Comments on Hebrews 6:4-6 #5--Not a Conditional Warning?

This response to Dan Wallace's comments on Hebrews 6 will be more technical than my previous comments in this series. I apologize for this up front, for it necessarily entails technical elements of Greek grammar.

Daniel Wallace offers his comments on Hebrews 6 within his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basis: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), on page 633. There, he appeals to Sproule's essay when discusses the fifth participle in Hebrews 6:6, "fallen away" (παραπεσόντας) as doubtful that it should be taken as a conditional participle. Wallace reasons,

Heb 6:4–6 ἀδύνατον τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας (6) καὶ παραπεσόντας, πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν

it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened (6) if they have fallen away

παραπεσόντας is often construed as conditional (a tradition found in the KJV and repeated in most modern translations and by many commentators). But this is unwarranted. The construction of vv 4–6 approximates a Granville Sharp plural construction (the only difference being that with the second participle in the construction, γευσαμένους in v 4, the conjunction τε is used instead of καὶ: τοὺς φωτισθέντας γευσαμένους τε καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας καὶ γευσαμένους καὶ παραπεσόντας). If this participle should be taken adverbially, then should we not take the preceding two or three participles the same way? The inconsistency has little basis. Instead, παραπεσόντας should be taken as adjectival, thus making a further and essential qualification of the entire group. A better translation, then, is “It is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened . . . and have fallen away.”

All that I have said in response to Sproule and to Compton applies here, because like Compton, Wallace depends upon Sproule's brief essay to ground his claim that it is doubtfull that the fifth participle, "fallen away" (παραπεσόντας), should be taken as a conditional participle (hence, an adverbial participle).

Wallace adds to this claim the notion that "The construction of vv 4–6 approximates a Granville Sharp plural construction (the only difference being that with the second participle in the construction, γευσαμένους in v 4, the conjunction τε is used instead of καὶ: τοὺς φωτισθέντας γευσαμένους τε καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας καὶ γευσαμένους καὶ παραπεσόντας)." What would it mean, if the construction conformed to the Granville Sharp rule? Wallace quotes Sharp,

When the copulative καὶ connects two nouns of the same case, [viz. nouns (either substantive or adjective, or participles) of personal description, respecting office, dignity, affinity, or connexion, and attributes, properties, or qualities, good or ill], if the article ὁ, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle: i.e. it denotes a farther description of the first-named person . . . .

Given Wallace's more thorough research and writing concerning the Granville Sharp rule, I wonder if he would not eliminate his suggestion that Hebrews 6:4-6 approximates the Granville Sharp rule.

Even if one were to take all five participles in Hebrews 6:4-6 as substantival (adjectival), the fact that they are plurals poses problems. Also, reflect upon the construction that strings together five participles on the following conjunctions underlined.

ἀδύνατον γὰρ τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τεμέλλοντος αἰῶνος καὶ παραπεσόντας πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας

That this conforms to the Granville Sharp rule is doubtful at best. It is a stretch to appeal to the Granville Sharp rule to support the claim that Hebrews 6:4-6 entails five substantival participles. As I have been contending, this is dubious. More to come.

Comments on Hebrews 6:4-6 #4--Not a Conditional Warning?

Find my first three entries on Hebrews 6 here.

Perhaps I owe more commentary concerning R. Bruce Compton's essay ("Persevering and Falling Away: A Reexamination of Hebrews 6:4-6" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal [1996]: 135-167) than I will offer here. I cite his brief comments to refresh your memory what he says concerning the warning in Hebrews 6.

The expression “fall away” is the fifth in a series of five parallel participles which begin in v. 4. These five participles are joined by simple conjunctions and are preceded by a single article. While an adverbial participle can introduce the protasis of a conditional clause, such does not appear to be the case here. The first four of these five participles are invariably taken with the article as adjectival and, specifically, as substantives in a series of relative clauses (“those who have once been enlightened and have tasted . . .”). Because all five appear to be parallel, there is every indication that the fifth should also be taken with the article as an adjectival substantive, continuing the series of relative clauses (“and have fallen away”). As such, it would not be adverbial and, hence, not conditional (pp. 141-142).

