Baptism, Enlightenment, & Heb. 6:4, 10:32

[Phil D.]

A while ago I did a study on this subject, and thought I would share my findings here for anyone who might be interested. Of course, any feedback, observations, or further insights are certainly welcome.

_____________________________________________

If one does much reading in the Early Church Fathers on baptism, one thing that quickly stands out is their frequent use of the term enlightened or illuminated (Greek φωτιζω - phōtizō) as a metonymic expression for baptism. By metonymic is meant that they also sometimes indicate, or otherwise often imply that this terminology wasn’t descriptive of the act of baptism simpliciter, but was rather made in connection with various basic Christian truths that recipients were catachized in and affirmed prior to undergoing the rite, as well as the spiritual grace that is imparted when the sacrament is rightly received.

Arguably, the most significant question that arises for a sola scriptura Protestant with regard to this grammatical convention, is whether or not the same word as used in the Epistle to the Hebrews may also be in reference to baptism.

[Hebrews 6:4-6] For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened [φωτισθέντας - phōtisthentas], who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.​

​

[Hebrews 10:32] But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened [φωτισθέντες - phōtisthentes], you endured a hard struggle with sufferings.​

First, here are some examples of how a number of Greek fathers generally used this terminology.

[Justin Martyr; c.156 AD]​

This washing is called ‘illumination’ [φωτισμός - phōtismos] because the mind of those who learn these things [i.e. basic Christian doctrine] is enlightened [φωτιζομένων - phōtizomenōn]. ...Those so enlightened [φωτιζόμενο - phōtizomeno] are then washed...​

(First Apology, 61; ANF 1:183; PG 6:421)​

​

[Clement of Alexandria; c.200–205 AD]​

Being baptized, we are illuminated [φωτιζόμεθα - phōtizometha]. ...the illumination [φώτισμα - phōtisma] by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.​

(The Instructor, 1.6; ANF 2:215; PG 8:281)​

​

[Cyril of Jerusalem; c.370 AD]​

Even Simon Magus once came to the bath: He was baptized, though not enlightened [ούκ έφωτίσθε - ouk ephōtisthe]; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened not [ούκ έφώτισε - ouk ephōtise] his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up; but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor was it raised up by Him.​

(Procatechesis, 2; NPNF2 7:1; PG 33:336)​

​

[Basil; c.375 AD]​

…In three immersions, therefore, and in the same number of invocations, the great mystery of baptism is accomplished, so that both the figure of death is exhibited, and the souls of the baptized are illuminated [φωτισθώσιν - phōtisthōsin] by the gift of the knowledge of God.​

(On The Holy Spirit, 15.35; NPNF2 8:22; PG 32:129f.)​

​

[Gregory Nazianzus; c.380 AD]​

And as Christ the Giver of it is called by many various names, so too is this Gift...We call it, the Gift, the Grace, Baptism, Unction, Illumination [φώτισμα - phōtisma], the Clothing of Immortality, the Washing of Regeneration, the Seal, and everything that is honorable.​

(On Holy Baptism, 40.4; NPNF2 7:360. PG 36:361)​

​

[Anonymous - traditionally attributed to John Chrysostom, but now generally thought to be from another, unidentified 4th Century Constantinopolitan cleric; c.380 AD]​

Believing, we are enlightened [φωτιζόμεθα - phōtizometha], and not on account of doing many works are we baptized. Do not let the heretics deceive you, for they have baptism but not enlightenment [φώτισμα - phōtisma], and they are baptized in the body but not enlightened [φωτίζονται - phōtizontai] in the soul. In the same way Simon also was baptized, but he was not enlightened [ἐφωτίσθη - ephōtisthē].​

(Homily, In the Beginning was The Word; PG 63:547)​

​

[Didymus of Alexandria; c.385 AD] ...Christian illumination [φωτισμόν - phōtismon], that is to say, baptism...​

(On the Trinity, 2.14; PG 39:713).​

​

[Chrysostom; c.390 AD]​

But, if you will, let us discourse about the name which this mystic cleansing bears: for its name is not one, but very many and various. For this purification is called the laver of regeneration. “He saved us,” he saith, “through the laver of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” [Titus 3:5]. It is called also illumination [φώτισμα - phōtisma], and this St. Paul again has called it, “For call to remembrance the former days in which after ye were illuminated ye endured a great conflict of sufferings” [Heb. 10:32]; and again, “For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and then fell away, to renew them again unto repentance.” [Heb. 6:4] It is called also, baptism: “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” [Gal. 3:27]. It is called also burial: “For we were buried” saith he, “with him, through baptism, into death.” [Rom. 6:4]​

(Instructions to Catechumens, 1.2; NPNF1 9:160f.; PG 49:225)​

In at least one case it is completely taken for granted that readers will naturally take the term enlightenment as being synonymous with baptism.

[Council of Neoceasarea; 315 AD]​

If anyone be baptized [or, enlightened; φωτισθή - phōtisthē] when he is ill, forasmuch as his faith was not voluntary, but of necessity [i.e. done in fear of impending death], he cannot be promoted to the presbyterate, unless on account of his subsequent zeal and faith, and because of a lack of men.​

(Canons, 12; NPNF2 14:84; PG 137:1224)​

Early Christians also sometimes incorporated the same enlightenment verbiage in describing their baptisteries.

[Socrates of Constantinople; c.425 AD]​

When Atticus the bishop was informed of his [a physically disabled convert] wishes, he instructed him in the first principles of Christian truth, and having preached to him to hope in Christ, directed that he should be brought in his bed to the font [φωτιστήριον - photistērion– place of illumination]. The paralytic Jew receiving baptism with a sincere faith, as soon as he was taken out of the baptismal font [κολυμβήθρας τού βαπτιστηρίου - kolumbēthras tou baptistēriou – the pool of the baptistery] found himself perfectly cured of his disease...​

(Ecclesiastical History, 7.4; NPNF2 2:284; PG 67:745)​

Latin writers also employed enlightenment terminology in their discussions of baptism, of which I’ll give a single but weighty example.

