Hebrews 10:25 – Sin of excess?
In Hebrews 10:24-25, the writer commands his readers to encourage one another, prompting each other to grow in love and good works. From a negative standpoint, he forbids the neglecting of meeting with each other. Note the wording from a few translations:
…not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some… (NKJV)
…not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some… (NASB)
…not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some… (ESV)
…not staying away from our meetings, as some habitually do… (HCSB)
First notice what is forbidden in this language. The NKJV and NASB call it “forsaking,” the ESV calls it “neglecting,” and the HCSB calls it “staying away.” By looking only at these words, it’s difficult to tell just what the writer would constitute a violation. Is it a complete abandonment of assembling – choosing to never do it again – that is under consideration? Is it opting to forgo assembling over half the time? Or is it simply deciding to make some other activity a priority over assembling with the brethren, even just once?
I believe a conclusive answer lies in plain sight within the verse itself. Notice that the writer says that some had already made a habit of what he is condemning. Notice that he doesn’t urge his readers to avoid forming the habit; rather he says not to do at all what others had already made a habit of. He does not condemn the habit but rather the habit-forming action itself.
Let’s look at this from a few different standpoints to help us clearly see what the author is saying.
First, suppose we had the following wording:
…not lying, as is the habit of some…
…not stealing, as is the habit of some…
…not murdering, as is the habit of some…
Would anyone argue that it’s fine to lie as long as you are not a pathological liar, that you can steal as long as you’re no kleptomaniac, and that murder is tolerable as long as you keep it to a minimum? Noting that some have formed a habit of an action does not negate the condemning of the action itself. What it does is emphasize the danger of this particular sin, demonstrating by the actions of others just how easy it is to fall into a permanent habit of sinning. What solution does the Hebrew writer propose to keep from falling into this dangerous habit of forsaking? Don’t ever do it – not even once.
Second, if we wanted to condemn gluttony, laziness, and poor stewardship, would we word it like this?
…not eating too much, as is the habit of some…
…not taking a break from work, as is the habit of some…
…not buying something expensive, as is the habit of some…
Language like this is no way to condemn the habitual practice of an action. Using such wording would lead the reader to believe that one too many nachos, one day of vacation, and one nice necklace for the wife are all condemned. Yet this is exactly how the Hebrew writer worded his warning. That’s because his task was not to condemn something in excess but rather the thing itself.
Third, consider how the writer would have worded this sentence if only the habit was to be avoided:
…not habitually forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as do some…
…not routinely forsaking our own assembling together, as do some…
…not regularly neglecting to meet together, as do some…
…not consistently staying away from our meetings, as some do…
Although many interpret this verse in this way, this is simply not what the writer said. The writer did not include the idea of habit in the clause of prohibition but rather in the subsequent clause which notes the extent to which this sin was already prevalent among his readers. He told them not that their habit was a sin but rather that they were making a habit of sinning. Doing it less frequently would not solve the problem, for the problem was not excess. Stopping altogether was the prescribed solution.
Based on the precise wording the Hebrew writer uses, I am convinced that he expected his readers to assemble with the saints at every opportunity. When faced with the choice to assemble or do something else of their own choosing, these saints were to always choose the means by which they would have opportunity to encourage and stimulate their brethren. While this letter was written to Jewish Christians almost 2,000 years ago, I see no reason that God expects any less of His saints today. May we all place as much importance on serving our brethren in this way as the Hebrew writer did!
…not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some… (NKJV)
…not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some… (NASB)
…not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some… (ESV)
…not staying away from our meetings, as some habitually do… (HCSB)
First notice what is forbidden in this language. The NKJV and NASB call it “forsaking,” the ESV calls it “neglecting,” and the HCSB calls it “staying away.” By looking only at these words, it’s difficult to tell just what the writer would constitute a violation. Is it a complete abandonment of assembling – choosing to never do it again – that is under consideration? Is it opting to forgo assembling over half the time? Or is it simply deciding to make some other activity a priority over assembling with the brethren, even just once?
