are objective; but the participles are subjective to the highest degree, for they refer to the actual, personal, most intimate experience of these divine realities. Light and heavenly gift are not enough for the writer, he adds the Holy Spirit, the personal divine medium for this light and this gift, and the divine Word with its other-world powers, in and by which the Spirit comes and operates in us to produce this entire blessed experience. The writer thus describes Christians who became Christians in the fullest sense of the word. The aorists confine themselves to the fact without referring to the length of time the blessed fact continued.
Hebrews 6:6
6 Another καί is added and another aorist participle, and these complete the description of these Christians. We again have just one word as we had in the first participle used in v. 4. “And fell away,” just this final fact. There is no need to say more, this one word tells the whole story. It is tragic to the highest degree. The following words describe how tragic it is. This is not a falling into some sin or error which is dangerous but not deadly; no denial like that of Peter in a panic of fear, like that of weak Christians who in order to save their lives were frightened by persecutions into sacrificing to pagan gods or to the emperor as a divine being. The church was inclined to consider the latter as being beyond hope, which was a mistake in many cases.
“And fell away” (literally “to the side,” παρά) means to fall away utterly. They fell to such an extent that “it is impossible again to renew them unto repentance,” i. e., again to produce repentance (see the word in v. 1) in their heart and so to change their state into one that is again καινός or “new” as they had once been made new. The subject of the infinitive is unexpressed; it need not be expressed, for no one, neither God himself, the Holy Spirit, nor his Word and the ministers of that Word are able to produce a renewal of the repentance that is gone.
It is the state into which they have fallen which makes renewal to repentance impossible. Two present durative participles describe this state, and we regard them as causal: “since they are recrucifying for themselves the Son of God and exposing him to public ignominy.” As the tenses show, there is no cessation in this double act. The enormity of these acts is expressed by making “the Son of God” the object of them. They are repeating the awful act of the Jewish Sanhedrin, who crucified Jesus because he said he was the Son of God (Matt. 26:63–66). They are doing this “for themselves.” They are not again actually nailing him to the cross as one who was accursed of God (Gal. 3:13), for he is now beyond human reach, in glory, but as far as his relation to them and theirs to him is concerned.
The second participle goes still farther, “exposing him to public ignominy” as the Sanhedrists did in Matt. 26:67, 68 when they spit in Jesus’ face, knocked him about, and mocked him; when they brought him to the cross to hang there in public ignominy, and added to this outrage by their hideous mockery, Matt. 27:38–43. Those who fell from the Son of God openly denounce and revile him before the world, and, having once embraced him, they not only know how to do this most effectively like a friend turned traitor who viciously uses all that his former intimacy provides him, but do it so that men shall see what they as one-time converts of Jesus have now as disillusioned converts come to think of him. Outsiders may vilify the Son of God; they have never been personally in touch with him. What does that amount to? It is a different matter when his own converts eventually expose him to public shame. The word blasphemy is not used here as it is in the passages in the Gospels that speak about the sin against the Holy Ghost; but “exposing to public ignominy” is a full equivalent.
Hebrews 6:7
7 The illustration that is now added advances to the divine judgment which is necessarily involved. For land that drank the rain often coming upon it and bearing plants suitable for those on whose account it is also being tilled partakes of blessing from God, but continuing to produce thorns and thistles it is rejected and nigh to a curse, whose end is for burning.
When the author uses a piece of ground as an illustration, we feel that he is comparing the lesser with the greater: if this is undeniably true with regard to a piece of land, it will more assuredly be true with regard to men. In the reality (v. 4–6) we have men who did well and then went utterly bad; so in the illustration we have a piece of land which is first described as doing well and then as doing the opposite. This is the same piece of land; the article is to be construed with all three participles: γῆἡπιοῦσα … καὶτίκτουσα … ἐκφέρουσαδέ, “land that drank … and keeps bearing … but keeps producing.” The fact that it drank the rain applies to both of the present participles; although the cultivation is not repeated in the case of the second (v. 8), such cultivation is, nevertheless, implied.