[Augustine; c.410 AD]​

For if unbelief is blindness, and faith enlightenment [illuminatio], whom did Christ find a believer at His coming? …Accordingly, he [the blind man in John 9] washed his eyes in that pool, which is interpreted, Sent—he was baptized in Christ. If, therefore, when He baptized him in a manner in Himself, He then enlightened [illuminavit] him; when He anointed Him, perhaps He made him a catechumen. ...The Word was made flesh. This, even catechumens hear; but that to which they have been anointed is not all they need; let them hasten to the font if they are in search of enlightenment [lumen].​

(On the Gospel of John, 44; NPNF1 7:245f; PL 35:1713f.)​

While one might reasonably assume that all the ECFs were drawing a natural connection between these baptismal/enlightenment references and the same terminology found in Hebrews, no such correlation is directly made by many writers. On the other hand, some did make the connection, and in a few cases expounded on the notion at some length. What, then, have the Reformed and other more recent theologians thought of making this supposed association? Those aspects of the topic will be the focus of two upcoming installments.

 

[Phil D.]

In the preceding catalogue of patristic quotations, Chrysostom was the lone example where a direct if generic connection was made between the metonymic description of baptism as being enlightened, and Hebrews 6:4. Before proceeding further, a couple of additional pedagogical sources bear mentioning in this regard. Namely, two of the oldest extant translations of the New Testament, both dating from the early 5th Century, and both of which specifically translate φωτισθέντας in Heb. 6:4 and φωτισθέντες in Heb. 10:32 as baptism: the Peshitta (Syriac; ܠܡܥܡܘܕܝܬܐ – ma’mōdītā), and the old Ethiopic Bible (ጥምቀተ – t’imik’ete). However, little is known about the scholarly origins of these translations.

Historically, the essential matter of how to interpret Heb. 6:4-6 came to the fore in patristic writings that addressed, or really were in reaction to, the Montanist [2nd to 3rd Centuries] and Novationist [3rd to 6th Centuries] schisms. One of the primary tenets shared by these two heretical sects was the belief that some sins committed after baptism, especially a public relapse of one’s profession, cannot be remitted. Further, it was claimed, those who commit such sins are forever to be excluded from the communion of the visible church (although some taught that God’s mercy may be extended to them in the hereafter). The more localized Donatists (4th to 6th Centuries) also took this stance, although they don’t seem to be part of the preserved historical discussion of the specific point under consideration. Unfortunately, hardly any original writings from these sects have survived. Still, one can see what seems to be at least a vague reference to this issue in the post-orthodox writings of Tertullian, who lapsed into Montanism in around 210 AD. In this particular passage Tertullian appears to be mixing-in references from both Heb. 6:4-6 and Luke 15:21-23.

[Tertullian; c.215 AD]​

For who will fear to squander what he has the power of afterwards recovering? Who will be careful to preserve to perpetuity what he will be able to lose not to perpetuity? Security in sin is likewise an appetite for it. Therefore, the apostate withal will recover his former “garment,” the robe of the Holy Spirit; and a renewal of the “ring,” which is the “sign and seal of baptism,” so Christ will again be “slaughtered,” and he will recline on that couch from which such as are unworthily clad are wont to be lifted by the torturers, and cast away into darkness.​

(On Modesty, 9; ANF 4:83; PL 2:997f.)​

As an interesting historical sidenote, the prominent usage of Hebrews 6:4-6 by the Montanists and Novatianists in support of their heresy, was apparently one of the reasons why some orthodox communities were slow to recognize the canonicity of Hebrews. This reticence was indicated in a chronical of various heresies written by Philastrius, a 4th Century bishop in northern Italy, and friendly acquaintance of Augustine and Ambrose.

[Philastrius; c.385]​

And because the author [of Hebrews] wrote rhetorically and in refined language, some do not think that he is the same apostle [i.e. Paul]. ...It is also not read by some...on account of the Novatians, because of what it says about repentance.​

(Book of Heresies, 89; PL 12:1200f.)​

Some prominent orthodox leaders that did recognize the canonicity of Hebrews, obviously didn’t interpret Heb. 6:4-6 as teaching that spiritual relapse was an unforgivable sin, but rather as confirming that those who truly repent again do not need to be rebaptized. So believed arguably the leading orthodox theologian of the 4th Century.

[Athanasius; c. 360 AD)​

What is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews does not exclude sinners from repentance, but shows there is but one baptism, and not a second [ἓν εἶναι...βάπτισμα καὶ μὴ δεύτ] of the catholic church. For he wrote to the Hebrews so they would not think according to the custom of the law, wherein there were both many repentances and daily baptisms; whereas, now, on the one hand there is ongoing repenting and forsaking, and on the other renewal [ἀνακαίνισιν] by one baptism [διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος], and not a second [καὶ μὴ δευτέραν], as he affirms in another Epistle, “One faith, One baptism.” [Eph. 4:5]​

​

Neither does he say that it is impossible to repent, but it is impossible to renew ourselves by means of repentance [ἀδύνατον προφάσει μετανοίας ἀνα καινίζειν ἡμᾶς]. For there is a great difference between these sayings, for he who repents of sinning indeed ceases from sin, yet retains the scars of his wounds. But he who is baptized puts off the old man, being wholly born again from above, by the grace of the Spirit.​

(Epistles to Serapionem, 4.13; PG 23:656)​

A prominent 5th century theologian gave a similar exposition.

[Theodoret; c.430]​

It is absolutely impossible, he says, that those who have come to the most holy baptism, and have partaken of the grace of the divine Spirit, and have received the type [τύπον] of eternal things, should come again and receive another baptism. For this is nothing else than to crucify the Son of God again, and to inflict again the same indignities which He suffered before. For just as He once endured His passion, so we must once be partakers of His passion.​

​

We are buried with Him through baptism, and we rise together with Him. It is therefore impossible for us to enjoy the gift of baptism again. “For Christ, who rose from the dead, dies no more: death no longer has mastery. For that which died, died once to sin: but that which lives, lives to God.” [Rom. 6:9-10] Our old man, too, was crucified once, having received the image of death in baptism.​

(Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6:1-6; PG 82:717)​

We indeed see this view carried on through the end of the patristic period, as expressed by “the last of the Greek Fathers,” whose writings on baptism (and some other matters) are seen by some scholars as aptly summarizing the preceding orthodox consensus.