I believe a conclusive answer lies in plain sight within the verse itself. Notice that the writer says that some had already made a habit of what he is condemning. Notice that he doesn’t urge his readers to avoid forming the habit; rather he says not to do at all what others had already made a habit of. He does not condemn the habit but rather the habit-forming action itself.
Let’s look at this from a few different standpoints to help us clearly see what the author is saying.
First, suppose we had the following wording:
…not lying, as is the habit of some…
…not stealing, as is the habit of some…
…not murdering, as is the habit of some…
Would anyone argue that it’s fine to lie as long as you are not a pathological liar, that you can steal as long as you’re no kleptomaniac, and that murder is tolerable as long as you keep it to a minimum? Noting that some have formed a habit of an action does not negate the condemning of the action itself. What it does is emphasize the danger of this particular sin, demonstrating by the actions of others just how easy it is to fall into a permanent habit of sinning. What solution does the Hebrew writer propose to keep from falling into this dangerous habit of forsaking? Don’t ever do it – not even once.
Second, if we wanted to condemn gluttony, laziness, and poor stewardship, would we word it like this?
…not eating too much, as is the habit of some…
…not taking a break from work, as is the habit of some…
…not buying something expensive, as is the habit of some…
Language like this is no way to condemn the habitual practice of an action. Using such wording would lead the reader to believe that one too many nachos, one day of vacation, and one nice necklace for the wife are all condemned. Yet this is exactly how the Hebrew writer worded his warning. That’s because his task was not to condemn something in excess but rather the thing itself.
Third, consider how the writer would have worded this sentence if only the habit was to be avoided:
…not habitually forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as do some…
…not routinely forsaking our own assembling together, as do some…
…not regularly neglecting to meet together, as do some…
…not consistently staying away from our meetings, as some do…
Although many interpret this verse in this way, this is simply not what the writer said. The writer did not include the idea of habit in the clause of prohibition but rather in the subsequent clause which notes the extent to which this sin was already prevalent among his readers. He told them not that their habit was a sin but rather that they were making a habit of sinning. Doing it less frequently would not solve the problem, for the problem was not excess. Stopping altogether was the prescribed solution.
Based on the precise wording the Hebrew writer uses, I am convinced that he expected his readers to assemble with the saints at every opportunity. When faced with the choice to assemble or do something else of their own choosing, these saints were to always choose the means by which they would have opportunity to encourage and stimulate their brethren. While this letter was written to Jewish Christians almost 2,000 years ago, I see no reason that God expects any less of His saints today. May we all place as much importance on serving our brethren in this way as the Hebrew writer did!
nate
marla
upintheair
kevin
slave_of_jesus_jdb
deusvitae
sellerofpurple
kt80
ed
melmibelle
patermagister
tramellite
jarrod
kayliesmomma
simon_says
someday
chief
timrosen
jermy
bamagirl0624
maconpane
You have not answered my question, and Ethan's as well, I think. How far do you take this? Where does it lead you? Do you, or the elders makeup a list of legitimate reasons and then police people's habits? Would you withdraw from anyone with under 70% attendance?
Ultimately, you and I agree that all Christians should worship with their congregations whenever possible. I don't think we even needed Hebrews 10:25 to tell us that, did we? We certainly don't need to debate whether it's a binding law or a suggestion. None of that changes what it is we are called to do. We are called to love God with all that we are, and put others before ourselves. We are called to the path of Christ. Where does making a law about church attendance fit into that?
Let me put it another way. You love the church there and the members of it. You want to spend as much time as possible with them, and you want the other members to feel the same way. Obviously, not all of your brothers and sisters feel exactly the same way as you. So the goal is to get them to feel what you feel, and have a desire to be with the family. How does making Heb. 10:25 a binding law get you closer to the goal?
btw, I love you too...and hope my questions/comments don't come across combative. I don't mean them to be so!
