Hebrews 5:8; 6:8

Notes

Some judicious critics do not refer this expression in Heb. 5:11 to Melchizedek, but render it thus: "Concerning which we have many things to say," and refer it to the subject of the Melchizedek priesthood. It is not true, as sometimes supposed, that Paul could not or did not say what he desired, for his comments on the Melchizedek priesthood are very clear and complete. Nor did he say that the things of which he was speaking were difficult to express, as our translation, "hard to be uttered," would indicate. The meaning is, as the original shows, that those things were hard to be explained to them, seeing they were dull of hearing; not well instructed in the faith they professed. The following verses, even to chap. 6:9, are all constructed on this fact. He had strong meat to give them, while they had only the capacity of children to receive it. Their dullness of hearing not only made it difficult for him to give them the instruction he desired to give, but their failure to make progress in Christian life and doctrine, was likely to endanger their salvation, unless they would change their course and go "on unto perfection." The human mind, as the earth which was once cultivated and watered by rains from heaven, does not stand idle. If it is not made to produce desirable fruits, it will soon grow up to thorns and briers. This is a most important passage for every Christian to consider.

"Seeing ye are dull of hearing" does not express the sense of the original, which says, "ye are become dull of hearing." And this indicates that they had been in a better state; a state where they could better appreciate the truth. This assertion of their backslidden condition adds greatly to the force of the admonitions following. It is a fact, worthy of careful consideration, that lukewarm professors, neither cold nor hot, are the most difficult of all men to arouse to a true sense of their condition. The conscience of the infidel, the openly profane, may be touched and aroused, but lukewarm Christians are so stupefied by self-complacency, so satisfied with themselves, that they are exceedingly difficult to reach. See Rev. 3:14-18.

There is no mention in the Scriptures that Melchizedek was a high priest. We have no reason to believe that such a distinction could have been known in his time. As will be seen in the progress of this argument, neither Melchizedek nor Aaron was a complete type of Christ. It took both together to present all the essential truths of the gospel in the priesthood of Christ. He was of the order of Melchizedek, but he was also the antitype of Aaron (Heb. 8:1-5), and fills the office of high priest, as the high priest alone made the great atonement.

The apostle enumerates a few points of doctrine, which, in the light of the Scriptures, are so plain that every novice in the faith was supposed to understand. But one expression, "the doctrine of baptisms," has been the occasion of much trouble to commentators. Some have inferred that he referred to the difference between the baptisms of the Jews and Christian baptism. But the Jewish baptisms certainly could find no place in this connection. The following remarks by Professor Stuart are worthy of notice:—

"Another explanation is, that baptismon does not differ in any important respect from baptismou."

He then gives a number of instances, on different subjects, where the plural is used in the sense of the singular, and continues:—

"Storr supposes baptismōn to be used here in a kind of distributive sense, as the Hebrew plural often is, so that the sentiment is, 'the doctrine that every believer must be baptized.' But however this may be, no great stress can be laid upon the use of the plural. Accordingly, the Syriac version has the singular here. In regard to the doctrine of baptism being an elementary doctrine, there can be no difficulty. The rite itself was an initiatory one, for all who professed to be Christians."

It is of course admitted that elementary truths, lying at the very beginning of Christian faith and life, should be, and of necessity are, plain truths. It is a great pity that party interests have been permitted to obscure the doctrine of baptism, and make it a question for the schools, to be understood and made known by those only who are versed in theology and languages. If left to the words of the Saviour and his apostles, a few texts would settle the question with every earnest soul who is honestly and candidly seeking to follow the Saviour in his example and precept.

We are not to suppose that eternal judgment means, eternally judging or eternally being judged. It means a judgment the decisions of which are final; its consequences are eternal. On this form of expression, the Critical Greek Lexicon of Bullinger has the following just remarks on "eternal punishment" (Matt. 25:46):—

"The nature of which must be looked for in other parts of the Scriptures as being there clearly defined as a result and not a process. Eternal punishment is an expression analogous to eternal judgment in Heb. 6:2 (not judging); eternal redemption, Heb. 9:12 (not redeeming); eternal salvation, Heb. 5:9 (not saving); i. e., the eternal effect of an act."

It is an awful thought that very soon that decision, that can never be reversed or modified, will be made.

The apostle's description of graces and attainments (Heb. 6:4, 5) applies to those who have enjoyed no small degree of gospel blessings. And on this subject there is great liability to misjudge. When we see one whose attainments in the divine life are considered high, who is esteemed especially rich in grace, it is quite common to think that his title is "clear to mansions in the skies." But great graces bring great responsibilities; and responsibilities are always accompanied by corresponding dangers. True graces, gifts of the Spirit, are not merits of the individual possessing them; they are favors by the free grace of Him who sits on the throne of grace. If these favors are abused, the recipient is more guilty than he who has never been thus blest. And, of course, the greater the gift, the greater the guilt in its abuse. Compare with Heb. 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:21; Heb. 10:26-29.