[John of Damascus; c.730 AD]​

We confess one baptism for the remission of sins and for life eternal. For baptism declares the Lord’s death. We are indeed “buried with the Lord through baptism,” [Col. 2:12] as saith the divine Apostle. So then, as our Lord died once for all, we also must be baptized once for all, and baptized according to the Word of the Lord, “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” [Matt. 28:19] being taught the confession of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.​

​

Those then, who, after having been baptized into Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and having been taught that there is one divine nature in three subsistences, are rebaptized, as the divine Apostle says, they crucify the Christ afresh. “For it is impossible, he saith, for those who were once enlightened, etc., to renew them again unto repentance: seeing they crucify to themselves the Christ afresh, and put Him to an open shame.” [Heb 6:4-6] But those who were not baptized into the Holy Trinity, these must be baptized again.​

(An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4.9; NPNF2 9:77b; PG 94:1117f.)​

By far the most detailed patristic exposition on the “orthodox” understanding of Heb 6:4-6 comes from Ambrose of Milan, the young Augustine’s spiritual mentor.

[Ambrose; c.390 AD]​

Being then refuted by the clear example of the Apostle and by his writings, the heretics yet endeavor to resist further, and say that their opinion is supported by apostolic authority, bringing forward the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “For it is impossible that those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, should if they fall away be again renewed unto repentance, crucifying again the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.” [Heb. 6:4-6]​

​

Could Paul teach in opposition to his own act? He had at Corinth [2 Cor. 2:10] forgiven sin through penance [or, penitence; poenitentium], how could he himself speak against his own decision? Since, then, he could not destroy what he had built, we must assume that what he says was different from, but not contrary to, what had gone before. For what is contrary is opposed to itself, what is different has ordinarily another meaning. Things which are contrary are not such that one can support the other. Inasmuch, then, as the Apostle spoke of remitting penance [poenitentia], he could not be silent as to those who thought that baptism was to be repeated. And it was right first of all to remove our anxiety, and to let us know that even after baptism, if any sinned their sins could be forgiven them, lest a false belief in a reiterated baptism should lead astray those who were destitute of all hope of forgiveness. And secondly, it was right to set forth in a well-reasoned argument that baptism is not to be repeated.​

​

And that the writer was speaking of baptism is evident from the very words in which it is stated that it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who were fallen, inasmuch as we are renewed by means of the washing of baptism, whereby we are born again, as Paul says himself: “For we are buried with Him through baptism into death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we, too, should walk in newness of life.” [Rom. 6:4] And in another place: “Be ye renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man which is created after God.” [Eph 4:23-24] And elsewhere again: “Thy youth shall be renewed like the eagle,” [Psalm 103:5] because the eagle after death is born again from its ashes, as we being dead in sin are through the Sacrament of Baptism born again to God, and created anew. So, then, here as elsewhere, he teaches one baptism. “One faith,” he says, “one baptism.” [Eph. 4:5]​

​

...So, then, that which he says in this Epistle to the Hebrews, that it is impossible for those who have fallen to be “renewed unto repentance, crucifying again the Son of God, and putting Him to open shame,” must be considered as having reference to baptism, wherein we crucify the Son of God in ourselves, that the world may be by Him crucified for us, who triumph, as it were, when we take to ourselves the likeness of His death, who put to open shame upon His cross principalities and powers, and triumphed over them, that in the likeness of His death we, too, might triumph over the principalities whose yoke we throw off. But Christ was crucified once, and died to sin once, and so there is but one, not several baptisms. ​

​

But what of the passage wherein the doctrine of baptisms is spoken of [Heb. 6:2]? Because under the Law there were many baptisms or washings, he rightly rebukes those who forsake what is perfect and seek again the first principles of the word. He teaches us that the whole of the washings under the Law are done away with, and that there is one baptism in the sacraments of the Church. But he exhorts us that leaving the first principles of the word we should go on to perfection. “And this,” he says, “we will do, if God permits,” [Heb. 6:3] for no one can be perfect without the grace of God.​

​

And indeed I might also say to anyone who thought that this passage spoke of repentance, that things which are impossible with men are possible with God; and God is able whensoever He wills to forgive us our sins, even those which we think cannot be forgiven. And so it is possible for God to give us that which it seems to us impossible to obtain. For it seemed impossible that water should wash away sin, and Naaman the Syrian thought that his leprosy could not be cleansed by water. But that which was impossible God made to be possible, Who gave us so great grace. In like manner it seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through repentance, but Christ gave this power to His apostles, which has been transmitted to the priestly office. That, then, has become possible which was impossible. But, by a true reasoning, he convinces us that the reiteration by any one of the Sacrament of Baptism is not permitted.​

(Concerning Repentance, 2.2; NPNF2 10:345f.; PL 16:497f.)​

The temperamental patristic writer, Jerome, made some relevant remarks in a similar context. Here he was refuting a cleric named Jovinian, who apparently espoused a strange mix of quasi-Protestant and Novationist views (although what we know of this is limited to Jerome’s characterizations). In this passage Jerome was addressing Jovinian's claim that a person who is truly saved and baptized cannot even be tempted unto committing sin, as he supposedly interpreted 1 John 3:9-10 to mean.

[Jerome; 393 AD]​

Does anyone think that we are safe, and that it is right to fall asleep when once we have been baptized? And so, too, in the epistle to the Hebrews: “For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” [Heb 6:4-6]​

​

Surely, we cannot deny that they have been baptized who have been illuminated [Certe eos qui illuminati sunt...negare non possumus baptizatos], and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God. But if the baptized cannot sin, how is it now that the Apostle says, “And have fallen away”? Montanus and Novatus would smile at this, for they contend that it is impossible to renew again through repentance those who have crucified to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. He therefore corrects this mistake by saying: “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak; for God is not unrighteous to forget your work and the love which ye shewed towards his name, in that ye ministered unto the Saints, and still do minister.” [Heb. 6:9-10]​

(Against Jovinianus, 2.3; NPNF2 6:389; PL 23:286)​

Of course, one may judiciously question whether these patristic viewpoints on Heb. 6:4-6 are more exegetically insightful, or rather innovative, as born from the circumstances of a particular historical/religious milieu. In the next installment we will see what some notable Protestant writers have had to say on the matter.

 

[Phil D.]