What I meant was, this passage is stressing the importance of being together and sharing. With that importance in mind, shouldn't the church attempt to meet more often? According to what you have said (as I understand), someone who doesn't attend a service is not considering its importance, and is therefore sinning. According to that same logic, if the church doesn't try to meet more often, aren't they guilty of the same thing? Or am I misunderstanding?
If it's only forsaking when "it's happening," then wouldn't the "best" option be to limit assembly to once a week, so that it isn't happening as often? :)
IMO, you're looking at this passage as an instruction to each individual to not forsake the assembling of everyone else. I think it can also be applied to the church as a whole, to consider how much they need to assemble. That is why I think you're not considering everything in reference to this passage. To me, it's not "don't forsake an assembly," but it's more of, "don't forsake assembling," which are two different concepts.
I think we are in agreement that such is not the case. Travel is legitimate, and Christians should seek to assemble with brethren when traveling when given the opportunity.
I would argue that the "us" does include the Hebrew author, because the Hebrew author is talking about the individual's responsibility in his or her own congregation: "we" are not to forsake "our coming together," even if you are "coming together" in TN and I in OH and Ed in Australia.
I guess my issue was this interpretation that the Hebrew author is only referring to gatherings of the "whole assembly." In the NT, assemblies are assemblies, regardless of the proportion of members present. If "the assembly" only exists when every constituent local member is present, I can probably count on one hand the number of "true assemblies" I've participated in here, and not need all my fingers. "The assembly" exists when you have half the members of the congregation as much as when you have a full number. And if 25 members are present, say, in the building on Sunday night, and then 25 are present at a brother's or sister's house for a Bible study and refreshments, I have a hard time saying that Hebrews 10:24-25 applies to one but not the other. Granted, those assemblies have different purposes, but the point of both should involve stirring up one another to love and good works.
Thus, while I believe Hebrews 10:24-25 certainly applies to the regular assemblies of the local congregation, it does not exclude other opportunities for brethren to "come together" and encourage one another. And that's another reason why I have trouble binding proportions or percentages of attendance.
The humble servant of God who has the right priorities and the right heart will seek to encourage his brethren at every opportunity. When a Christian does not seek to encourage his brethren at every opportunity, there's some other problem there, and the problem deserves to be dealt with, not the symptom. I go back to the fact that "forsaking the assembly" is in no "sin list" nor is it in a list of reasons for disassociation. Disassociation seems to be reserved for sins of commission-- doing evil-- rather than failing to do the good. I am confident that if you dig more deeply into the situation of any assembly forsaker, you'll find a much more substantive reason that would justify disassociation if there were no repentance.
1. Being compelled to work during the time of a given assembly without recourse (1 Timothy 5:8 vs. Hebrews 10:25).
2. Assisting someone in a moment of need (Luke 10:25-37 vs. Hebrews 10:25).
3. Attending to the emergency need/crisis, especially of a brother (James 1:27 vs. Hebrews 10:25).
4. Having a communicable illness or being physically incapable of assembling.
Aaron, I understand what you are saying. Yet the writer is not complaining about what they do collectively. He is talking about what they are failing to do individually ("the habit of some") in regard to what they are doing collectively (congregating). It's as though he is saying "You are having plenty enough meetings to encourage one another and stir one another up, but it doesn't do any good if you don't bother to go. And some of you are in the habit of not going. Stop not going."
I am not sure why you guys are focusing on disassociation. I have not said a word about such. I am examining what is actually said in Hebrews 10 and trying to determine whether it tells us to always attend church meetings. It seems like it does, and it seems like you all agree. It amazes me that we all agree that we should assemble with the saints at every opportunity, yet you're all challenging the fact that the only passage that hints at such actually requires it. Without this command, the frequency with which I choose to assemble seems entirely subjective. Ethan's list is a fairly common one, but why stop there? I could probably find a dozen passages that would justify various other activities just as much as 1 Timothy 5:8 justifies choosing to work rather than assemble (I don't believe it does, BTW).