The tenses of the participles are used exactly. The rain keeps coming upon this piece of land (present, iterative); it drank all of this rain (aorist, fact). It continues to bear herbage that is suitable for those on whose account it is being cultivated, namely the owners who do the cultivating themselves or have their servants do it. While it is in this condition the land partakes of blessing from God as serving the purpose of God. Land is blessed when it does this. The illustration is so to the point because land could not do this on its own accord; it is like us who must receive God’s light, gift, Spirit, etc., (v. 4, 5) and besides these the cultivating care of the church, its ministry, and its membership.
So land must receive God’s rain and the farmer’s cultivating care. It is God’s intent that such land produce what its cultivators need. So we should respond to all that is lavished upon us by God and by his church. Compare Ps. 65:10.
Hebrews 6:8
8 Yet land that is so well treated may be the opposite (δέ) and continue “to carry up” nothing but thorns and thistles. Was the writer perhaps thinking of Palestine with its 200 species of thistles which appear in 753 varieties (B.-P. 1320)? This would not necessarily locate the readers in Palestine, but it would remind them as former Jews of the kind of land that the Jewish nation had become, a people of thorns and thistles. That would be very much in point: receiving all God’s bountiful rain plus all the diligent cultivation yet now allowing itself to be blown over with seed of all manner of thorns and thistles, carrying them up in noxious growth to the smothering out of all edible herbage (Matt. 13:7). Whatever a piece of land may have done before, it is now ἀδόκιμος, tested out and found to be no good for its purpose and thus “nigh to curse,” so nigh that the curse will presently be carried into effect, its end for nothing but burning (10:27). This is not metonomy as though, while the burning sets fire to the thorns and thistles, the land itself is also burned like Sodom and Gomorrah. Only its end is burning; its product is not harvested for the cultivators but is set on fire, it is fit only for burning.
Here is the judgment with even the significant word “burning.” The application to the people described in v. 6 is so clear that nothing needs to be added. The relative ἧς has its antecedent by way of the participles which modify γῆ, “land.” Some regard “curse” as the antecedent, but the clause should then read: “a curse whose end is burning” and not “for burning”; it is the land that is destined “for a burning” of all its noxious product.
The Writer’s Assurance and Desire, v. 9–12.
Hebrews 6:9
9 The idea that the writer “is almost startled by his own picture” in v. 4–8 or caught by its “alarm” and so hastens to tone it down, is not acceptable. He would then have cancelled v. 4–8 as any writer does who finds his words too strong for what he intends to say. Verses 4–8 are intended as a warning and are therefore written in the third person; and the readers need this warning, it is not retracted. While v. 4–8 hoist the danger signal v. 9–12 leave it hoisted but remind the readers of their past faithfulness and on this base the assurance that they will not fall and the desire that every one of them may continue in diligence to the glorious end.
But we are persuaded concerning you, beloved, things that are better and in keeping with salvation though we speak as we do. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love you displayed for his name by your past ministering to the saints and your present ministering.
The perfect “we have been persuaded” has the force of the present “we still have the persuasion,” we are still convinced. Some think that this “we” is editorial and equals “I,” the writer alone. Although “we” and “you” are contrasted, the writer aims to say that many others, especially those that are with him as he writes, are convinced of better things in regard to the readers. They all realize that there has been a marked decline in the readers, but they are sure that this letter will effect complete recovery. This is not false optimism as v. 10 shows but one that is based on promising facts. The address “beloved,” which occurs only here in this letter, indicates how dearly all these friends love the readers, and how all that this letter contains, even its severest warnings, is prompted solely by this love.
Τά is to be construed with both the adjective and the participle: “things better” than those described in v. 6–8, and those “in keeping with salvation,” not tending to a curse (v. 8) and to damnation. The middle of ἔχω = holding themselves close to something, it is therefore followed by the genitive. Such better things and thus those that are in line with salvation the friends of the readers are sure they see in them to the present day. If this were not the case, it would be of no use to send this letter. On εἰκαί, “if also,” R. 1026 notes that a protasis of this kind is made a matter of indifference. What the writer has said in v. 4–8 does not affect the confidence that is now expressed. It could do so only if it is misunderstood.