In…light…of such a wealth of Protestant...luminaries...worth considering on the present topic—and in keeping with, for better or worse, my typical ‘leave no stone unturned’ philosophy—I think I will break this final part of the survey into two segments, based on chronology.
__________________________________________________

It is never disappointing or fruitless to start out an inquiry like ours by consulting what John Calvin had to say. In this case, he starts by briefly acknowledging some of the historical background surrounding the interpretation of Heb. 6:4-6, but then concentrates on the implications of what falling away and impossible in verse 6 mean. In terms of what enlighten means in Heb. 6:4, Calvin proffers the summary definition of “the knowledge of the Gospel.” He doesn’t specifically address the patristic transmission of enlightenment in verse 4 as meaning or incorporating baptism.

[John Calvin; 1509–64; French/Swiss Reformed]​

For it is impossible, etc. This passage has given occasion to many to repudiate this Epistle, especially as the Novatians armed themselves with it to deny pardon to the fallen. Hence those of the Western Church, in particular, refused the authority of this Epistle, because the sect of Novatus annoyed them; and they were not sufficiently conversant in the truth so as to be equal to refute it by argument. But when the design of the Apostle is understood, it then appears evident that there is nothing here which countenances so delirious an error.​

​

Some who hold sacred the authority of the Epistle, while they attempt to dissipate this absurdity, yet do nothing but evade it. For some take "impossible" in the sense of rare or difficult, which is wholly different from its meaning. Many confine it to that repentance by which the catechumens in the ancient Church were wont to be prepared for baptism, as though indeed the Apostles prescribed fasting, or such things to the baptized. And then what great thing would the Apostle have said, by denying that repentance, the appendage of baptism, could be repeated? He threatens with the severest vengeance of God all those who would cast away the grace which had been once received; what weight would the sentence have had to shake the secure and the wavering with terror, if he only reminded them that there was no longer room for their first repentance? For this would extend to every kind of offense. What then is to be said? Since the Lord gives the hope of mercy to all without exception, it is wholly unreasonable that any one for any cause whatever should be precluded.​

​

The knot of the question is in the word, fall away. Whosoever then understands its meaning, can easily extricate himself from every difficulty. But it must be noticed, that there is a twofold falling away, one particular, and the other general. He who has in anything, or in any ways offended, has fallen away from his state as a Christian; therefore all sins are so many fallings. But the Apostle speaks not here of theft, or perjury, or murder, or drunkenness, or adultery; but he refers to a total defection or falling away from the Gospel, when a sinner offends not God in some one thing, but entirely renounces his grace.​

​

…But we must notice in passing the names by which he signalizes the knowledge of the Gospel. He calls it illumination; it hence follows that men are blind, until Christ, the light of the world, enlightens them. ...Let us then know, that the Gospel cannot be otherwise rightly known than by the illumination of the Spirit, and that being thus drawn away from the world, we are raised up to heaven, and that knowing the goodness of God we rely on his word.​

(Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6:4-6)​

Many subsequent commentators of note acknowledge a certain plausibility in the patristic equation of enlightened = baptized, but ultimately decide against it, or at least for its deemphasis, on broader lexical and contextual grounds.

[William Gough; 1578–1653; English Presbyterian and Westminster Divine]​

The first step is thus expressed, “once enlightened.” The Greek word φωτισθέντας, translated enlightened, is metaphorical. The noun φως, whence it is derived, signifieth light. The active verb, φωτιζω, to give light, Luke 11:36 ; metaphorically to give knowledge or understanding. Thus it is attributed to Christ, John 1:9. The passive, φωτιζόμαι, signifieth to be endued with knowledge, or understanding, Eph. 1:18. So it is here taken.​

​

Illumination, then, is a work of the Holy Ghost, whereby man's mind is made capable of understanding the things of God, and able to discern divine mysteries. In one word, the grace or gift of a mind enlightened is knowledge: not such knowledge as heathen had, who by the heavens and other works of God, might somewhat conceive many invisible things of God, Rom. 1:20, Ps. 19:1, but such as the word of God revealed concerning the mysteries of godliness. This is that knowledge whereof Christ speaketh, Luke 12:47, and his apostle, 2 Pet. 2:21.​

​

… The Greek fathers set out under this word [φωτισθέντας] those that, having been catechised and instructed in the Christian faith, attained to such measure of knowledge as they were able to make a confession of the Christian faith; which, when they had done, they were baptized, admitted as members of the church, and styled φωτισθέντας, illuminati, ‘enlightened ones.’ They did use the active verb from whence this is derived, φωτιζειν, to baptize, and a noun, φώτισμα, derived from that verb for baptism [βάπτισμα]; and the days appointed for baptism they called ἡμέραι τῶν φώτων, the days of light.* The word thus taken implieth the beginning of their Christian profession.​

​

But question may be made of this use of the word in the apostle's time, when this epistle was written. I will not therefore too strictly press it. The ordinary acception of the word, for knowledge and understanding of the mysteries of godliness, as Eph 1:18, and the manner of inferring it upon former days, evidently shew that the apostle meaneth the time of their first conversion to the Christian faith, and of their profession thereof, so as both interpretations carry in effect the same sense and meaning.​

(A Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews, § 32, 119)​

​

*This material should probably have been included in one of the preceding installments, but here Gough is referring to the Eastern observance of Epiphany, a time often chosen in the mid and late patristic era to administer baptism to catechumens.​

​

[Gregory Nazianzus; 381 AD]​

For the Holy Day of the Lights [ἁγίᾳ τῶν φώτων ἡμέραι], to which we have come, and which we are celebrating today, has for its origin the Baptism of my Christ, the True Light [τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ φωτὸς] that lightens [φωτίζοντος] every man that comes into the world [John 1:9], and effects my purification, and assists that light [φωτὸς] which we received from the beginning from Him from above, but which we darkened and confused by sin. …. And where there is purifying there is illumination [ἔλλαμψις]...​

(Oration on the Holy Lights [Oration 39], 1, 8; NPNF2 7:352, 354; PG 36:336, 344)​

​

Another noteworthy associative expression—yet for some reason one rarely mentioned in discussions on this topic—is the Christian neologism neophyte – νεοφώτιστος, which was in use as early as the 2ndCentury to designate the newly baptized: “Μάτουρον, νεοφώτιστον μέν, αλλά γενναϊον άγωνιστήν… [Maturon, one newly baptized, yet a brave warrior…]” (Letter of the Churches at Lyon and Vienna, 1.17; PG 5:1421). Of course, neophyte became a loanword in various languages and is now used in many contexts.​