All my responses, posted here, to John Sproule's initial brief essay that Compton cites apply. I will recast those observation in a summary form here.

First, Compton assumes that Sproule's analysis of the passage is correct that the plural article (τοὺς) renders the first four participles adjectival (substantival) and that, therefore, the article should be viewed as connected to the fifth participle also, rendering it adjectival rather than adverbial. If Compton's assumption is correct, then the fifth participle (παραπεσόντας) means "those who have fallen away." As such, the passage would not properly be regarded as a warning, grammatically speaking, for the passage would be retrospective rather than prospective. This is not to suggest that the passage could not serve a warning function. However, its retrospective warning function would be akin to pointing out the disaster that came upon Esau (Hebrews 12:16) or to calling attention to the calamity that came upon Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10).

Second, if Compton is correct that the plural article must be taken with each of the five participles, then the adverb "once for all" (ἅπαξ) must also be taken with each of the five participles. The result would be that "those who were once enlighted" are being described further as "those who once tasted the heavenly gift," "those who once were made partakers of the Holy Spirit," "those who once tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age," and finally as "those who once fell away." Such a reading is dubious.

Third, against Compton's reading of the passage, who follows Sproule's analysis, it seems more likely that "those who were once enlightened" is the overarching description that finds greater expansion and explanation as follows: "Those who were once enlightened, having tasted the heavenly gift and having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit and having tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance because they recrucify the Son of God for themselves and subject him to open shame."

Fourth, as I suggested in my response to Sproule's essay, it seems more likely that τοὺς ἅπαξ should be taken solely with the first participle, "enlightened" (φωτισθέντας), and not with the four subsequent main participles. The reason for this is that if the author wanted all the main participles to be governed by τοὺς ἅπαξ, readers would at least expect a repetition of ἅπαξ, as in Hebrews 9:26-28 (English/Greek), if not a repetition of τοὺς also, since ἅπαξ stands after the plural accusative article.

Fifth, only the fifth participle, "having fallen away" (παραπεσόντας), is negative. As such, it does not at all fit the other four participles, which are all positive, assuming for the sake of Compton's argument that they all characterize or describe the same people: (1) those once enlightened; (2) those who once tasted the heavenly gift; (3) those who once were made partakers of the Holy Spirit; (4) those who once tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age; and (5) those who once fell away. This is a strange mixing of negative with positive characterizing of people. No wonder those who adopt this view color the first four participles with a negative tone rather than positively by spilling the negative of the fifth participle onto the first four participles.

It seems to me that Compton's interpretation, which he adopts uncritically from Sproule, fails to account adequately for the structures of the text which I will address in future entries.

Comments on Hebrews 6:4-6 #3--Not a Conditional Warning?

This is the third installment in my series of entries on Hebrews 6:4-6 (see the first and second). For this third entry my objective is much more modest than in the earlier two. Here I will briefly assess Randall Gleason's brief comments on the passage in his essay, "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8," Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 71. Gleason reasons,

[T]he King James Version translation, “If they shall fall away” (v. 6), is unlikely because it is doubtful that the aorist participle παραπεσόντας, because of its linkage by a single article (τοὺς) to the preceding participles (vv. 4–5), was intended to express a condition. Neither does verse 6 have the conditional particle ἄν, which was usually used to introduce a conditional statement in Greek.

Gleason defers to the very brief article by Sproule (discussed here) and passes on his conclusions as though they were rather definitive. In particular, without any critical evaluation or reasoning on his own part, Gleason assumes that the fifth participle (παραπεσόντας), has to be adjectival and cannot be adverbial "because of its linkage by a single article (τοὺς) to the preceding participles (vv. 4-5) . . . ." It is precarious to depend upon the interpretive or exegetical work of another, particularly when the passage under question prompts numerous questions about that exegesis. See my comments on Sproule's exegesis. With all due respect to my one-time seminary professor, I disagree with Sproule's configuring of Hebrews 6:4-6.