Hebrews 6:10
10 “For” explains the persuasion and confidence, yet not as being based on the readers themselves but on God and on his justness. He “is not unrighteous to forget your work,” all that you have done and are still doing, “and the love” which prompted that work, “which you displayed for his name by your past ministering to the saints (aorist: completed) and your present ministering (present: incomplete, still going on).” If God should forget all this he would be unrighteous, unjust, in conflict with his own being as this is revealed by himself. “To forget” is followed by the genitive. God cannot possibly forget, i. e., cast aside and disregard what has been done and is being done because of love to his name. The “name” of God is God himself in his revelation. By his name he draws near to us, and by it we know, trust, love, embrace him. That is why his “name” is used in so many connections.
Ἀγάπη is the love of intelligence and understanding that is always coupled with corresponding purpose. This love springs only from true faith. To be sure, this love produces work, but God ever looks for the love in the work, and it is this love that arises from faith that makes us and our work acceptable to him who is himself love. The thought is that in spite of the decline in the readers God has not cast them off as accursed; he will continue his grace to them in order to remove their incipient defection. So the persuasion expressed in v. 9 rests ultimately on God and on what he will surely do for the readers in his righteousness.
The readers have displayed their love “for God’s name” (for God as revealed in Christ) in all their ministration “to the saints.” Love to God and help to God’s saints always go together. 1 John 3:16–18, 23, 24; 4:20, 21. “The saints” is one of the standard designations for true Christians whether they are of Jewish or of Gentile origin; we trace it back to Acts 9:13. “Saints” are those who are truly separated unto God. Some seem to think that whenever “ministering to the saints” is mentioned, this must refer to the saints in the motherland and in the mother church, to Palestine and to Jerusalem. So “the saints” is regarded as a special term which designates only these Jewish Christians of the homeland. But this is evidently an undue restriction of this term.
If the readers of this letter are themselves residents of Jerusalem and Palestine, this statement about having ministered and of still ministering to the saints becomes rather unintelligible, for this letter is addressed to all the Jewish Christians. The writer makes no division between them; he does not write a letter to the Jewish Christians of means in Palestine and not to the Jewish Christians who needed help. Consequently the readers cannot be located in Palestine. Furthermore, this ministering to the saints has nothing to do with the great collection which Paul gathered among all his Gentile congregations and carried to the saints in Jerusalem. That collection was made years before this letter was written.
The matter becomes clear when we regard the readers of our epistle to be the great body of Jews which Paul converted during his first Roman imprisonment (see the introduction). These converts did not give up their synagogue buildings in Rome. They retained several of the seven synagogues in Rome. They did not, as some suppose, join the old congregation in Rome, whose membership is mentioned in the greetings in Rom. 16. They remained distinct and had their own places of worship.
When in the year 64 Nero burned Rome, accused the Christians in Rome of this crime, and killed so many of them in the most horrible ways, by having remained distinct from the old congregation these Jewish converts escaped the worst. None had to suffer martyrdom. This came upon the membership of the old, original congregation in Rome. Having kept their old synagogues, Paul’s Jewish converts were still regarded to be nothing but the Jews they had always been. But during those terrible days these converts did what they could for “the saints” of the old congregation, they “ministered” to them as much as was possible. They were doing this even at the time when this letter was written. Instead of disowning all connection with the old congregation and its membership Paul’s Jewish converts helped and were still helping their fellow saints of that congregation, i. e., as many as were left.
We see how significant the statement is that God is not unrighteous to forget this work and the love for God’s name which prompted this work of ministering in the year 64 and since then, which covers something like a period of three or four years. The readers had not escaped entirely as 10:32–34 shows, most likely because they helped those who bore the brunt of the awful persecution.
Hebrews 6:11
11 Δέ adds something different. Besides being persuaded regarding the readers the writer and those who are with him desire something from them that is in line with their persuasion regarding them. Moreover, we desire that each one of you continue to display the same diligence unto the full assurance of the hope to the end so that you may not become sluggish but imitators of those who through faith and longsuffering are inheriting the promises.
“We desire” means as loving brethren desire the best for their “beloved” ones (v. 9). This wording sounds weaker than a positive command and yet is for that very reason stronger, for it appeals to the beloved to show themselves worthy of being so beloved. Those who are beloved are by the very love that is bestowed on them drawn to satisfy the desires of their lovers.
