Hebrews 6:2

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(2) Of the doctrine of baptisms.—The meaning of these words has been much controverted. The order of the Greek has been thought to require the rendering baptisms of doctrine (or, teaching); and it has been believed that the writer in this manner seeks to characterise Christian baptism as contrasted with the Jewish lustrations. Matthew 28:19, “baptising them . . . teaching them,” is often quoted in favour of this view. The whole question of baptism amongst the Jews of the Apostolic age is full of difficulty, since the first references to the rite in connection with proselytes belong to a much later date. But, waiving this, we must surely regard it as most unlikely that the baptism specifically Christian would be marked as “baptism of teaching.” Teaching would rather be the point of resemblance than the point of contrast between the Jewish and the Christian rite. We must, therefore, adhere to the ordinary view. The word doctrine, or teaching, seems to be introduced in order to avoid the ambiguity which would lie in the words, “a foundation of repentance, faith, baptism,” &c.; not a doctrine, but the repetition of a rite might seem to be intended. But what are we to understand by teaching regarding baptisms? Both the word itself and the use of the plural are remarkable. The word (which is not the ordinary term baptisma, but baptismus) occurs in Hebrews 9:10, Mark 7:4, in the plural, and in Colossians 2:12 in the singular; in the last of these passages it denotes Christian baptism, but in the others the ceremonial washings of the Jews. We must not forget the importance which of right belonged to these washings in the Levitical law, as one of the appointed modes of removing that uncleanness which excluded from every sacred place. The baptism of John attached itself to passages in the Scriptures in which this symbol was taken up by the prophets with profound spiritual application (Ezekiel 36, et al.). Both John’s baptism and that of Christ, therefore, would, from the Hebrew point of view, be “washings”; and the teaching which every new convert must receive would include instruction on the symbolical purifications of the Old Covenant and the New. (See the very interesting Notes in Vol. II. on Acts 18:24-25; Acts 19:4.)

And of laying on of hands.—This ceremony is repeatedly mentioned in the Old Testament, and also in the New. Besides the sacrificial use of the symbol, we find imposition of hands connected with blessing (Genesis 48:14; Matthew 19:13, et al.); with works of healing (2Kings 5:11; Mark 8:23; Mark 16:18, et al.); with ordination (Numbers 27:18; Deuteronomy 34:9; 1Timothy 4:14, et al.); and with the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17; Acts 19:6). In every case the figure denotes either a transfer, or the communication of a gift from (or, through the medium of) the person who lays his hands upon another. Neither transfer of guilt, nor blessing, nor miracle can be in point here; nor is it conceivable that ordination could be referred to in such a context. As the passages quoted from the Acts of the Apostles agree with this in closely connecting the rite with baptism, we can have little doubt that the meaning in all is substantially the same. The believers in Samaria had been baptised by Philip; when Peter and John came, they “prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost; then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” In the second case, which in other respects is similar (whether Paul himself baptised, or not, we are not informed), there is reference to the special gifts of the Holy Ghost which were bestowed: “they spake with tongues and prophesied.” There seems no reason for believing that there was a designed connection between the imposition of hands and the bestowal of miraculous powers; such imposition was rather the recognised symbol of the gift of the Holy Spirit to those who were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus, in whatever manner the Spirit might be pleased to work in those who received His influence. The early Church naturally retained the rite, making it the complement or adjunct of baptism; whilst the one symbolised the putting away of sin, the other was the emblem of the reception of new spiritual life. Historical testimonies extend as far back as Tertullian (A.D. 200): “Then the hand is laid on, calling for and inviting the Holy Spirit.” To trace the relation between this imposition of hands and the later practice of confirmation would lead us beyond our limits.

The two points which remain do not require an extended notice. We know (Acts 23:8) that, though the Sadducees denied that there was any resurrection of the dead (and the Alexandrian philosophy seems to have held only the immortality of the soul), yet by the most influential amongst Jewish teachers this doctrine was held and enforced, as indeed it was plainly taught in their Scriptures (Daniel 12:2). On the nature and extent of the resurrection—whether it would be universal, and whether it would precede or follow the Messianic age—varying opinions prevailed. Nor were the Pharisees less clear in their teaching of a future “judgment,” the reward of which should be “eternal” bliss for the godly, punishment for the sinners in Israel and for Israel’s enemies. These doctrines, then, would place no obstacles in the way of a convert to the Christian faith. Instead of vagueness and discordant opinion he now received a clear statement of truth: the Messiah, Jesus, in whom he has placed his trust, will judge the world; and of this God has given a pledge “in that He hath raised Him from the dead” (Acts 17:31). It is noteworthy that, of the four particulars which are mentioned after repentance and faith, two relate to the commencement and two to “the last things” of the Christian life.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