More glaring, if possible, than unquestioning dependence upon Sproule's altogether too brief essay, is Gleason's next comment when he states, "Neither does verse 6 have the conditional particle ἄν, which was usually used to introduce a conditional statement in Greek." This is a rather remarkable statement. Yet, more remarkable than Gleason's writing it is that it got past the editors of Bibliotheca Sacra. Why is this remarkable? Given the fact that we are not dealing with a finite verb in the subjunctive mood in Hebrews 6:6 but we are dealing with a participle (παραπεσόντα), of course we would not expect "the conditional particle ἄν" to be present in the verse "to introduce a conditional statement in Greek" that entails a participle rather than a finite verb in the subjunctive mood. We might have expected some form of the conditional particle ἄν to have been present, if the word under question were a subjunctive. Then, however, there would be little dispute or doubt whether the verse entailed a supposition.

Harsh as it may seem, yet with all due respect to Randall Gleason, a man whom I know, his comments on Hebrews 6:4-6, brief as they are, are unworthy of anything more than this brief exposure of its flaws.

Comments on Hebrews 6:4-6 #2--Not a Conditional Warning?

Initially, when I posted Hebrews 6:4-6 #1 I intended to post a series of three entries. Upon reflection, however, I now anticipate posting a few more than three because I desire not to post lengthy entries. Thus, instead of engaging all four of the scholars cited in my previous entry I will engage each individually. As I do so, I will include the pertinent portion of the earlier entry, including the Greek and English text (ESV and NIV) of Hebrews 6:4-6.

ἀδύνατον γὰρ τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος καὶ παραπεσόντας πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς
μετάνοιαν ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, 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 (ESV).

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace (NIV).

____________________

In a brief six-page essay, published in 1981, John Sproule challenges the long-standing translation and exegesis of Hebrews 6:4-6 by contending that the five participles in these verses should all be regarded as parallel descriptions of those under consideration and, therefore, as adjectival participles, including the participle translated "fall away." His contention is, in brief, that παραπεσόντας should not be taken as an adverbial participle. Thus, he rejects that it should be translated as a conditional, "if they fall away. . . ." Therefore, according to Sproule, the preacher characterizes a group of people whom he presents as "those who were enlightened, who tasted, who were made partakers, who tasted, and who fell away" (John A. Sproule, “παραπεσόντα" in Hebrews 6:6,” Grace Theological Journal 2 [1981]: 327–332).

Sproule reasons,

The five participles in the series are accusative, plural, masculine participles and they all function as direct objects of the infinitive ἀνακαινίζειν (v 6 ). All five participles are introduced by the single article τούς and they are connected to each other by a simple connective series, τε . . . καὶ . . . καὶ . . . καὶ . . . καὶ. The
series is broken after παραπεσόντας. Thus the two remaining participles in the pericope (ἀνασταυροῦντας and παραδειγματίζοντας) are not part of the series and they are rightly construed as adverbial participles expressing cause. . . .

Further, a single article governing several adjectival participles in a series is also a legitimate Greek construction (cf. Gal 2:20, Rev 1:5). Since παραπεσόντας is governed by τοὺς and is part of the series of connected substantival participles, it cannot be adverbial so as to function conditionally. Thus, in the opinion of this writer, τοὺς . . . καὶ παραπεσόντας is best translated as a relative clause, “. . . and who have fallen away.”

John Sproule provides the following sentence diagram that fits his analysis of the passage (Sproule, “παραπεσόντα" in Hebrews 6:6,” GTJ 2 [1981]: 329).

To view the above chart more clearly click on the diagrammatical analysis chart to isolate the view upon the chart alone.