In v. 9, 10 we have “you,” the readers as a body; now the writer says “each one of you,” every individual, not one excepted. This does not, of course, mean that some are to be examples to the rest, and that some are to copy others. “Each one of you” makes no distinction. It applies the loving desire to every one personally. Each is to keep on showing (durative present) the same diligence that all have shown and are still showing in their love for God’s name and in ministering to the saints. And they are to show this same diligence in another direction, namely “toward the full assurance of the hope till the end,” when that hope will be gloriously realized. The fact that the readers had been and still were diligent in one direction makes the writer confident that the readers will show themselves diligent also in this other direction in which they were beginning to be slack. He praises them for the one diligence in order to move them to the other.
Πληροφορία = full assurance; some, like the R. V., stop with the idea of “fulness.” Yet when it comes to the thought, mere fulness of hope does not suffice; for this is the hope in the hearts of the readers, which is full only when it has fulness of personal assurance. It was this assurance that had begun to decline in the hearts of the readers; their hope thus grew less, it was like a flame that was burning lower and lower. “The hope” with its article is the true Christian hope of the coming glory promised by Christ. To exercise diligence in regard to the full assurance of that hope is with all diligence to examine the divine grounds on which our assurance rests. This will make us sure and certain, fully so in all respects, and will thus make our hope strong like a flame that blazes up steadily to full height. “Up to the end” the writer desires this diligence to be displayed, i. e., until the end of the life of each one of his readers.
Hebrews 6:12
12 Ἵνα expresses contemplated result, first a negative and then a positive result. “So that you may not become sluggish” in the diligence described. From 5:11 we know that the readers “have become sluggish as regards their hearing.” While it is not said that they have become sluggish also as regards their hope, this is implied; for the diligence that is required to keep the full assurance of their hope is none other than diligent hearing and heeding the gospel with its assurance in regard to what Christ has done and will do. Thus the present reference to sluggishness is an advance on 5:11.
Not sluggish “but imitators of those who through faith and longsuffering are inheriting the promises.” This unrolls before the eyes of the readers the example of their many fellow Christians who are faithful to the end. “Who are inheriting” is the iterative present participle, and to inherit a promise is not merely to get to know the promise but to obtain the thing that is promised, to have the inheritance paid out. Inheriting matches hope. The heir hopes; when he receives the inheritance, his hope is fulfilled, compare 1:14: “those about to inherit salvation”; also 1:2, Jesus, the Son, the great Heir, we joined to him by faith as fellow heirs (Rom. 8:17). Many have already inherited the promises, others are now entering on their inheritance and heavenly salvation. The readers surely do not want to lose their inheritance after God has made them heirs (v. 4–8). The plural “the promises” states that they have been given often and in many ways, through the prophets in olden times and finally through the Son (1:1, 2); the singular would be only comprehensive.
“Through faith and longsuffering” is significantly added to the participle. As hope and inheriting match, so also do faith and the promises. For promises aim to produce faith even as they are embraced only by faith until they are fulfilled and faith becomes sight. “Longsuffering” is added, μακροθυμία, which means enduring what persons may do, while ὑπομονή is patience, remaining under ills that come upon us. David is an example of the former when he was beset by Saul; Job of the latter when he was smitten with disease and loss. The former is predicated of God but not the latter. Trench and C.-K. 503.
The thought is that the faith of those who trust the promises and thus inherit what they offer holds out despite all that men may inflict upon them. Is the writer thinking of the martyrs in Rome? The readers, too, have already suffered much at the hands of men (10:32, 33) and may have still more to endure. The writer says: “See how those others are getting the inheritance through faith that is unshaken by what men do to them. Imitate them, beloved, and let no one break down your faith and make you forfeit your inheritance!”
The Example of Abraham and why the Promise Was Sealed by God’s own Oath, v. 13–20.