6:1-8 Every part of the truth and will of God should be set before all who profess the gospel, and be urged on their hearts and consciences. We should not be always speaking about outward things; these have their places and use, but often take up too much attention and time, which might be better employed. The humbled sinner who pleads guilty, and cries for mercy, can have no ground from this passage to be discouraged, whatever his conscience may accuse him of. Nor does it prove that any one who is made a new creature in Christ, ever becomes a final apostate from him. The apostle is not speaking of the falling away of mere professors, never convinced or influenced by the gospel. Such have nothing to fall away from, but an empty name, or hypocritical profession. Neither is he speaking of partial declinings or backslidings. Nor are such sins meant, as Christians fall into through the strength of temptations, or the power of some worldly or fleshly lust. But the falling away here mentioned, is an open and avowed renouncing of Christ, from enmity of heart against him, his cause, and people, by men approving in their minds the deeds of his murderers, and all this after they have received the knowledge of the truth, and tasted some of its comforts. Of these it is said, that it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance. Not because the blood of Christ is not sufficient to obtain pardon for this sin; but this sin, in its very nature, is opposite to repentance and every thing that leads to it. If those who through mistaken views of this passage, as well as of their own case, fear that there is no mercy for them, would attend to the account given of the nature of this sin, that it is a total and a willing renouncing of Christ, and his cause, and joining with his enemies, it would relieve them from wrong fears. We should ourselves beware, and caution others, of every approach near to a gulf so awful as apostacy; yet in doing this we should keep close to the word of God, and be careful not to wound and terrify the weak, or discourage the fallen and penitent. Believers not only taste of the word of God, but they drink it in. And this fruitful field or garden receives the blessing. But the merely nominal Christian, continuing unfruitful under the means of grace, or producing nothing but deceit and selfishness, was near the awful state above described; and everlasting misery was the end reserved for him. Let us watch with humble caution and prayer as to ourselves.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Of the doctrine of baptisms - This is mentioned as the third element or principle of the Christian religion. The Jews made much of various kinds of "washings," which were called "baptisms;" see the note on Mark 7:4. It is supposed also, that they were in the practice of baptizing proselytes to their religion; see the note on Matthew 3:6. Since they made so much of various kinds of ablution, it was important that the true doctrine on the subject should be stated as one of the elements of the Christian religion, that they might be recalled from superstition, and that they might enjoy the benefits of what was designed to be an important aid to piety - the true doctrine of baptisms. It will be observed that the plural form is used here - "baptisms." There are two baptisms whose necessity is taught by the Christian religion - baptism by water, and by the Holy Spirit; the first of which is an emblem of the second.

These are stated to be among the "elements" of Christianity, or the things which Christian converts would first learn. The necessity of both is taught. He that believeth and is "baptized" shall be saved; Mark 16:16. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," John 3:5. On the baptism of the Holy Spirit, see the Matthew 3:11 note; Acts 1:5 note; compare Acts 19:1-6. To understand the true doctrine respecting baptism was one of the first principles to be learned then as it is now, as baptism is the rite by which we are "initiated" into the Church. This was supposed to be so simple that young converts could understand it as one of the elements of the true religion, and the teaching on that subject now should be made so plain that the humblest disciple may comprehend it. If it was an element or first principle of religion; if it was presumed that anyone who entered the Church could understand it, can it be believed that it was then so perplexing and embarrassing as it is often made now? Can it be believed that a vast array of learning, and a knowledge of languages and a careful inquiry into the customs of ancient times, was needful in order that a candidate for baptism should understand it? The truth is, that it was probably regarded as among the most simple and plain matters of religion; and every convert was supposed to understand that the application of water to the body in this ordinance, in any mode, was designed to be merely emblematic of the influences of the Holy Spirit.

And of laying on of hands - This is the FourTH element or principle of religion. The Jews practiced the laying on of hands on a great variety of occasions. It was done when a blessing was imparted to anyone; when prayer was made for one; and when they offered sacrifice they laid their hands on the head of the victim, confessing their sins; Leviticus 16:21; Leviticus 24:14; Numbers 8:12. It was done on occasions of solemn consecration to office, and when friend supplicated the divine favor on friend. In like manner, it was often done by the Saviour and the apostles. The Redeemer laid his hands on children to bless them, and on the sick when he healed them; Matthew 19:13; Mark 5:23; Matthew 9:18. In like manner the apostles laid hands on others in the following circumstances:

(1) In healing the sick; Acts 28:8.