If Sproule's reasoning is correct, then the passage should be translated as follows:

For it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who were once enlighted, who also once tasted the heavenly gift and who once were made partakers of the Holy Spirit and who once tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age and who once fell away because they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and subjecting him to open shame.

If Sproule's argument is correct, it has huge ramifications for correcting our understanding of Hebrews 6:4-6.

____________________

Is Sproule correct?

First, as I observed earlier, if Sproule's diagrammatical analysis is correct, then the plural article (τοὺς) must be equally distributed not only to the first four main participles, rendering them all adjectival ("those who" [substantival]), but also to the fifth participle (παραπεσόντας), constraining it to mean "those who have fallen away."

Second, as I also observed earlier, if Sproule is on target, then the adverb (ἅπαξ), meaning "once" (in the numeric sense, "once but not now") or "once for all" (in the conclusive sense of "once and never again"), must also be equally distributed to the four subsequent participles because if the article is to be distributed to each participle, so also must the adverb be distributed, given that the adverb intervenes between the article and the first participle. If so, τοὺς ἅπαξ conceptually attaches not only to the first four participles but also to the fifth. So, "those who were once enlighted" are being described further as "those who once tasted the heavenly gift," "those who once were made partakers of the Holy Spirit," "those who once tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age," and finally as "those who once fell away." This approach agrees with that of many others, e.g., J. A. Moffatt (Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. ICC. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924]) and C. Spicq (L'Epitre aux Hebreux. 2 vols. [Paris, 1952]).

Third, what if "those who were once enlightened" (τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας) is actually explained or described more fully by the three participial clauses that follow, excluding καὶ παραπεσόντας? Against Sproule's syntactical proposal, is it not more likely that "those who were once enlightened" is the overarching description that finds greater expansion and explanation as follows? "Those who were once enlightened, having tasted the heavenly gift and having been made partakers of the Holy Spirit and having tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance because they re-crucify the Son of God for themselves and subject him to open shame."

Fourth, it seems more likely that τοὺς ἅπαξ should be taken solely with φωτισθέντας and not with the four subsequent main participles. The reason for this is that if the author wanted all the main participles to be governed by τοὺς ἅπαξ, readers would at least expect a repetition of ἅπαξ, as in Hebrews 9:26-28 (English/Greek), if not a repetition of both τοὺς also, since ἅπαξ stands after the plural accusative article. For if τοὺς ἅπαξ is taken alone with φωτισθέντας, as descriptive of those who have experienced the regenerative light of conversion to Christ, then it is possible to make better sense of the next three participles as referring to enduring or to repeating aspects of Christian experience (tasted the heavenly gift, made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the coming age) rather than be taken as references to one-time events. Given the illustrative imagery of verses 7 & 8, this makes better sense of the adverb mentioned in "the rain that has many times (πολλάκις) fallen. . . ." Among frequent words used in Hebrews the adverb ἅπαξ and its synonym ἐφάπαξ are leaders, particularly used to contrast the repeated ineffectual sacrifices of the Old Covenant with Christ's singular and exceptional self-sacrifice for sin. In Hebrews 6:4-6 the point of contrast features "those who were once enlightened" (ἅπαξ) over against "being restored again to repentance" (πάλιν). Ordinarily "those who are once enlightened" are often "restored again to repentance." However, this is not so for "those who were once enlightened . . . if they fall away."

Fifth, it is possible, in a conceptual sense, to take the fifth participle (παραπεσόντας) as the only negative characterizing description of people who otherwise receive only positive characterizing descriptions. Because of its negative ramifications, however, stylistically the participle (παραπεσόντας) stands out distinctly from the other four participles, all of which provide positive descriptions: "enlightened" (φωτισθέντας), "tasted the heavenly gift" (γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου), "made partakers of the Holy Spirit" (μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου), and "tasted the good Word of God and the powers of the coming age" (καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος).