Hebrews 6:13
13 “For” fortifies the desire expressed in v. 11, 12 by going back to Abraham and by showing how he obtained the promise, the promise that was made so firm for its heirs by God’s own oath, thereby affording us an anchor for the soul. Verses 13–20 are a unit. Some think that Abraham is not presented as an example, but that the paragraph speaks only of the absolute certainty of the promise. So much is true, that by going back to the promise and the oath made to Abraham, his connection with both is made historically; yet when the author adds a statement as to how he obtained this sworn promise, namely by μακροθυμία, the very thing the readers, too, must exercise, Abraham is surely held up as an example to the readers. Abraham is just about the most effective example that could be chosen because the readers were descendants of Abraham, because the promise that was accompanied by God’s oath was made to him, and because it is he who stands out in the entire Old Testament as the father of believers by embracing the promise.
For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he swore by himself, saying: Surely, blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee!
We should not think that Abraham was the first to hear the promise, for this promise goes back to Adam (Gen. 3:16). “When to Abraham God made promise” is only temporal, it singles him out because in his case God added the oath, yet, as the writer notes, this was done, not for the sake of Abraham alone, but for the sake of all the heirs of that promise. The gospel promise was unfolded more and more until it was given as a covenant to Abraham and was sealed by an oath, the strongest assurance that could be given to him and to all the heirs.
God could not, however, swear as men do, by one who is greater, for there is none greater than God. So the only way in which God could swear to Abraham was to swear by himself. Κατά is used with verbs of swearing, as R. 607 explains, because the hand is laid “down upon” the thing on which the oath is taken. This is true to this day. When the Bible is used, the person lays his hand upon the Bible when he is taking an oath. The Bible signifies God himself. Raising the hand points to God and has the same meaning.
In order to do this more significantly three fingers are often held upright (for the Trinity), two are turned down (for body and soul), i. e., the person taking the oath indicates thereby that the Trinity may punish him in body and in soul if he perjures himself. The fact that all oaths, no matter what their form may be, are made κατά God, Jesus explains in Matt. 5:33–37 where he explodes the false notions of the Jews on this subject. The truth that oaths have their place and their legitimate use is attested by the fact that God himself takes an oath here, and that Jesus, too, took an oath before the proper human authorities (the government, the Sanhedrin), cf., Matt. 26:63, 64. Εἶχε is used with the infinitive in the sense of “could.”
Hebrews 6:14
14 The oath is quoted: “Surely,” etc., Gen. 22:17, but it is worded in direct discourse instead of in the original indirect form. It is also abbreviated because the oath is the main feature that is here emphasized. The promise was given to Abraham already in Gen. 12:7 whereas the oath was not added until Gen. 22:17; yet the promise was repeated in Gen. 22:17, and it was that whole promise which God sealed with his oath. The writer’s statement is brief but entirely correct. We regard εἰμήν as the correct reading; on ἦ and εἰμήν note R. 192; 1024; 1150. All of these are particles that are used in oaths. The repetition of the participle with the verb: “blessing I will bless thee,” imitates the Hebrew infinitive absolute (R. 1110) and strongly emphasizes the idea of the verb; it is like a superlative: “I will bless—multiply thee in the highest degree.” Since the oath lies in the particles, this wording includes also the promise that is sealed by the oath.
Hebrews 6:15
15 And thus, having exercised longsuffering, he obtained the promise. This matches v. 12, “those who by means of longsuffering are inheriting the promises.” So, in the same way, after exercising longsuffering, Abraham did obtain the promise. It ought not to be necessary to explain that this means that Abraham got what was promised and not that he got only the promise as a promise. Verse 12 likewise speaks of heirs who, one after another, actually get the inheritance, who are not merely made heirs that still have to wait for the inheritance.
An exaggerated literalism has the gift promised to Abraham consist of his multiplied descendants. But such an interpretation is untenable, for when Abraham died he saw only Isaac, his son, and Esau and Jacob, his grandsons. This interpretation is not improved by saying that Abraham saw the beginning of what was promised him in these three and so obtained the promise. Nor should it be said that what Abraham obtained was something that he lived to see and not something beyond this life, of which the readers could have no direct knowledge.
