If you had to pick the Top Christian Guilt Trip Verse, I reckon Hebrews 10:25 would at least make the short list. Beloved of pastors and Bible Study Leaders everywhere, this verse is likely to appear in any conversation that begins with the words, "Soooo...where were you last Sunday?"
Any absence from regular fellowship can be elegantly dealt with by appealing to this remarkable proof-text. The wayward sheep will be rebuked by the plain words of Scripture and will (hopefully) return to an acceptable attendance pattern.
But to what exact situation does Hebrews 10:25 refer? What is the cessation in meeting that the writer is warning his readers against? Can this verse be used as a catch-all for the spiritually slack?
In his very thorough commentary Peter O'Brien admits that the exact circumstances of those who have ceased fellowship are not clear, though the fact that the writer has raised the "falling away" issue several times previously (and will do so again later) shows that apostasy was likely to have been a pressing concern for the Jewish-Christian receivers of the letter. O'Brien suggests factors such as persecution, indifference or apathy can be broadly implied from the text. While these issues probably played a role in halting regular meeting, I am of the opinion that the most important issue for these apostates was a lack of Confidence In Christ.
The stress on Jesus as the New and Better High Priest in Hebrews is hard to ignore. In fact, once the writer has reminded the Jewish Christians of the basics of belief, chapters 5-10 are devoted almost exclusively to this issue. A viable scenario is that a lack of a cultic system or priesthood in this new Christian movement would have given those believers of a Jewish background a certain amount of unease. For centuries the descendants of Abraham had relied on a Levitical priesthood to intercede with God on their behalf. The ceremonies and duties were strict - a failure to follow them correctly would have resulted in a break in fellowship with God. Now these Christians seem to have done away with all of the ritual rigmarole - no priests, no sacrifices, no incense, no ritual washings. Was God going to accept this as proper worship? Was the holiness of the Creator being denied? Maybe it would be better if we left these Christians to their hymns and prayers and brought a nice lamb to the Temple Priest to make sure God is going to accept us...
As I have been leading my weekly Bible studies on Hebrews, it occurs to me that the advocation of Jesus as the new High Priest in the order of Melchizedek appears to have been for the sake of restoring confidence to those Christians who were struggling with the lack of cultic practices. It was hard to believe, given the strict nature of the Mosaic regulations, that God could be happy with simply Faith Alone. There would have been many who were Just Not Sure, and so they needed reassurance.
What does this have to do with the use of 10:25 in our age? Well, I believe that this verse is not the Rebuke To The Self-Indulgent that it so often becomes. Instead it is the reassurance to those whose confidence in Christ is wavering, for those who feel burdened with sin, and those who feel that God does not hear their prayers.
I have been challenged in the last few days by Scripture to be very careful as to how I use Hebrews 10:25 pastorally from now on. Don't get me wrong - if someone isn't at church for no better reason than they went to see the Tigers lose again then they should definitely receive a boot in the backside. I'll just use other verses of Scripture to do it and instead save Hebrews 10:25 for the person who needs their confidence in Christ reaffirmed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Luke, I'm very interested in this whole subject ... the train of thought in Hebrews 10.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not at all confident I've comprehended what you're saying, especially in the second half of this piece. (In paragraph 5, accept WHAT "as proper worship"?)
I think (agree?) that the 10:25 call for Christians (to continue) to gather is presented here at least partly because it has just been demonstrated that the Temple is now obsolete.
But I don't see why that means I should stop using 10:25 to tell Christians to go to church. (I'm sorry but I don't see or understand your line of argument in the second half of your piece.)
In fact I think it is increasingly necessary, as more modern Christians are increasingly thinking (without any biblical basis) that the reason to go to church is to 'worship', that we use Hebrews 10 to provide not only the call but also the reason for meeting together.
P.S. 'Bible' has a capital B.
Would love to dialogue further on this.
Andrew Dircks
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteSorry if in my attempt to not turn this post into another thesis I was unclear. My point is not that pastors should be ambivalent as to whether or not people come to church. I was attempting to emphasise that given the context of Hebrews 10:25 it should not be the immediate go-to verse every time you have a person in your congregation with an attendance problem. I was wrestling with WHY the writer gives this directive and came to the view that the reason people (i.e. Jewish Christians) would be inclined to stay away from meetings is a lack of confidence in the form of worship in the early church being acceptable to God because of the dispensation of cultic practices. They were feeling like maybe their prayers weren't getting through or that their sins hadn't been forgiven because no-one was interceding on their behalf (as had been the case with Jewish worship). I am hesitant about thinking of this as primarily a Temple question - the issue seems to be more one of Mediation than Location (particularly if the audience was somewhere in Asia rather than Jerusalem). As such, I am of the opinion that using this verse to slap around those who aren't coming to church for Just Couldn't Be Bothered reasons rips the verse out of its context - it's an easy verse to use but I think we need to try harder. The original point was encouragement to the faltering not chastisement to the hard-hearted and I think it is important to keep that in mind.
Not only did the writer to the Hebrews explain that the Christians had "no priests, no sacrifices, no incense, no ritual washings" (other than Christ himself), but the writer also never referred to Christian gatherings as 'worship', and I suggest would have rejected any attempt to do so. The call to not neglect meeting together was not because they had what might have been regarded as an inferior 'worship', but they didn't have any institutional 'worship' at all. Rather, they had gatherings to stir one another up, to encourage one another. As Romans 9:3 says, "the worship" was something that belonged to OT Judaism.
ReplyDelete