​

---------​

[John Owen; 1616–83; English Independent]​

The first thing in the description is, that they were ἅπαξ φωτισθέντες, “once enlightened.” Saith the Syriac translation, as we observed, “once baptized.” It is very certain that, early in the church, baptism was called φωτισμός, “illumination;” and φωτίζειν, to “enlighten,’’ was used for to “baptize.” And the set times wherein they solemnly administered that ordinance were called ἡμέραι τῶν φώτων, “the days of light.” Hereunto the Syriac interpreter seems to have had respect; and the word ἅπαξ, “once,” may give countenance hereunto.​

​

Baptism was once only to be celebrated, according to the constant faith of the church in all ages. And they called baptism “illumination,” because it being one ordinance of the initiation of persons into a participation of all the mysteries of the church, they were thereby translated out of the kingdom of darkness into that of light and grace. And it seems to give farther countenance hereunto in that baptism really was the beginning and foundation of a participation of all the other spiritual privileges that are mentioned afterwards; for it was usual in those times, that, upon the baptizing of persons, the Holy Ghost came upon them, and endowed them with extraordinary gifts, peculiar to the days of the gospel, as we have showed in our consideration of the order between baptism and imposition of hands.​

​

And this opinion hath so much of probability in it, having nothing therewithal unsuited to the analogy of faith, or design of the place, that I should embrace it, if the word itself, as here used, did not require another interpretation. For it was a good while after the writing of this Epistle, and all other parts of the New Testament, at least an age or two, if not more, before this word was used mystically to express baptism. In the whole Scripture it hath another sense, denoting an inward operation of the Spirit, and not the outward administration of an ordinance. And it is too much boldness to take a word in a peculiar sense in one single place, diverse from its proper signification and constant use, if there be no circumstances in the text forcing us thereunto, as here are not.​

(The Nature of Apostacy from the Profession of the Gospel; An Exposition of Hebrews VI. 4-6)​

​

-------------​

[John Gill; 1697–1771; English Reformed Baptist]​

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened… The Syriac and Ethiopic versions render it, "baptized"; and the word is thought to be so used in Heb. 10:32. And indeed baptism was called very early "illumination" by the ancients, as by Justin Martyr, and Clemens Alexandrinus, because only enlightened persons were the proper subjects of it; and the word once here used seems to confirm this sense, since baptism, when rightly administered, was not repeated; but then this sense depends upon an use of a word, which it is not certain did as yet obtain; nor does the apostle take notice of baptism in a parallel place, Heb. 10:26.​

​

This gave rise to, and seems to favor the error of Novatus, that those who fall into sin after baptism are to be cut off from the communion of the church, and never more to be restored unto it; contrary to the promises of God to returning backsliders, and contrary to facts, as well as to the directions of Christ, and his apostles, to receive and restore such persons; and such a notion tends to set aside the intercession of Christ for fallen believers, and to plunge them into despair: it is better therefore to retain the word "enlightened," in its proper sense, and to understand it of persons enlightened with Gospel knowledge; there are some who are savingly enlightened by the Spirit of God, to see the impurity of their hearts and actions, and their impotency to perform that which is good, the imperfection of their own righteousness to justify them, their lost state and condition by nature, and to see Christ and salvation by him, and their interest in it.​

(Exposition of the Entire Bible, in loc. cit.)​

-------------​

[John Brown of Edinburgh; 1784 –1848; Scottish Presbyterian]​

They had "been enlightened." It is common with some of the Fathers to call baptism illumination, and the baptized the illuminated; but there is no reason to think these modes of expression so ancient as the apostolic age. To be "enlightened," according to the ordinary meaning of this figurative expression in the New Testament, is to be instructed. A person is enlightened on any subject on which he possesses information. An unenlightened man is an ignorant man; an enlightened man is a well-informed man. The phrase here plainly refers to Christianity; and to be enlightened as to Christianity is to be acquainted with its principles: 2 Cor. 4:6. In the parallel passage, Heb. 10:26, they who are here said to be enlightened, are described as having "received the knowledge of the truth."​

​

And the Apostle Peter, when describing the same class of persons, speaks of them as having "the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" [2 Pet. 3:18], and as having "known the way of righteousness" [2 Pet. 2:21] (a phrase, by the way, well fitted to illustrate the phrase, "word of righteousness" [Heb. 5:13], and to support the view we gave of it). The persons here described, then, are persons who had been, from an acquaintance with the principles of Christianity, induced to prefer it to heathenism or to Judaism.​

(An Exposition of the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Hebrews, in loc. cit.)​

A somewhat forgotten Reformed-ish commentator also notes that Roman Catholic commentators in general have upheld the patristic interpretation.

[Johann Peter Lange; 1802–84: German Reformed]​

Once enlightened. The patristic interpreters aimed chiefly to oppose the Montanists and Novatians, who sought by this passage to justify their refusal to readmit to the Church those who had backslidden. These patristic expositors, and after them Thomas Aquinas, Este, Cornelius a Lapide, Michaelis, Ernesti, etc., take φωτίζειν in the sense in which it is employed by Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 62, 65), viz., of baptism. They sought, then, to show that the author is not speaking here of regeneration in the narrower sense, but of reception into the Christian community by means of baptism; and that thus only the repetition of baptism upon the readmission of those who had deeply fallen, is declared inadmissible. But the context, and the use of the word, (Heb. 10:32), show that the word here denotes spiritual enlightenment effected through the preaching of the Gospel (comp. John 1:9; Eph. 3:9; Ps. 36:10). The ἅπαξ stands in contrast with πάλιν, Hebrews 6:6. Men pass the turning point from darkness to light (Eph. 5:14) only once; the change can never occur again.​

(Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, in loc. cit.)​

The present Catechism of the Catholic Church continues the patristic course in this matter as well. In addition to citing the quotations from Justin Martyr and Gregory Nazianzus shown in our first installment, it adds, “Having received in Baptism the Word, 'the true light that enlightens every man [John 1:9],' the person baptized has been 'enlightened [Heb. 10:32],' he becomes a 'son of light [1 Thes. 5:5],' indeed, he becomes 'light' himself [Eph. 5:8].” (§ 1216)

In the next installment we will look at what some more-recent Protestant expositors of note have to say about the meaning and possible connotations of enlightened in Heb. 6:4-6. In certain cases, they tend to scrutinize the linguistic aspect of the question in more detail.

 

[Phil D.]