(2) in ordination to office; 1 Timothy 5:22; Acts 6:6.

(3) In imparting the miraculous influences of the Holy Spirit; Acts 8:17, Acts 8:19; Acts 19:6.

The true doctrine respecting the design of laying on the hands, is said here to be one of the elements of the Christian religion. That the custom of laying on the hands as symbolical of imparting spiritual gifts, prevailed in the Church in the time of the apostles, no one can doubt. But on the question whether it is to be regarded as of perpetual obligation in the Church, we are to remember:

(1) That the apostles were endowed with the power of imparting the influences of the Holy Spirit in a miraculous or extraordinary manner. It was with reference to such an imparting of the Holy Spirit that the expression is used in each of the cases where it occurs in the New Testament.

(2) the Saviour did not appoint the imposition of the hands of a "bishop" to be one of the rites or ceremonies to be observed perpetually in the Church. The injunction to be baptized and to observe his supper is positive, and is universal in its obligation. But there is no such command respecting the imposition of hands.

(3) no one now is intrusted with the power of imparting the Holy Spirit in that manner There is no class of officers in the Church, that can make good their claim to any such power. What evidence is there that the Holy Spirit is imparted at the rite of "confirmation?"

(4) it is liable to be abused, or to lead persons to substitute the form for the thing; or to think that because they have been "confirmed," that therefore they are sure of the mercy and favor of God.

Still, if it be regarded as a "simple form of admission to a church," without claiming that it is enjoined by God, or that it is connected with any authority to impart the Holy Spirit, no objection can be made to it any more than there need be to any other form of recognizing Church membership. Every pastor has a right, if he chooses, to lay his hands on the members of his flock, and to implore a blessing on them; and such an act on making a profession of religion would have much in it that would be appropriate and solemn.

And of resurrection of the dead - This is mentioned as the fifth element or principle of the Christian religion. This doctrine was denied by the Sadducees Mark 12:18; Acts 23:8, and was ridiculed by philosophers; Acts 17:32. It was, however, clearly taught by the Saviour, John 5:28-29, and became one of the cardinal doctrines of his religion. By the resurrection of the dead, however, in the New Testament, there is more intended than the resurrection of the "body." The question about the resurrection included the whole inquiry about the future state, or whether man would live at all in the future world; compare the Matthew 22:23 note; Acts 23:6 note. This is one of the most important subjects that can come before the human mind, and one on which man has felt more perplexity than any other. The belief of the resurrection of the dead is an elementary article in the system of Christianity. It lies at the foundation of all our hopes. Christianity is designed to prepare us for a future state; and one of the first things, therefore, in the preparation, is to "assure" us there is a future state, and to tell us what it is. It is, moreover, a unique doctrine of Christianity. The belief of the resurrection is found in no other system of religion, nor is there a ray of light shed upon the future condition of man by any other scheme of philosophy or religion.

And of eternal judgment - This is the sixth element or principle of religion. It is, that there will be a judgment whose consequences will be eternal. It does not mean, of course, that the process of the judgment will be eternal, or that the judgment day will continue forever; but that the results or consequences of the decision of that day will continue for ever. There will be no appeal from the sentence, nor will there be any reversal of the judgment then pronounced. What is decided then will be determined forever. The approval of the righteous will fix their state eternally in heaven, and in like manner the condemnation of the wicked will fix their doom forever in hell. This doctrine was one of the earliest that was taught by the Saviour and his apostles, and is inculcated in the New Testament perhaps with more frequency than any other; see Matthew 25; Acts 17:31. That the consequences or results of the judgment will be "eternal," is abundantly affirmed; see Matthew 25:46; John 5:29;; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Mark 9:45, Mark 9:48.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

2. the doctrine of baptisms—paired with "laying on of hands," as the latter followed on Christian baptism, and answers to the rite of confirmation in Episcopal churches. Jewish believers passed, by an easy transition, from Jewish baptismal purifications (Heb 9:10, "washings"), baptism of proselytes, and John's baptism, and legal imposition of hands, to their Christian analogues, baptism, and the subsequent laying on of hands, accompanied by the gift of the Holy Ghost (compare Heb 6:4). Greek, "baptismoi," plural, including Jewish and Christian baptisms, are to be distinguished from baptisma, singular, restricted to Christian baptism. The six particulars here specified had been, as it were, the Christian Catechism of the Old Testament; and such Jews who had begun to recognize Jesus as the Christ immediately on the new light being shed on these fundamental particulars, were accounted as having the elementary principles of the doctrine of Christ [Bengel]. The first and most obvious elementary instruction of Jews would be the teaching them the typical significance of their own ceremonial law in its Christian fulfilment [Alford].

resurrection, &c.—held already by the Jews from the Old Testament: confirmed with clearer light in Christian teaching or "doctrine."

eternal judgment—judgment fraught with eternal consequences either of joy or of woe.