The Hebrew writer commanded his readers not to do something. What exactly is it? Is "forsaking the assembling of ourselves together" entirely subjective? How did the writer know that some in his audience were already making a habit of doing so (and apparently expect his readers to recognize it too)?
And why the mention again of the "list of sins"? Are all sins included in a list with others? Does telling us NOT to do it not make it a sin?
Another problem I'm having here is that you are limiting the subject of the passage to the three church services a week. That's only one fraction of "assembly". Like I said earlier, if I have a Bible study at my apartment and invite everyone, that's an assembly of Christians exhorting each other and stirring up love and good works. That still qualifies under what the Hebrew writer is addressing. So if someone doesn't come to the study, you are saying that it is a sin. If that is true, we must now analyze every instance of what may or may not be an assembly and make sure we attend. I can't imagine that the Hebrew writer would want us to carry that out.
It seems like you're saying that one must never forsake (or as you interpret it, never miss an assembly), according to the plain scripture. Not even once, and no explanations needed. Well, that passage doesn't address any of those conditions that Ethan mentioned as acceptable reasons to miss a service. So if you're saying that the passage condemns this outright, then that includes missing because of illness, etc. That is absolutely not what the Hebrew writer was getting at. Surely you're not saying that, but I can't help but reach that conclusion based on your reasoning.
Heb. 10:25 is in the middle of a long explanation of sacrifice, and what Christ's sacrifice means. If that sacrifice means everything to us, then we will have that closeness with each other and with God. If that sacrifice means nothing to us, then it isn't for us. When you teach someone that Heb. 10:25 means that he sins if he misses an assembly, you place significance on the wrong thing. A Christian can go to an assembly without having any hope in God (vs.23), refusing to stir up or be stirred (vs.24). In fact, a Christian can sin willfully (vs.26) all the while keeping perfect attendance.
When I read the context, I see the Hebrew writer offering encouragement to Christians to understand who they have in Jesus and to have confidence in this. Sadly, this chapter of Hebrews is probably discussed less than this one verse. Your explanations, in my opinion, don't consider the context, nor do they offer a complete solution for the Christian trying to make an application. This may explain why you have this confusion regarding subjectivism. You're being too objective. You say that without this one verse, you see chaos. That's because you're only looking at the one verse as if it is a command that needs no further explanation. The Hebrew writer wouldn't have written all those chapters if he only intended to lay down such a law.
From your latest comment, it seems you are uncomfortable with the idea of attendance being 'subjective'? Why would that concern you? It worries me that few Christians realize that most of what we do is subjective? How do we quantify or legislate kindness, humility, faith? For that matter, how do we quantify more 'concrete' sins like lust, gluttony, faithfulness to a spouse, pride? Can we make 'singing with our hearts' and 'praying without ceasing' objective truths?
Not to go on a rant, but this to me is the primary problem with traditional coC thinking. We focus on what we can legislate and police. I believe strongly that this is unhealthy and contrary to the will and purposes of God. I won't go into that more here, bc it doesn't contribute much to the discussion at hand, but if you have questions about what I mean, or want to discuss it more, I'd be happy to do that via email, or Skype, or whatever. I believe this is hugely important to this, and many other issues in the church!
Do you need Heb. 10:25 to be a hard and fast command to know that it is good for Christians to spend time together, encouraging, exhorting, stirring each other up? I ask that , bc it seems that this is what you were trying to establish with your post.
Finally, you say that this has nothing to do with disassociation. So what does it have to do with? That's what I've asked in my last two comments, but you haven't answered me. If you believe that you have established Heb1025 as a hard and fast command, where are you wanting to go from there?
Love you brother! Though I'm a bit confused, and this is a poor medium to discuss such issues, it's important we keep talking. The issues we are touching on go way beyond attendance! We continue to pray for the family of God there in Appleton! please, continue your prayers for us.
As I said earlier-- avoiding the evil is rather black and white, even if Satan and other forces would make it seem gray. But when it comes to doing the good, there are different levels of good, and thus different priorities to consider, and it's a lot more complicated.