Sixth, some, such as Paul Ellingworth, take καὶ παραπεσόντας not as a conditional participle but as a concessive participle with the sense of the NEB, "for when men have once been enlightened . . . and after all this have fallen away. . . ." (The Epistle to the Hebrews [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], 323).

My assessment of Sproule's proposal will continue as I interact with the other scholars who have adopted his approach. Watch for further entries on Hebrews 6:4-6.

Comments on Hebrews 6:4-6 #1--Not a Conditional Warning?

Of all the passages of Scripture one seems to be most alarming to Christians, for I receive more questions about Hebrews 6:4-6 than about any other portion, especially when teaching concerning biblical admonitions and warnings.

Hebrews 6:4-6 does not only pose theological difficulty for English Christian readers but it also poses knotty exegetical difficulties for scholars. Thus, I confidently suggest that this entry and the next two (if so limited) will be the most head-ache inducing blog comments that I will have made to this blog to date.

This entry will be the first of at least three on this complex and difficult passage from the New Testament. This first entry will simply provide documentation of what others are saying concerning the passage. My own comments on the passage will follow in at least two subsequent entries in which I will first offer my own interaction with the scholars whom this entry cites followed by my own comments on the passage.

Consider the Greek text of Hebrews 6:4-6. If you desire to analyze the passage more closely for yourself with parsing aids, etc. click here. Below I provide the text with five key participles underlined. It is the fifth of these participles, παραπεσόντας ("fall away"), over which both theological and exegetical disputes continue.

Hebrews 6:4-6

ἀδύνατον γὰρ τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας γευσαμένους τε τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς ἐπουρανίου καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ καλὸν γευσαμένους θεοῦ ῥῆμα δυνάμεις τε μέλλοντος αἰῶνος καὶ παραπεσόντας πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν ἀνασταυροῦντας ἑαυτοῖς τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ παραδειγματίζοντας

In 1981 John Sproule, one of my professors during my MDiv and ThM days and the second reader of my ThM thesis, published a brief essay (six pages) on Hebrews 6:6 in which he argues that the five participles in Hebrews 6:4-6 should all be regarded as parallel and adjectival, and therefore the participle translated "fall away" should not be taken as conditional, which would be adverbial, but should be taken as a further, if final, characterizing of the same individuals who are described by the other four participles, all treated as adjectival. Thus, the preacher characterizes a group of people whom he presents as "those who were enlightened, who tasted, who were made partakers, who tasted, and who fell away" (John A. Sproule, “παραπεσόντα" in Hebrews 6:6,” Grace Theological Journal 2 [1981]: 327–332).

Sproule reasons,

The five participles in the series are accusative, plural, masculine participles and they all function as direct objects of the infinitive ἀνακαινίζειν (v 6 ). All five participles are introduced by the single article τούς and they are connected to each other by a simple connective series, τε . . . καὶ . . . καὶ . . . καὶ . . . καὶ. The
series is broken after παραπεσόντας. Thus the two remaining participles in the pericope (ἀνασταυροῦντας and παραδειγματίζοντας) are not part of the series and they are rightly construed as adverbial participles expressing cause. . . .

Further, a single article governing several adjectival participles in a series is also a legitimate Greek construction (cf. Gal 2:20, Rev 1:5). Since παραπεσόντας is governed by τοὺς and is part of the series of connected substantival participles, it cannot be adverbial so as to function conditionally. Thus, in the opinion of this writer, τοὺς . . . καὶ παραπεσόντας is best translated as a relative clause, “. . . and who have fallen away.”

John Sproule provides the following sentence diagram that fits his analysis of the passage (Sproule, “παραπεσόντα" in Hebrews 6:6,” GTJ 2 [1981]: 329).

To view the above chart more clearly click on the diagrammatical analysis chart to isolate the view upon the chart alone.

Others have latched on to Sproule's argument and have accepted it without offering their own exegesis. Consider four scholars in particular who cite Sproule's work as difinitive.