Matthew Poole's Commentary

Of the doctrine of baptisms: the third fundamental doctrine in which these Hebrews were initiated was, the doctrine of baptisms; containing in it the doctrine which baptism teacheth, as that of the covenant of grace, of which it is a sign and seal, and of their entering into it who partake of it, which, as to its duties and privileges, is sealed and confirmed: and the doctrine in which baptisms are taught, as that of Christ by water and by the Spirit, Matthew 3:6 John 3:5; and containing in it the doctrine of the seals of God’s testament, distinct from the other doctrines of faith; by the use of which, such who had solemnly professed their repentance, and faith and obedience to the gospel, were sealed and confirmed.

Baptisms, in the plural, raiseth the doubt, whether it immediately concern the initial seal of the covenant, which some say is so styled as a Hebraism, the plural number being put for the singular; or, from the numerous partakers of it at set times, which were called days of baptisms, or from divers administrators, and the baptisms of believers and their seed, and that so they were many. Others would make these to be Jewish baptisms, frequently used by these Hebrews, as elements to teach faith and repentance, and leading them to the further knowledge of Christ. And the more they suspect this, because these baptisms are used but four times in the New Testament, and always signifying Jewish ones, as Hebrews 9:10, and Mark 7:4,8.

And of laying on of hands: the fourth fundamental doctrine, or principle, was, the imposition of hands, which by Christ and his apostles were used either for healing diseases, Mark 6:5 Luke 4:40 Acts 28:8, or communication of blessing, Matthew 19:13,15, or for the communication of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, to such who were separated for Christ’s service in his church, Acts 6:6 8:17 8:3 19:5,6; and so take in all the saving fruits of the Holy Ghost, by which they are renewed, increased, strengthened, and built up into everlasting life. Others would make this a primitive rite of confirming the baptized grown up, on the confession of their faith, and renewing their covenant with God, which was made for and with them in their infancy, and so was a preparatory admission of them to communicate with the church in the Lord’s supper. If other places of Scripture did concur with it, it would be more clear and satisfactory. Some look on them, as baptisms before, to be Jewish rites, which should here lead them to Christ; but, on their neglect of him, became beggarly elements, and such as they are called from here unto higher attainments in Christ.

And of resurrection of the dead: the fifth fundamental principle and doctrine of Christianity, in which they were initiated, is, the doctrine of resurrection from the dead. This, as to the propriety and fulness of it, is at the last day; yet the entrance into this is begun in a new life effected by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, John 5:25-29 Romans 6:3-13. From this entrance are they called to make out to the full resurrection of the just, as the apostle did himself, Philippians 3:10-12. This article of the gospel doctrine all Christians were to be founded in, and especially these Hebrews, because it was denied by the Sadducees among them, Matthew 22:23 Acts 23:6-8, derided by the Athenian philosophers, Acts 17:18,31,32, and perverted by heretics, 2 Timothy 2:17,18; and is therefore particularly asserted, as described by this apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:1-58.

And of eternal judgment; the sixth fundamental doctrine and principle of Christianity, into which they were to be initiated, was that of the general judgment, finally determining the believers of it to their rewards, the deniers of it to their eternal punishment, because the one hath observed, the other violated, the covenant of grace. These Hebrews had begun to reach this truth, by being reconciled to their Judge, and therefore are to proceed to perfect their work to the Lord’s glorious appearance, Hebrews 9:27,28 Ac 17:31 2 Peter 3:7,10,15 Jude 1:6,14,15 Re 20:11-15.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

Of the doctrine of baptisms,.... Some read this divisively, "baptism and doctrine", as the Ethiopic version; as if the one respected the ordinance of baptism, and the other the ministry of the word; but it is best to read them conjunctively: and by which most understand the Gospel ordinance of water baptism, so called by a change of number, the plural for the singular, as the Syriac and Ethiopic versions, who render it baptism; or because of the different persons baptized, and times of baptizing, as some; or because of the trine immersion, as others; or because of the threefold baptism of spirit, blood, and water, which have some agreement with each other; or because of the baptism of John, and Christ, though they are one and the same; or because of the inward and outward baptism, the one fitting and qualifying for the other; and so the doctrine of it is thought to respect the necessity, use, and end of it; but since there is but one baptism, and the above reasons for the plural expression are not solid, and sufficiently satisfying, it is best to interpret this of the divers baptisms among the Jews, spoken of in Hebrews 9:10 which had a doctrine in them, to that people; teaching them the cleansing virtue of the blood of Christ, and leading them to it, to wash in for sin, and for uncleanness; but now, since this blood was shed, they were no more to teach nor learn the doctrine of cleansing by the blood of Christ this way; nor any more to be led unto it through these divers baptisms, ablutions, and purifications.