On the whole, as compared to their predecessors, more recent Protestant commentators seem relatively open to the possibility that enlightened in Heb. 6:4 and 10:32 does have reference to baptism. Rather than generally citing a large number that more-or-less fall into that category, we will limit our consideration to a few that include input not previously considered here. Something else noticeable in more modern commentaries, is that ever since liberal and rationalist scholars began insisting (primarily in the 19th Century) that the idea of spiritual illumination via instruction and ritual was an idea borrowed by New Testament writers from various pagan “mystery religions,” conservative biblical scholars have been obliged to address that dubious concept.

[F. F. Bruce; 1910 –90; Scottish Brethren]​

They were enlightened. It is tempting to understand the verb here in the sense of baptism – a sense which it bore among Christians in Rome in the middle of the second century. It is so translated in the Syriac Peshitta here and in Heb. 10:32. Justin (First Apology, 61:12f.; 65:1) uses the verb φωτίζω and the noun φωτισμός to describe baptism, and does so in a way which indicates that this was a current usage among the Christians of his acquaintance.​

​

The use of "enlightenment" in the sense of baptism need not be a borrowing from the language of the mysteries; it is quite in line with New Testament teaching. Especially with Johannine teaching about Christ as the Light. Cf. the quotation in Eph. 5:14, frequently taken to be a snatch of a baptismal hymn, in which the conver t is invited to wake up from the darkness of spiritual death into the light of Christ. The rhythm of the words was the characteristic rhythm of initiation chants in the Greek world. ...The Greek text of Ps. 34:5a. (LXX 33:6a), “Come to him and be enlightened (φωτίσθητε) [LXX Psalm 34:5],” was early used in the Christian baptismal liturgy. [Basil of Caesarea, c.360 AD: “...As the Psalmist invites, ‘Come to Him, and be enlightened (φωτίσθητε),’ and having the joyful proclamation of the Apostles, "repent and be baptized.”; Exhortation to Baptism, 1: PG 31:425] That is probably reflected in I Pet. 2:4.​

​

At any rate, the enlightenment here is something which has taken place once for all like baptism itself, which is unrepeatable for the simple reason that its repetition would contradict its whole significance. The light of the gospel has broken in upon these people's darkness, and life can never be the same again; to give up the gospel would be to sin against the light, the one sin which by its very nature is incurable.​

(The Epistle to the Hebrews, 10:4-6)​

------------------------

[Paul Ellingworth; 1931–2018; evangelical British Methodist; considered a specialist on the Epistle to the Hebrews]​

Ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας is commonly thought to include a reference to Christian baptism (cf. Heb 6:2); this is supported by φωτισθέντες in Heb. 10:32, with a reference to “earlier” or “the first days.” In both places, the Peshitta paraphrases to include an explicit reference to baptism. ...However, φωτίζω elsewhere (Eph. 3:9; cf. 2 Kings 12:3 [LXX 4 Kingdoms 12:2]; 17:27f., translating yārâ) connotes instruction, and this is supported by the context here, and by Heb. 10:26, τὸ λαβεῖν τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας.​

​

The absence of explicit references elsewhere in Hebrews, either to baptism or to the Lord’s Supper, suggests that here the ritual aspect of baptism was not prominent in the author’s mind. Everywhere in the NT, φωτίζωis used figuratively (e.g., Eph. 1:18; 1 Tim. 1:10) or in a parable (Luke 11:36). The direct influence of the language of the mysteries is unlikely in view of the author’s general usage (e.g., his nonuse of φῶς or σκοτία), nor is such language typical of Qumran [a 1st Century Jewish sect known for its intense instructional methods and frequent religious bathings].​

(The Epistle to the Hebrews: A commentary on the Greek Text, in loc. cit.)​

​

However, despite Ellingworth’s statement above that Christian baptism is not explicitly mentioned elsewhere in Hebrews, he also admits most see a reference to it in in Heb. 10:22.

​

[On Heb 10:22] …It is probable that OT washings, as perhaps in Heb. 6:2, form the background of the writer’s thought about the Christian’s cleansed heart and body. ...[Yet] almost all commentators, with the notable exception of Calvin, see here a reference to baptism. ...The strongest evidence for a reference to baptism is the connection between washing here and confession in Heb 10:23. (Ibid.)​

​

In one of his later and less technical commentaries on Hebrews, Ellingworth seems to more clearly reveal his own position.

​

They were once in God’s light [Heb. 6:4 NCV]: “God’s” is implied. As once emphasizes, these words refer, not to a state, but to a single event, probably baptism.​

(A Handbook on the Letter to the Hebrews, in loc. cit.)​

One of the most in-depth investigations into the etymological aspect of Greek baptismal terminology ever conducted, is a doctoral thesis by Dr. Joseph Ysebaert. An entire section of more than 20 pages is dedicated to investigating the religious usage and concept of enlightened as found within pagan antiquity, the Old Testament, Judaism (LXX, Qumran), the New Testament, and patristic Christianity. Sparing readers the sometimes esoteric detail Ysebaert can get into, here are a few notable things he says in the process of reaching his own conclusion on the matter:

[Joseph Ysebaert; 1925–2006; Dutch Catholic]​

[LXX usage] In explanation of this use of φωτίζειν in the sense of 'to enlighten,’ 'to teach,' one may remark that the metaphor is an obvious one and is found in many languages. …One striking difference can be remarked: the verb in the Septuagint does not contain the idea that something is revealed which was hitherto secret, whereas this idea is very prominent in the general language [pagan/profane/mystery-religions] and was still noticeable in cases where the verb was used [in the LXX] for the consulting of the Urim and Thummim.​

​

[New Testament usage] The verb occurs [only] twice in the passive [Heb. 6:4, 10:32] as is usually the case with[other] baptismal terms…The emphasis falls on the inner process in man and not on the person who brings it about. The use of the aorist tense indicates a particular event and this cannot be repeated. The passages are thus commonly taken to refer to the enlightenment at the acceptance of faith, notably at baptism. The use of the verb without further explanation may indicate that it has already become fairly technical in this meaning.​

​

...The enlightenment of man at his conversion to Christianity and the enlightenment in a broader sense are termed the work of God and of Christ. In one passage, however, baptismal enlightenment and partaking of the Spirit are mentioned together: τους άπαξ φωτισθέντας γευσαμενους τε της δωρεάς της επουρανίου καί μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος αγίου, Heb. 6:4.​