The sworn promise to Abraham centered in Christ. It was eternal salvation in Christ. Abraham obtained this at his death. Look at Matt. 8:11: Abraham is in the kingdom of heaven with Isaac and Jacob, and many are coming from the east and the west to sit down with him in that kingdom for the heavenly feast. The writer speaks of these many in 1:14 and 6:12, who inherit salvation one by one. They include both Jewish and Gentile believers, Abraham being the spiritual father of them all (Rom. 4:11–13); his seed is multiplied indeed.
How Zahn can place Abraham in the Totenreich and there let him get news of what happened 2, 000 years after his death, is difficult to understand. Besides, this Totenreich is but extravagant fiction (see the author on John 8:56). Let no conceptions of earthly time disturb you; when Abraham died and entered the kingdom he beheld “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8). He then obtained the promise (the verb takes the genitive) just as we do when at our death we go to recline with him at the feast in the heavenly kingdom.
Yet he obtained only “after having exercised longsuffering.” In v. 12 we have the noun and here the aorist participle. In v. 12 faith and longsuffering are combined; here the latter is sufficient since the former has already been mentioned, and since longsuffering is never without faith. See v. 12 for the meaning of μακροθυμία, which is true also with regard to the verb. During his life Abraham had only the sworn promise of God; how he fared among men made no difference to him, note what is said in 11:8–10. Patiently, steadily he waited, “expecting the city having foundations, whose designer and maker is God.” Abraham dismissed earth, men, and what men thought and did regarding him. It was “thus” that he obtained the promise.
We construe: “thus … he obtained,” the adverb as a modifier of the main verb, i. e., “thus” as was promised with God’s great, sure oath. He could not fail to obtain; assurance was actually doubled (v. 18), he had the promise and the oath in addition. Some construe: “having thus exercised longsuffering,” the adverb as a modifier of the participle. It is found next to the participle, yet the participle and the main verb form a unit: “having exercised longsuffering he obtained,” and the stress is on the main verb, on the great fact that he obtained. If “thus” is restricted to the participle, the implication would result that, save for God’s oath, Abraham might not have exercised longsuffering.
Hebrews 6:16
16 The explanation introduced by “for” extends to all that follows in v. 16–20 and not merely to v. 16. First, noting the effect of an oath among men generally, we are told that God swore his oath to Abraham, not for the sake of Abraham alone (which does not need to be said after v. 15), but especially on our account, so that we might have strong assurance and an anchor for the soul. We need but look at Abraham, at the way in which he obtained the promise, namely as sealed by God’s oath, and then think a bit and remember how even among men an oath settles things, and how God’s oath to Abraham refers directly to us. This would have a stronger force for the first readers since they were actually of Abraham’s blood and already when they were Jews knew about the promise and the oath to Abraham and how one must ever be a true son of Abraham in order to inherit the promise that was made to him.
For men swear by the greater, and the oath (thus sworn) is an end for them of all contrary statement, as far as making a thing firm is concerned. This is the preliminary point which is made with a view to the main point that is about to be added. Men swear by the greater, namely by God, κατά as in v. 13. The result is that such an oath settles any matter to which such an oath is made: “it is an end (πέρας) for men of all contrary statement.” They will no longer listen to any statement that contradicts the one that is sealed by such an oath. This is true when men take an oath, how much more, then, when God himself makes a sworn statement, in this case a promise, although he is compelled to swear by himself. Εἰςβεβαίωσιν is terse, and the noun is a word expressing an action: “for confirmation,” which we expand in translation in order to bring out its meaning: “as far as making a thing firm is concerned.” The Greek can place ὁὅρκος emphatically at the end; the article denotes “the oath” thus sworn by the greater who is God.
Hebrews 6:17
17 The sentence continues with a relative which connects God’s oath with the effect of oaths in general: wherein God, the more abundantly intending to show to the heirs of the promise the immutability of his counsel, interposed with an oath in order that by means of two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement, who found refuge so as to hold fast to the proffered hope, which we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and firm and extending into the inner part behind the veil, where as a forerunner there entered in in our behalf Jesus, become a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.