And of laying on of hands; the foundation of this was to be no more laid, nor the doctrine of it to be any longer taught and learned in the way it had been; for not the rite, but the doctrine of laying on of hands is here intended; and it has no reference to the right of laying on of hands by the apostles, either in private persons, or officers of churches; for what was the doctrine of such a rite, is not easy to say; but to the rite of laying on of hands of the priests, and of the people, upon the head of sacrifices; which had a doctrine in it, even the doctrine of the imputation of sin to Christ, the great sacrifice. It was usual with the Jews (g) to call the imposition of hands upon the sacrifice, simply, "laying on of hands"; and they understood by it the transferring of sin from the persons that laid on hands, to the sacrifice, on which they were laid; and that hereby, as they express it, sins were separated from them, and, as it were, put upon the sacrifice (h); but now believers were no longer to be taught and learn the great doctrine of the imputation of sin, by this rite and ceremony, since Christ has been made sin for them, and has had sins imputed to him, and has bore them in his own body on the tree:

and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment: articles of faith, which distinguished the Jews from the Gentiles, who were greatly strangers to a future state, the resurrection of the dead, and judgment to come: these are doctrines of pure revelation, and were taught under the Old Testament, and were believed by the generality of the Jews, and are articles which they hold in common with us Christians; yet the believing Hebrews were not to rest in the knowledge of these things, and in the smaller degrees of light they had in them, under the former dispensation; but were to go on to perfection, and bear forward towards a greater share of knowledge of these, and other more sublime doctrines of grace; since life and immortality are more clearly brought to light by Christ through the Gospel.

(g) Misn. Kiddushin, c. 2. sect. 8. & Bartenora in ib. (h) R. Levi ben Gersom in Exod. fol. 109. 1. & in Lev. fol. 117. 2.

Geneva Study Bible

Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Hebrews 6:2. Βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς] We have not to divide by a comma, with Cajetan, Luther, Hyperius, Sykes, Semler, Morus, Heinrichs, Schulz, de Wette, Conybeare, and others [after the Syriac], in such wise that βαπτισμοί and διδαχή are each separately enumerated as a particular subject for elementary instruction in Christianity. Διδαχή must in this case mean the elementary instruction in Christianity connected with baptism, imparted either before or after the same. But since, at the close of the verse, the ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν and the κρίμα αἰώνιον are mentioned, while the treatment of these subjects for teaching belonged equally to the first stage of instruction in Christianity, it is not easy to perceive why, in addition to that διδαχή, these two points, presupposed in the same, should be brought into special relief by the author. Then there is the consideration that all the particulars which are mentioned before and after as constituent parts of the θεμέλιον, are designated by a double expression. Seeing the care bestowed by the author upon the symmetrical proportions of his discourse, we should therefore naturally be led to regard βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς as a corresponding double expression. But even as thus apprehended the expression is capable of a twofold explanation. The question, namely, is whether the author is speaking of βαπτισμοὶ διδαχῆς or of a βαπτισμῶν διδαχή. In the first case baptisms with a view to doctrine are meant, in the second instruction concerning baptisms. In the first acceptation the term is taken by Bengel, Michaelis, Maier, Kurtz, as also Winer, Gramm., 7 Aufl. p. 181 (less decidedly, 5 Aufl. p. 217); in the last, by Bleek and the majority. Against the first view pleads, on the one hand, the fact that the addition διδαχῆς would be something too little characteristic, almost unmeaning, since a Christian baptism, not preceded, accompanied, of followed by instruction in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, would be something inconceivable; on the other hand, that in this way the erroneous secondary meaning would arise, that there were, in addition to the Christian baptisms with a view to doctrine, also other Christian baptisms. We follow, therefore, the second mode of interpretation. In connection with this the plural βαπτισμῶν still presents some difficulty. Gerhard, Dorscheus, Ernesti, M‘Lean Stuart, and others arbitrarily set aside this difficulty, in that they suppose just the plural to be placed for the singular But neither is the plural to be explained by the assumption that respect is had to the proneness of the Hebrews for often repeating the Christian baptism, in conformity with the many βαπτισμοί in Judaism (Oeoumenius, Theophylact), or, at the same time, to the outward and inner baptism (Grotius, Whitby, Braun, Brochmann; Reuss: la différence du baptême d’eau et du baptême d’esprit). Just as little by the supposition that reference is made to a plurality of baptismal candidates or baptismal acts (Theodoret, Primasius, Beza, Er. Schmid, Owen, Heinrichs, al.), or to a repeated immersing of the candidate. Most in its favour has the opinion of Jac. Cappellus, Seb. Schmidt, Schöttgen, Wolf, and others, in which more recently also Böhme, Kuinoel, Klee, Bleek, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 724), Alford, and Moll have concurred; namely, that the author is thinking not so much of Christian baptism a itself, or exclusively, as along with it at the same time of the relation of the same to the Jewish lustrations, and perhaps also to the baptism of John. This view appears at least to acquire a point of support from Hebrews 9:10, according to which the readers still continued to esteem the washings enjoined by the Mosaic law as of importance for Christians too. Yet it seems to be precarious, with Jac. Cappellus, Bleek, and others, to urge in favour of this acceptation the distinction that in the N. T. only βάπτισμα is used for Christian baptism in the proper sense of the term, βαπτισμός, on the other hand, being in the N. T. a word of wider signification (Hebrews 9:10; Mark 7:4); precarious, because the expression βάπτισμα not occurring at all with the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews [as also Josephus designates the rite of John only by βαπτισμός, the action by βάπτισις, Antiq. xviii. 5. 2], with regard to his usage in this respect thus nothing can be determined.