It would seem, Garland, that you would argue that Christians should choose to be at the assembly even if their employer demands their work service. Since both are considered good in Scripture (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Timothy 5:8/Ephesians 6:5-9), on what basis do you decide that Hebrews 10:25 represents a "greater good" than 1 Timothy 5:8/Ephesians 6:5-9? Since all three involve commands/exhortation, on what Biblical basis do you make that decision?
And if a man is going to the assembly and sees his fellow man needing assistance on the road, which is the greater good, according to Luke 10? Or can we now justify the Levite or the priest by saying that they had a synagogue meeting to go to?
I say the last line rather tongue-in-cheek, but the point remains. There is subjectivity. There's no way around it. Even if you place Hebrews 10:25 at the pinnacle, and all other spiritual priorities beneath it, that's a subjective judgment, since God never spoke regarding the assembly in superlative terms.
"Wouldn't you say that it's better for a church to meet more often than it does?" - No. As Christians we have lots of work to be doing, so we can't spend all our time meeting together. The writer says nothing about the frequency of their meetings, but he DOES complain about them not taking part in them. As a church we need to decide how often we can meet while still meeting our other responsibilities, and then we need to be there when we have decided to meet.
"Another problem I'm having here is that you are limiting the subject of the passage to the three church services a week." - I have already explained why I believe this passage is taking about the church assembling itself together. Not random Christians, but their synagogue (James 2:2) coming together.
"So if you're saying that the passage condemns this outright, then that includes missing because of illness, etc." - No, that is not necessary. There are plenty of things we are told to do that are not possible due to circumstances beyond our control. Every one of them is not qualified with "as long as it's possible," so it's no big surprise to me that the writer does not give such a caveat.
"When you teach someone that Heb. 10:25 means that he sins if he misses an assembly, you place significance on the wrong thing." - Sorry, but wrong again. If one were to only teach what you propose and nothing else about the message of Hebrews 10, then that would be one thing. But to suggest that the writer tells us to stop doing something hardly minimizes the rest of his teaching.
"Your explanations, in my opinion, don't consider the context, nor do they offer a complete solution for the Christian trying to make an application." - What is hard about making an application: don't miss the assemblies of the church if it's within your control to be there?
"You're being too objective." - You're being too subjective.
"It seemed to me that the purpose of your article was to establish that Heb. 10:25 is a command that we must obey." - The purpose of the article is to show what the thing forbidden in Hebrews 10:25 is and is not. I assumed that everyone would agree that it's a command when he says NOT TO DO something. I assumed the question would be whether he is condemning complete abandonment of all assembling, choosing to miss one assembly, or something in between.
"Not to go on a rant, but this to me is the primary problem with traditional coC thinking." - This comment really makes me sad.
"We focus on what we can legislate and police." - Speak for yourself, brother. I see the Hebrew writer telling us not to do something. I want to know what that is.
"Do you need Heb. 10:25 to be a hard and fast command to know that it is good for Christians to spend time together, encouraging, exhorting, stirring each other up?" - I don't NEED it to be anything. The writer told people to stop doing something. I want to make sure I am not doing it. And if others are doing it, I want to encourage them to stop.
"Finally, you say that this has nothing to do with disassociation. So what does it have to do with?" - It has to do with encouraging people to stop doing what the Hebrew author told people to stop doing.
"Garland, is there not a level of subjectivity inherent in accomplishing 'the good'?" - You yourself have said there is no subjectivity with not doing evil. The writer commanded his readers to stop doing something. Does that not make it evil? You are acting like he said "Encourage one another." But he also included a command not to miss opportunities to do so. You act like it has to be listed in the same verse as murder and adultery to be an evil that must be avoided.