The ἐν phrase = “wherein,” namely “in connection with the fact just expressed about the value of oaths.” God made use of the oath in order to shut out any doubt, question, or contradiction. He wanted the more abundantly to show forth the immutability of his counsel and so interposed with an oath (dative of means). The comparative means “more abundantly” than if he had used the promise alone. We construe it with the participle where it is placed: “more abundantly intending,” etc. The R. V. combines it with the infinitive: “to show more abundantly.” The participle and the infinitive “intending to show” form one idea, and the adverb thus affects both.
The substantivized neuter adjective means “the immutable feature” of God’s counsel, βουλή, as in Acts 20:27, that which God had resolved to do and thus promised. This “counsel” of God embraces the entire gospel plan regarding our salvation in Christ.
“By means of two immutable things” accords with the principle which runs throughout Scripture that at least two testimonies are legally necessary to establish a matter: Deut. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17, 18; 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb. 10:28. In John 6:31, 32 and 36, 37 Jesus himself complies with this necessity as he does also in 8:17, 18. Finally, two witnesses attest the whole of Revelation, the one witness in Rev. 22:16, the second in 22:18. We need not cite the passages that deal with the trial of Jesus and with that of Stephen. God himself complied with this principle, and since there is not a second person to testify, he interposed his oath “in order that by means of two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie,” the immutability of his counsel may be established, and we may be absolutely assured. Astounding condescension, yet a fact.
This “counsel” God wanted to show “to the heirs of the promise,” of whom Abraham was one and all his multiplied spiritual children the rest. God’s oath is for all of them by covering, as it does, the promise which pertains to all of them. The heirs are not Abraham’s heirs but, including Abraham, the joint heirs of Christ (Rom. 8:17) who is the supreme Heir (1:2). The claim, that these heirs are only those who are of Jewish descent is not tenable although this epistle is addressed to Hebrews and not also to Gentiles. The writer draws no distinction as Paul does in many places, note Rom. 4:10–13 (where Abraham himself is called an heir). “Heirs of the promise” recalls v. 12: “those inheriting the promise,” and 1:14: “those about to inherit salvation.” God intends this double assurance for all of them, namely that of his promise and that of his oath.
The discussion regarding the exact meaning of the intransitive ἐμεσίτευσεν is not serious. The R. V.’s “he interposed with an oath” is better than the A. V.’s margin: “he interposed himself by an oath,” which some explain as meaning that God stepped in between himself as making the promise and the heirs to whom he made it, he, by swearing the oath, becoming not only the maker of the promise but also the witness—some say the Buerge or bondsman—guaranteeing the genuineness of the promise and thus its fulfillment. This would make God act in a double capacity, which is a complicated idea. It seems much simpler to make the oath itself the mediation between the promise and the heirs of that promise.
Hebrews 6:18
18 God used an oath “in order that by means of two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have strong encouragement,” etc. So much concerned was God to have all the heirs impressed with “the immutability of his counsel.” To his immutable promise he added his immutable oath; thus there are two πράγματα or affairs in which it is absolutely impossible for God to lie. The writer uses the plain word “to lie.” Any of his readers who would turn away from Christ and revert to Judaism would thereby charge God with a double lie: that his promise does not mean what it says; that his oath is perjury. That very idea would be blasphemy. The matter is put so bluntly because the writer fears lest there remain in any of his readers “a wicked heart of unbelief” (3:12).
From the generalizing third person, “the heirs of the promise,” he now turns to the first person: “in order that … we may have strong encouragement,” etc., for we surely intend to belong to these heirs. Παράκλησις has several meanings according to the context; “encouragement” (R. V.) is better here than “consolation” (A. V.). It is “encouragement” to hold out in sure faith and hope by relying on the immutable promise and on the immutable oath until we at last receive what is thus promised and sealed to us.
“We” in the verb receives a significant apposition: “who found refuge so as to hold fast to the proffered hope.” The perfective κατά in the participle coincides with the effective aorist tense (R. 827), the verb itself means “to find refuge” (R. 828). Our versions translate with an infinitive of purpose: “who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope,” etc. This is the accepted construction although Thayer is one of the few who call the infinitive one of purpose. While the infinitive belongs to the participle and not to παράκλησιν, we fail to see how the infinitive can signify purpose even when the participle is taken to mean “who fled for refuge,” die wir unsere Zuflucht dazu genommen haben, die Hoffnung zu ergreifen. We prefer to regard it as an infinitive of result: “we who found refuge so as to hold fast to the proffered hope.” The participle looks back to the mortal danger from which we escaped; the infinitive looks forward to the result achieved in this escape, laying hold of the sure and certain hope, and προκειμένη describes it as the hope “set before us,” “proffered” by God’s sworn promise.