In close inner connection with the βαπτισμοί stands the ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν. As therefore the readers ought no longer to be in need of teaching concerning the nature of the former (and concerning its pre-eminence over the kindred institutions of Judaism), so was it also to be reasonably expected that they should experience a necessity for being instructed concerning the nature of the latter (and concerning the eminent blessings which attend thereon). The reference is to that laying on of hands by which those previously baptized were fully received into the communion, and through which the reception of the Holy Ghost was wont to be vouchsafed to them. Comp. Acts 8:17 ff; Acts 19:6. From this close inner connectedness of the ἐπίθεσις χειρῶν with the βαπτισμοί results that, also as regards the external arrangement of words, the genitive ἐπιθέσεως does not depend immediately upon θεμέλιον, but like βαπτισμῶν upon διδαχῆς. But, moreover, even the following genitives, ἀναστάσεως and κρίματος, are, as rightly apprehended by Storr, Böhme, Ebrard, Bisping,[78] Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and Woerner, governed by διδαχῆς. For not by the resurrection of the dead, and the everlasting judgment itself, since these facts will first unfold themselves in the future, but only by the doctrine thereof can the foundation be laid in Christianity. It would, however, be arbitrary to assign to the words ἈΝΆΣΤΑΣΙς and ΚΡΊΜΑ in themselves signification which they can only have in combination with the foregoing ΔΙΔΑΧῆς. A grammatical harshness (de Wette) is not to be discovered in this construction, on account of the close connection of the last clauses by means of ΤΕ and ΤΕ … ΚΑΊ; any more than de Wette is right in regarding ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜῶΝ ΔΙΔΑΧῆς, in the mode of interpretation above followed, as an unnatural trajection without an example the writings of our author; for ΒΑΠΤΙΣΜῶΝ is preposed because the emphasis rests on that word, and an analogon in our epistle is already afforded by the ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ ΜΕΡΙΣΜΟῖς, Hebrews 2:4.

ἈΝΑΣΤΆΣΕΏς ΤΕ ΝΕΚΡῶΝ ΚΑῚ ΚΡΊΜΑΤΟς ΑἸΩΝΊΟΥ] Two dogmas already belonging to the Jews theology, which obtained by means of Christianity only their more definite, concrete signification. The expression in both these clauses is used quite generally. We have therefore no warrant for limiting, with Estius, Schlichting, Schöttgen, Chr. Fr. Schmid, Storr, and others, the ἈΝΆΣΤΑΣΙς to the godly, the ΚΡΊΜΑ to the ungodly. On the contrary, both have reference to the pious or believers, and the ungodly or unbelievers in common.