​

...We have thus seen that the New Testament speaks of an enlightenment which takes place on the acceptance of the Christian belief. It is on the one hand the work of God and Christ, on the other of the preacher of the faith [Eph. 3:8-9]. To a certain extent the verb may have become a term for baptism but it remains possible to speak of an enlightenment in a wider sense unconnected with baptism. The gift of the Spirit is distinct from the baptismal enlightenment. The terms have the Jewish metaphorical meaning which can be supplemented by the profane metaphorical. This is sufficient explanation of their origin.​

​

[Patristic usage] The technical character of the word becomes apparent when he [Clement of Alexandria] uses it in the story of a boy who after conversion is finally baptized by a presbyter: το τελευταϊον έφώτισε. [“And the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him {allegedly by the Apostle John}, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him.”; Who is the Rich Man that shall be Saved?, 42; PG 9:648] ...[Also], φώτισμα [phōtisma] is coined on analogy with βάπτισμα [baptisma] and must be considered as a Christian neologism.​

(Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development [Christianorum Primaeva, Studia ad Sermonem Graecum Pertinentia, Vol. 1], 1962)​

The author of a lengthy and widely disseminated book on baptism, and one broadly considered essential reading on the subject, came to a perhaps surprisingly firm conclusion on the matter.

[George Beasley-Murray; 1916–2000; English Baptist]​

That the writer to the Hebrews does in fact have baptism in mind [in Heb. 6:4] is not to be contested: the occurrence of his characteristic term ἅπαξ (‘once for all’) alongside the aorist verbs throughout the statement φωτισθέντας (‘having been enlightened’), γευσαμένους (‘having tasted’), μετόχους γενηθέντας (‘having become sharers’) shows that the most critical moment of a man’s spiritual life is being portrayed, wherein he tasted ‘the heavenly gift’—the salvation of Christ by the Spirit—received the Holy Spirit, discovered how good is God’s word that promises forgiveness and life in the Gospel, and experienced in the present the powers of the age to come. We recognize in these descriptions ideas already encountered in Acts, Paul and the Johannine writings.​

​

...The importance of baptism to the writer of this letter is not left in doubt. Its significance to him is crucial.At the beginning of this passage baptism is aligned with repentance and faith on the one hand and the resurrection from the dead and eternal judgment on the other (Heb. 6:1-3). The concepts associated with it in Heb. 6:4-5 are such as we commonly denote by the term ‘realized eschatology’: the powers of the age to come have entered this age and the Christian knows the reality of the new creation already. If alongside these associations of baptism with the Kingdom now and the Kingdom to come we set the fact that the writer is conscious of living in the last times (Heb. 10:37), we may understand in part at least the gravity with which he views apostasy. ...The lesson is plain and must ever be emphasized: ‘Since God has made you in these last times an heir of the Kingdom which cannot be shaken, improve your baptism and be sure of the inheritance!’​

(Baptism in the New Testament)​

​

Perhaps worth mentioning is another author whose writings are also considered essential reading on the subject. While he was somewhat of a nemesis to Beasley-Murray, he came to the same basic conclusion on this particular point, albeit it was much more briefly stated.

[Oscar Cullmann; 1902–99; French Lutheran)​

The impossibility of a second Baptism is in Heb. 6:4 based on the fact that Baptism means participation in the Cross of Christ: “it is impossible for those who were once enlightened (i.e. baptized) and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers in the Holy Ghost. ...if they shall fall away, to renew them unto repentance.​

(Baptism in the New Testament)​

It is admittedly hard to come to a firm conclusion on the question at hand, when so many historical luminaries have expressed differing viewpoints. Still, in the next posting I will offer a few concluding remarks of my own. Others are certainly welcome to do so as well! (or share a citation they may find useful)

 

[Phil D.]

So, what should be made of all the information that bears on whether or not φωτίζειν (phōtzein) / enlightenment in Heb. 6:4 and Heb. 10:32 is referring to baptism? Well, I am certainly not a theologian or skilled exegete by any stretch, and much more of a student than in any way a scholar. But for what it’s worth, here are some of my personal thoughts.

There are several linguistic factors that merit consideration, as have been pointed out by various commentators: 1) Heb. 6:4 and Heb. 10:32 are the only two instances in the NT where the verb enlightened occurs without further contextual explanation; 2) Both, somewhat unusually for the word, are in the passive form, as most often are other terms that are specifically baptismal in nature; 3) The use of the aorist tense indicates a particular event that cannot be repeated. While far from definitive, these conventions seem to lend some support to the patristic comprehension.

It is also hard to simply ignore the fact that the patristic belief on the matter, whether explicitly stated or implied, was nearly universal. This, again, is not something conclusive, but is nonetheless a remarkable fact. To just dismiss it would be to disadvantage our own deliberations on the matter. It is also important to note that the overall patristic comprehension of enlightenment/baptism included the integral components of initial teaching and acceptance of core Christian doctrine, and the subsequent spiritual benefits of having received the sacrament. This is unmistakably brought out in several notable instances,* and it is reasonable and contextually consistent to suppose the same applies in virtually all cases. Far from deemphasizing the teaching component, the patristic church often took it to a questionable extreme, as it was not unusual for prospective recipients, known as catechumens, to have to undergo a three-year long process of catechesis before actually receiving the ordinance of baptism.

It was also noted that a good number of commentators from the 20th Century forward, appear to support the likelihood of the patristic correlation. Early Protestants typically acknowledged a plausibility in the connection, but saw the enlightenment of teaching/revelation as the process actually in view.

For myself, I tend to think the term enlightenment as used in Hebrews probably does comprehend baptism within its broader purview. (Of course, as this cannot be a certainty, it is not something I hold dogmatically.) Here are some additional reasons why I hold this position:

First, though I may differ from him when it comes to the conclusion, something John Owen said on the matter stands out to me. “[The patristic] opinion hath so much of probability in it, having nothing therewithal unsuited to the analogy of faith, or design of the place...” This is obviously very significant to realize in terms of establishing a sound standpoint.