Some interpreters regard this “hope” as subjective, the hope that animates our souls. But this view is not supported by the modifiers. The hope is “set before us,” proffered to us by God, and we grasp firm hold of it. This surely means that it is objective, the thing for which we hope. The subjective feature is found in the infinitive, our fast hold on this hope proffered to us.
Hebrews 6:19
19 We now have this hope “as an anchor of the soul” to prevent our being swept away. Hope is often likened to an anchor, not to one that is lying in the ship, but to one that is gripping the bottom of the sea and holding the ship. The adjective plus the participle are predicative and belong to “anchor” and describe it as “sure” because it is “firm” and firm because “extending into the inner part of the veil,” we should say, “behind the veil.”
The καταπέτασματοῦναοῦ is the inner curtain or veil that hung between the Holy and the Holy of Holies as the readers, being Hebrews, well knew. In the Herodian Sanctuary a second curtain hung before the Holy. This, too, was at times called καταπέτασμα, and the plural was used as a designation for both curtains. But the regular term for the outer curtain was κάλυμμα, and only occasionally was the other term used. There is no reason to think of anything but the curtain before the Holy of Holies in this verse.
The writer says that the anchor of our soul extends into the inner part behind this curtain; it grips the Holy of Holies, the very ark of the covenant, the mercy seat where the atoning blood was sprinkled by the high priest. We know that he is not thinking of the physical Herodian Sanctuary in which the ark of the covenant no longer stood, nor even of the Tabernacle in the wilderness or of Solomon’s Temple and Sanctuary. He has in mind the Holy of Holies in heaven, into which Jesus entered with his all-atoning blood.
For fear of mixing figures by placing an anchor in the Sanctuary behind the veil the R. V. connects all three modifiers with the relative; Riggenbach leaves the two adjectives with “an anchor” but has the participle modify the relative and thus “hope.” The feared mixture of figures disappears when we note that “the inner part behind the veil” is not a figure but language that is taken from the earthly type in order to designate the reality of the heavenly antitype, which would at once be understood by the readers who were former Jews. As the anchor is out of sight, so the hope, promised and sworn to us, is out of sight. It is in the heavenly Sanctuary. It is the promised salvation through the all-atoning blood of Jesus.
Hebrews 6:20
20 It is “where as a forerunner there entered in in our behalf Jesus, become a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” “Jesus” is the proper name for him; it is the name that Pilate wrote on the superscription on his cross when he shed his blood “in our behalf” and then entered into the Holy of Holies of heaven with that blood, there to make his sacrifice count “in our behalf.” He acted as our High Priest in this, but did so in a high priesthood that was of a higher order than that of Aaron who never entered as our forerunner whom we are to follow, who always retained the veil in order to keep Israel out. Jesus removed the barrier of the veil. We see this typified in the case of the earthly Sanctuary when the veil was rent in twain (Matt. 27:51). Through the blood of Jesus we may now approach the mercy seat and live forever. Note that “Jesus” is placed emphatically at the end just as ὁὅρκος is in v. 16.
The writer has several times called Jesus “High Priest” and twice “High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek” (5:6, 10). This is now repeated for the third time with the addition of “forever” (“for the eon”) as was done in v. 6 where it is quoted from Ps. 110:4. see 5:6 as to what this designation means. The writer is now ready and considers his readers ready for the full exposition which follows in chapter 7. Some take the aorist γενόμενος to mean that Jesus did not “become” our eternal High Priest until he entered heaven. That is the same as saying that the Jewish high priest became high priest only the moment he entered behind the veil. Jesus was High Priest during his entire office; when he shed his blood on the cross, and when he ascended to heaven forty days later, this office of his reached its climax.
B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.