[78] Wrongly, however, is it supposed by Bisping (as before his time by Gennadius in Oecumenius, and Klee) that μετανοίας and πίστεως, ver. 1, already dependent upon διδαχῆς.—Just as wrongly would Calvin, who is followed by Piscator and Owen, enclose βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς, ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν within a parenthesis, “ut sit appositio … hoc sensu. Non jacientes rursun fundamentum poenitentiae, fidei in Deum, mortuorum resurrectionis, quae doctrina est baptismi et impositionis manuum … Nisi enim appositive legas, hoc erit absurdi, quod bis idem repetet. Quae enim baptismatis est doctrina, nisi quam hic recenset de fide in Deum, de poenitentia et de judici similibus?”—Both views are deprived of their support by the reflection that μετάνοια and πίστις, ver. 1, denote not a doctrine, but an act [against Stuart].

Expositor's Greek Testament

Hebrews 6:2. The next pair, βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν “instruction regarding washings and laying on of hands”. “The historical sequence is followed in the enumeration”. Some interpreters make all three conditions directly dependent on θεμέλιον, “foundation of baptisms, teaching, and laying on of hands”. Bengel makes διδαχῆς dependent on βαπτ. He says: “βαπτισμοὶ διδαχῆς erant baptismi, quos qui suscipiebant, doctrinae sacrae Judaeorum sese addicebant. Itaque adjecto διδαχῆς doctrinae distinguuntur a lotionibus ceteris leviticis”. Similarly Winer (Gramm., p. 240): “If we render βαπτ. διδ. baptisms of doctrine or instruction, as distinguished from the legal baptisms (washings) of Judaism, we find a support for this designation, as characteristically Christian, in Matthew 28:19, βαπτίσαντες αὐτούς … διδάσκοντες αὐτούς”. It is better to take the words as equivalent to διδαχῆς περὶ βαπτισμῶν. In N.T. βάπτισμα is regularly used of Christian baptism or of John’s baptism, while βαπτισμός is used of ceremonial washings as in Hebrews 9:10 and Mark 7:4. [Cf. Blass, Gramm., p. 62. Josephus, (Ant., xviii. 5, 2) uses βαπτισμός of John’s baptism.] Probably, therefore, “teaching about washings” would include instruction in the distinction between the various Jewish washings, John’s baptism and that of Christ (cf. Acts 19:2); and this would involve instruction in the cleansing efficacy of the Atonement made by Christ as well as in the work of the Holy Spirit. It was very necessary for a convert from Judaism to understand the difference between symbolic and real lustration. The reference of the plural must, therefore, not be restricted to the distinction of outward and inward baptism (Grotius), nor of water and spirit baptism (Reuss) nor of infant and adult baptism, nor of the threefold immersion nor, as Primasius, “pro varietate accipientium”. ἐπιθέσεώς τε χειρῶν closely conjoined to the foregoing by τε because the “laying on of hands” was the accompaniment of baptism in Apostolic times. “As through baptism the convert became a member of the House of God, through the laying on of hands he received endowments fitting him for service in the house, and an earnest of his relation to the world to come (Hebrews 6:5)” (Davidson, cf. Delitzsch). The laying on of hands was normally accompanied by prayer. Prayer was the essential element in the transaction, the laying on of hands designating the person to whom the prayer was to be answered and for whom the gift was designed. Cf. Acts 19:1-6; Acts 8:14-17; Acts 13:3; Acts 6:6; and Lepine’s The Ministers of Jesus Christ, p. 141–4. In Apostolic times baptism apparently meant that the baptised believed in and gave himself to Christ, while the laying on of hands meant that the Holy Ghost was conferred upon him. In baptism as now administered both these facts are outwardly represented. ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν καὶ κρίματος αἰωνίου: “resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment,” “constituting the believer’s outlook under which he was to live” (Davidson). The genitives depend on διδαχῆς, not on θεμέλιον, as Vaughan. The phrase ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν naturally includes all the dead both righteous and unrighteous (see John 5:29 and Acts 24:15. κρίμα though properly the result of κρίσις is not always distinguished from it, see John 9:39; Acts 24:25; and cf. Hebrews 9:27). It is “eternal,” timeless in its results. These last-named doctrines, although not specifically Christian, yet required to be brought before the notice of a Jewish convert that he might disentangle the Christian idea from the Jewish Messianic expectation of a resurrection of Israel to the enjoyment of the Messianic Kingdom, and of a judgment on the enemies of Israel (Cf. Weiss).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