Second, I believe the comprehensive view, so to speak, accords with a principle stated in the WCF: “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” (27.2) In other words, Scripture does use metonymic (substituting an attribute or adjunct for the proper name of something) or synecdochal language (putting a part for the whole, or vice versa) when it comes to describing and denoting the sacraments. As the WCF goes on to indicate, this construct also helps explain passages that relate to the Lord’s Supper, like Matt. 26:27-28. I think consistently recognizing this same convention, within equitable boundaries, satisfactorily answers the main lexical and exegetical objection that some Protestant commentators have lodged (like Owen), which has sometimes led to a comparatively exacting, and thus quite limiting interpretation of Heb. 6:4 and Heb. 10:32. In this point of consideration, then, I find myself agreeing with the thematically integrated reading of the patristics.

Finally, the whole warp and weft of Heb. 6:4-6 seems to reference a relative starting point in the Christian life, that is, denoting qualities and circumstances that are initiatory in nature: having once been, having tasted (cf. Heb. 6:1). Heb. 10:32 conveys a comparable thought. And teaching-culminating in-baptism was, as we know, a prominent aspect, even the focal point of initiation into the apostolic church (cf. Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12; Matt. 28:19).

Of course, a possible peril when focusing on a single, grammatically-centered point within a passage is losing sight of its main message, which is never good. In the case of Heb. 6:4-6 the primary exhortation plainly concerns the very real danger of apostacy. While the thought here is presented hypothetically, and the author does not pronounce sentence on his immediate audience (Heb. 6:9), the awfulness of apostatizing after a good beginning is a genuine prospect. To be sure, the communication of this terrible pitfall is repleat throughout the Word of God (cf. Heb. 3:12, 10:26-27; Matt. 13:20-21; Gal. 5:4; 2 Pet. 2:20; 1 John 2:19). As such, the warning against apostacy must be taken fully into account and soberly heeded. Marvelously, the author of Hebrews does not leave his readers without a remedy for that which he warns against—a remedy that evidently includes fully realizing the benefits of one’s baptism (Heb. 10:19-20, 21-22, 23f.)

_____________________

* The practical and grammatical blending of teaching/effect/ritual common among the patristics is made especially clear in the following case (not previously cited).

[Cyril of Jerusalem; c. 355 AD]​

So now, beloved brethren, this present word of teaching urges all of you to prepare your souls for the reception of the heavenly gifts. ...Now the holy day of Passover is at hand, and you who are in Christ will be enlightened by the washing of regeneration [Titus 3:5]. ...And with great reverence and order you must go forth from Baptism...that your soul having beforehand been illuminated [prophōtizomenēs] by the teaching of the word, you may in each particular discover the greatness of the gifts that God has bestowed upon you.​

[Λοιπὸν, ἀδελφοὶ ἀγαπητοί, παρακαλεῖ πάντας ὑμᾶς ὁ τῆς διδασκαλίας λόγος, ἑτοιμάζειν τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν τῶν ἐπουρανίων χαρισμάτων. ...Ενεστώσῆς δὲ λοιπὸν τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ Πάσχα ἡμέρας, καὶ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἐν Χριστῷ, διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας, ἀγάπης φωτιζομένης. ...μεθ ̓ ὅσης δὲ εὐλαβείας καὶ τάξεως χρὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος πρὸς...ἵνα τῆς ὑμετέρας ψυχῆς διὰ τοῦ τῆς διδασκαλίας λόγου προφωτιζομένης, εἰς ἕκαστον γνωρίζηται τῶν ἐκ Θεοῦ δωρουμένων ὑμῖν χαρισμάτων τὸ μέγεθος.]​

(Catechetical Lectures, 18.32 [on the Nicene Creed]; PG 33:1053f.)​

Here is another very brief but interesting reference that I just recently encountered.

[Maximus of Constantinople; c. 630 AD]​

Notice, the enlightenment takes place before baptism.​

[Σημείωσαι, ὅτι τό φώτισμα πρό τοῦ βαπτίσματός ἐστιν.]​

(Scholia; On the Celestial Hierarchy, 3.2; outlining the teachings of a pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, c. 4thCentury AD; PG 4:52)​

 

[Phil D.]

There is another thematic relationship that had occurred to me, but which I failed to mention before. The main verse under consideration (Heb. 6:4) makes a close connection between the experiences of “having once been enlightened” and “having shared in the Holy Spirit.” Similarly, a connection between water baptism and having received the Holy Spirit is a theme repeated throughout the book of Acts. (Acts 2:38, 10:47; 19:5-6). In one instance where it is specified that the two events were separated by some time, the thematic link nonetheless remains (Acts 8:12, 15-16).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I appreciate your historical look at the use of the idea of enlightenment and its connection to Baptism. My vision sometimes prevents me from taking the time to find the places I listened to and appreciated.

I think your reflections on the Reformed conception of sign and seal are apt. When I talk to people in my congregation about the nature of salvation, I note how many expressions the NT uses to denote the difference between those in Adam and those in Christ. Different authors use different imagery.

Adam = death, darkness, flesh
Christ - life, light, Spirit

As you note, the process for a catechumen to become a disciple was a lengthy process. It still is in Roman Catholicism. I was asked, as a Senior in HS, to be the sponsor (I think there was a more formal term) of a grown husband and father and sat through all the classes with him and then was at his baptism and first communion.

The thing we have in Church history is often how things are and not as they developed. It is easy to see how all things associated with salvation would be comprehended under a Biblical idea, and even the idea of being baptized would be co-extensive with all the spiritual blessings that are signified.

It's not too much of a leap after generations of use to conclude that the confession and reception of baptism convey all the spiritual blessings and that the Church has the power to convey them sacramentally.

The thing that concerns me when reading some early Church writings is a sort of perfectionism that precludes the idea that even a Baptized person still wars against the flesh and can go through hills and valleys. The Shepherd of Hermas, for example, is a theological train wreck.

I think you note the context of the warning in a broader set of warnings in Hebrews. It's not that I preclude the idea that "enlightened" is taken up in the idea of being baptized because I believe baptism signifies union with Christ. It's just that I also believe that Scripture teaches that a baptized person does not necessarily receive the graces signified when baptized, as it is the sovereign work of the Spirit.

That said, the author is clearly speaking to the baptized by using the example of those who were circumcised and heard the Gospel preached to them and shrank back.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't completely disagree with those who used the term as a metonymy for salvation/baptism, but I do think that it is good that we properly distinguish things as it would be a pastorally fraught approach to convince people that if you were once baptized (enlightened) and you "fall away" that there is no hope for you.