The meaning will be clearer when we remember that the epistle was written to Jewish Christians, and probably about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Many of the early Christians, and especially the Jewish Christians, undoubtedly looked for an early return of Jesus as Messiah. These Jewish Christians had been so looking and longing, and there was danger in the long delay that they should feel they had forsaken a firm and sure religion (Judaism) for one which was proving unreal; nothing had happened, or was likely to happen. Thus in the close of this chapter the writer goes on to speak of the sure hope, and the whole epistle is designed to show the superiority of the Christian over the Jewish religion. It is therefore not falling away in the sense of gross immorality, nor wrong-doing through ignorance, which is here contemplated, but wilful apostasy. Moreover, it would be apostasy in the face of the great blessings they had experienced in Christianity (see verses 4 and 5); many of these blessings would be miraculous gifts (charismata).

      The Montanists of the second century found in the passage justification for refusing to reinstate any who had lapsed; but the passage was never generally understood in this way, and in fact, it would be an interpretation contrary to history. Most of the Fathers understood the passage to refer to the impossibility of restoring those who had lapsed, by re-Baptism. If this is so, then the phrase [271] "unto repentance" is taken to include the results of Baptism, i.e., regeneration. The phrase is certainly peculiar, for we should expect by repentance. It may even be that the word renew refers to Baptism, and the passage would then mean it is impossible to make them new creatures again by Baptism. Most ancient writers so regard it, and if this is so, it further explains the reference to re-crucifixion, for Baptism had already been connected with the Crucifixion, Burial, and Resurrection. Certainly this was the practice of the early Church. Penitents were restored to fellowship, but never by re-Baptism. It is interesting to note that if this view is correct we have two words, renewal and enlightenment (illumination)--later always associated with Baptism--so associated in this New Testament writing. In the Syriac Version enlightened is actually given baptised; and whilst it is incorrect as a translation, it serves to show how the term was understood.

      I do not think, therefore, that the passage shows the impossibility of restoring to fellowship those who have lapsed, though we ought not to minimise the danger which this very lapsing itself creates.

[EOCU 270-272]