First, is R. Bruce Compton, "Persevering and Falling Away: A Reexamination of Hebrews 6:4-6" Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (1996): 135-167.

The expression “fall away” is the fifth in a series of five parallel participles which begin in v. 4. These five participles are joined by simple conjunctions and are preceded by a single article. While an adverbial participle can introduce the protasis of a conditional clause, such does not appear to be the case here. The first four of these five participles are invariably taken with the article as adjectival and, specifically, as substantives in a series of relative clauses (“those who have once been enlightened and have tasted . . .”). Because all five appear to be parallel, there is every indication that the fifth should also be taken with the article as an adjectival substantive, continuing the series of relative clauses (“and have fallen away”). As such, it would not be adverbial and, hence, not conditional (pp. 141-142).

Second is Randall C. Gleason, "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8," Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (1998): 71. Gleason reasons,

[T]he King James Version translation, “If they shall fall away” (v. 6), is unlikely because it is doubtful that the aorist participle παραπεσόντας, because of its linkage by a single article (τοὺς) to the preceding participles (vv. 4–5), was intended to express a condition. Neither does verse 6 have the conditional particle ἄν, which was usually used to introduce a conditional statement in Greek.

Third, Daniel Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basis: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996], 633) appeals to Sproule's essay when he comments that in Hebrews 6:6 it is debatable or doubtful that παραπεσόντας is a conditional participle. He argues,

Heb 6:4–6 ἀδύνατον τοὺς ἅπαξ φωτισθέντας (6) καὶ παραπεσόντας, πάλιν ἀνακαινίζειν εἰς μετάνοιαν

it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened (6) if they have fallen away

παραπεσόντας is often construed as conditional (a tradition found in the KJV and repeated in most modern translations and by many commentators). But this is unwarranted. The construction of vv 4–6 approximates a Granville Sharp plural construction (the only difference being that with the second participle in the construction, γευσαμένους in v 4, the conjunction τε is used instead of καὶ: τοὺς φωτισθέντας γευσαμένους τε καὶ μετόχους γενηθέντας καὶ γευσαμένους καὶ παραπεσόντας). If this participle should be taken adverbially, then should we not take the preceding two or three participles the same way? The inconsistency has little basis. Instead, παραπεσόντας should be taken as adjectival, thus making a further and essential qualification of the entire group. A better translation, then, is “It is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened . . . and have fallen away.”

Fourth is Buist M. Fanning, "A Classical Reformed View," Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. by Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 180, n. 16. Fanning appeals to John Sproule's brief essay and claims in a footnote,

The fifth participle is taken separately here for thematic reasons, but it is an integral, if final and surprsing, part of the grammatical construction in verses 4-6a (five participles governed by the single article τοὺς and joined by conjunctions τε or καὶ). It is not syntactically legitimate to take it as conditional ("if they fall away"), despite the major translations that render it this way (RSV, NIV).

It is evident that John Sproule's brief essay persuades the above four scholars to understand the sequence of five participles in Hebrews 6:4-6 as properly translated, in an expanded manner, as follows.

For it is impossible to renew unto repentance those who were once enlighted, who also once tasted the heavenly gift and who once were made partakers of the Holy Spirit and who once tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age and who once fell away because they are recrucifying the Son of God for themselves and subjecting him to open shame.

In other words, if the plural article (τοὺς) functions to render all five main participles adjectival ("those who" [substantival]), including the fifth (παραπεσόντας), then the adverb (ἅπαξ), meaning "once" (in the numeric sense, "once but not now") or "once for all" (in the conclusive sense), must also be distributed to the four subsequent participles. Thus, τοὺς ἅπαξ not only attaches conceptually to the first four participles but also to the fifth. So, "those who were once enlighted" are being described as "those who once tasted the heavenly gift" and "those who once were made partakers of the Holy Spirit" and "those who once tasted the good word of God and the powers of the coming age" but also "those who once fell away."

If these gentlemen are correct, this has no small ramifications for how we are to understand Hebrews 6:4-6.