"Since both are considered good in Scripture, on what basis do you decide that Hebrews 10:25 represents a 'greater good' than 1 Timothy 5:8/Ephesians 6:5-9?" - First of all, there is evil to be avoided as I have already said. Actually, 1 Tim 5 is the same. It's not a command to do good. It is a prohibition against choosing not to. But assuming it were just a matter of good vs. good, there seems to be a big difference to me. There is one church who meets together at fixed times for 2-3% of the time during the week. There are millions of jobs that can be done during the other 97-98% of the week. If we have to choose between working a particular job and meeting with the church, which one is easier to change so as to be able to accomplish both "goods"? For those who choose working over assembling, is it unreasonable for them to take another job that pays less while still far exceeding their basic needs or to accept help from brethren while they look for a job that allows them to assemble. Folks act like they are entitled to a standard of living and to provide any less than that for their family is a shame worthy of trading our assembling together so at to avoid it. The scripture condemns the lazy person who refuses to provide for his family. Do you think a person who refuses to work a job that prevents him from assembling fits the bill? Ed has already said he would not do so. I would not do so. If we can't find other work, are we required to take the job according to 1 Timothy 5?
"And if a man is going to the assembly and sees his fellow man needing assistance on the road, which is the greater good, according to Luke 10?" - I certainly grant such a scenario as an exception to the rule because Jesus said it was. I would take this exception to mean this: if there is an urgent need that involves the life and death of another and cannot be satisfied by someone else or at some other time (all true in this story), we should offer the assistance required without being concerned that we have sinned in doing so.
That is a great attitude! However, this attitude does not permit just anyone to determine the "proper" application for everyone, as you suggest: "What is hard about making an application: don't miss the assemblies of the church if it's within your control to be there?"
An example of this is the Pharisees. God told the Jews, "You shall do no work on the Sabbath."
Well, the Pharisees saw God telling them not to do something. Naturally, they wanted to know what that was. So, they defined "work" in every conceivable context so that they wouldn't break the command. They formed their own law and condemned Jesus for breaking it.
Recognizing and trying to understand something that God has told us to do or not to do is not the problem. No one in this discussion is denying that the Hebrew writer is telling us not to "forsake the assembling of ourselves."
"Don't miss the assemblies of the church if it's within your control to be there," is not in Hebrews 10:25. It is certainly a good suggestion for a way to apply the verse, but it is not the verse itself. You're drawing a line here out of your concern to obey the command, as you see it. But your statement is a bit broad.
What do you mean by "miss"? Miss the entire service? The first five minutes? The last five minutes? What do you mean by "assemblies"? When does the assembly begin? When does it end? After the closing prayer? How much of the congregation has to leave before the assembly is just some "random Christians"? What do you mean by "within your control"? Who determines what is within everyone's control? "Be there"? We just have to "be there"? Do we have to participate? Can we sleep? And many more questions would have to be answered in order to make this interpretation understandable.
I appreciate your honest look at the scriptures here, but I think there's a real danger to strain and strain at this until you've developed your own code that defines Heb. 10:25 for everyone, just like the Pharisees did with the Sabbath. What the Pharisees did with the law didn't protect the law, it replaced the law. Jesus had a big problem with this.
I have one final question: You said, "I assumed that everyone would agree that it's a command when he says NOT TO DO something," then later you said, "It has to do with encouraging people to stop doing what the Hebrew author told people to stop doing." Do you think this is a command or an encouragement? Is there a distinction in your eyes?
I believe that Aaron's point regarding the Sabbath is excellent. I see no reason why Mark 2 cannot be understood in the Christian dispensation-- the assembly was made for man, not man for the assembly. Just as God commanded the Israelites to rest but also demanded a level of subjective judgment to be available, thus it must be for the Christian assembly.
In a world where choices really do exist regarding jobs, that would be one thing. But there are a lot of people out there who don't really have the flexibility that many others of us appreciate in terms of what jobs we have and when we get to work, and I believe that there should be some good sense used there. And the less paying the job, the more likely that the worker will have to work on Sunday.
And if there are legitimate "exceptions" to the rule, then it's no longer a matter of objectivity. It requires a judgment call. Hence, subjectivity.
Thanks, guys, for the discussion.