David DeSilva (speaking of Hebrews 6:4-8) says, "The author of Hebrews does not operate with the theology of Ephesians, where "being saved" is spoken of as a past fact, much less with a complex theology of the stages of salvation constructed from a harmonization of Romans and John. here the ideological presupposition that "any interpretation is unscriptural if it conflicts with scripture" [reference to J B Rowell] prevents us from allowing the author of Hebrews to conceptualize the work of God or the life of believers any differently from his more popular colleagues in the NT. The result is that the construct that is called "God's revealed plan of salvation" (the sythesis of the more popular texts like John, Romans, and Ephesians) wins out over anything that the author of Hebrews might have to say about that plan. The dominance of the interpreter's ideology is especially apparent here, since no attempt is ever made to adjust the "plan" to the expressions of Hebrews, but always the reverse."

Since I'm home today, I figured I have no excuse not to share some of this stuff. DeSilva has a fascinating take on the warnings of Hebrews 6, one that is certainly fresh (to me) as well as plausible (to me as well). Goes like this. The relationship of God to man in the mediterranean world was seen generally in the terms of a patron/client relationship. Belive me when I say that there is a whole lot hat comes out of this understanding, as well as a lot of evidence from writings of the period to support the thesis. Short version is that a powerful person (patron), in order to increase his honor (or glory), bestows favors on less fortunate people called clients. The act of bestowing favor is called, of course, grace (charis). The client is indebted to the patron, and from that time on should feel gratitude. The proper ongoing attitude of the client is loyalty or faithfulness (pistis), which is usually translated as "faith".

All of this was part of the everyday world for people in the 1st century (in that region). How this helps our understanding of Hebrews 6 is illustrated well by Seneca. In writing of the expectations of clients he writes, "not to return gratitude for benefits is a disgrace, and the whole world counts it as such", and later "'What, then,' you say, 'shall the ingrate go unpunished?' . . . Do you imagine that qualities that are loated do go unpunished, or that there is any punishment greater than public hate? The penalty of the ingrate is that he does not dare to accept a benefit from anyone, that he does not dare to give to anyone, that he is a mark, or t least thinks he is a mark, for all eyes, that he has lost all perception of a most desireable and pleasan experience." Also, Dio Chrysostom wrote that peole who honor benefactors are regarded by all as worthy of favor but that those who insult benefactors will be esteemed by no one. (references etc on DeSilva, p226)

Numerous statements could be brought to support this line, both from the scriptures an elsewhere. Of course the example Hebrews gives is the one of Esau (ch 12). Once Esau sold his birthright, he was certainly sorry he had done so, but the damage was done. He had insulted his father and there was no going back; and the argument of Hebrews up to this point is about how worth/honorable the Son of God is. Calvin put it this way in his commentary: ". . it is unworthy of God to hold up his son to scorn by pardoning them that abondon him."

Now here's where things get interesting. We want to say, "but surely this puts an unacceptable limit on the forgiveness of God." We have to go back to Seneca again. While the ungrateful client should no longer expect a benefit (from his patron or any other), from the patron's perspective things are different. People were not at all disturbed by the idea that benefaction was and should be perceived entirely differently from the point of view of the giver and the recepient. The good patron gives without expectation of return for his gift, counting anything that does come back as a bonus. Specifically in this subject of ingratitude, Seneca say something quite interesting: "although we ought to be careful to confer benefits by preference upon those who will be likely to respond with gratitude, yet there are some [gracious deeds] that we shall do even if we expect from them poor results, and we shall bestow benefits upon those whom we not only think will be, but we know have been, ungrateful."

To apply all of this, and again you would do well to read DeSilva as he says all of this well, while we do in fact know of God's long-suffering and patience and forgiveness, when it comes to moral decision making in our lives, or to put it more in the context of Hebrews, when we are being presured to compromise with the world, we need to hide such knowledge from ourselves, to forget ot for the moment. This is what the author is doing. We mut never presume upon God. We must not say, "my job is to sin and God's job is to forgive." God will not be mocked. Hebrews gives no particular indication of where precisely we wold "cross the line" with God, but I think it does given indication that we should always keep such a line in mind with some trepidation.