2. of the doctrine of baptisms] Perhaps rather, “of ablutions” (Hebrews 9:10; Mark 7:3-4), both (1) from the use of the plural (which cannot be explained either physically of “triple immersion,” or spiritually of the baptisms of “water, spirit, blood”); and (2) because baptismos is never used of Christian baptism, but only baptisma. If, as we believe, the writer of this Epistle was Apollos, he, as an original adherent “of John’s baptism,” might feel all the more strongly that the doctrine of “ablutions” belonged, even in its highest forms, to the elements of Christianity. Perhaps he, like Josephus (Antt. xviii. 5, § 2), would have used the word baptismos, and not baptisma, even of John’s baptism. But the word probably implies the teaching which enable Christian catechumens to discriminate beween Jewish washings and Christian baptism.

of laying on of hands] For ordination (Numbers 8:10-11; Acts 6:6; Acts 13:2-3; Acts 19:6, &c.), confirmation (Acts 8:17), healings (Mark 16:18), &c. Dr Mill observes that the order of doctrines here enumerated corresponds with the system of teaching respecting them in the Acts of the Apostles—Repentance, Faith, Baptism, Confirmation, Resurrection, Judgment.

and of resurrection of the dead] These topics had been severally prominent in the early Apostolic teaching (Acts 2:38; Acts 3:19-21; Acts 26:20). Even the doctrine of the resurrection belonged to Judaism (Luke 20:37-38; Daniel 12:2; Acts 23:8).

and of eternal judgment] The doctrine respecting that sentence (krima, “doom”), whether of the good or of the evil, which shall follow the judgment (krisis) in the future life. This was also known under the Old Covenant, Daniel 7:9-10.—The surprise with which we first read this passage only arises from our not realising the Author’s meaning, which is this,—your Christian maturity (τελείοτης, Hebrews 6:1) demands that you should rise far above your present vacillating condition. You would have no hankering after Judaism if you understood the more advanced teaching about the Melchisedek Priesthood—that is the Eternal Priesthood—of Christ which I am going to set before you. It is then needless that we should dwell together on the topics which form the training of neophytes and catechumens, the elements of religious teaching which even belonged to your old position as Jews; but let us enter upon topics which belong to the instruction of Christian manhood. The verse has its value for those who think that “Gospel” teaching consists exclusively in the iteration of threadbare shibboleths. We may observe that of these six elements of catechetical instruction two are spiritual qualities—repentance, faith; two are significant and symbolic acts—washings and laying on of hands; two are eschatological truths—resurrection and judgment.

Bengel's Gnomen

Hebrews 6:2. Βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς) Καὶ is not put before βαπτισμῶν; for three pairs of chief particulars (heads) are enumerated, and the second particular (head) in every pair has the conjunction; but only the third pair is similarly connected: from which it is also evident, that βαπτισμῶν and διδαχῆς must not be separated. Βαπτισμοὶ διδαχῆς[39] were baptisms which were received by those who devoted themselves to the sacred doctrine of the Jews; therefore, by the addition of διδαχῆς, they are distinguished from the other Levitical washings; ch. Hebrews 9:10.—κρίματος αἰωνίου) of eternal judgment. See Mark 3:29, note.

[39] Bengel evidently understands these words, baptisms of or into doctrine, not as Engl. Vers., the doctrine of baptisms.—ED.

Hebrews 6:2

Vincent's Word Studies

Doctrine of baptisms (βαπτισμῶν διδαχὴν)

Not laying again as a foundation the teaching (διδαχὴν) of baptisms. βαπτισμός only here, Hebrews 9:10, and Mark 7:4. The common form is βάπτισμα. Neither word in lxx or Class. The meaning here is lustral rites in general, and may include the baptism of John and Christian baptism. The teaching would cover all such rites, their relations and comparative significance, and it would be necessary in the case of a Jewish convert to Christianity who might not perceive, for example, any difference between Jewish lustrations and Christian baptism.

Laying on of hands

See on 1 Timothy 4:14. A Jewish and a Christian practice.

Resurrection - eternal judgment

Both resurrection and future judgment were Jewish tenets requiring exposition to Jewish converts as regarded their relations to the same doctrines as taught by Christianity. The resurrection of Christ as involving the resurrection of believers would, of itself, change the whole aspect of the doctrine of resurrection as held by a Jew. Ἀιωνίου eternal certainly cannot here signify everlasting. It expresses rather a judgment which shall transcend all temporal judgments; which shall be conducted on principles different from those of earthly tribunals, and the decisions of which shall be according to the standards of the economy of a world beyond time. See additional note on 2 Thessalonians 1:9. The phrase eternal judgment N.T.o. Comp. κρίμα τὸ μέλλον the judgment to come, Acts 24:25.