Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Hebrews 10:25, KJV)

We begin by stating those things with which we are in agreement. We affirm that God himself has designed and established the church, so that it is not man’s unworthy invention, and that Christ is the one who builds his church, so that to undermine its value and progress is to oppose Christ himself. We affirm that the church manifests itself on the earth as many local congregations, and that each local congregation is assumed to be imperfect, but that imperfection itself does not make it an illegitimate congregation. These are not in dispute in what follows, so that no matter what is said, it is not to be understood that these items are denied or compromised.

Then, we affirm that faithful church attendance is desirable at least in principle. We say “in principle” because it would be absurd to claim that church attendance is good no matter what, that is, regardless of the doctrines and the qualities of the preachers, the members, and other considerations. Perhaps some would object to even this, and say that church attendance is desirable and even required no matter what. This is one of the things that will be resolved, at least in relation to our text. In any case, the items listed above and the general legitimacy of church membership and church attendance are not in dispute. What is in dispute is the proper use of Hebrews 10:25.

The Bible possesses unparalleled power, and it commands respect and obedience. For this reason, it is not unusual for people to hijack it in order to promote their own viewpoints and interests. Phrases and sentences that seem usable for this purpose are repeated as truisms to coax, to manipulate, and even to threaten others into submission. This is done so often that there are those who complain that the Bible can be twisted to endorse any agenda. But such a remark is lazy and false. One person may fail to notice a text taken out of context, so that he comes under pressure to believe the asserted position. Another person observes that the same text is used to assert many contradictory positions, but if there is a context to the text that restricts its meaning, then to complain that the text can be so used, is to be deceived just as much as the first person.

The complaint would be relevant only if it is accompanied by the claim that there is no context to any biblical text, and that every text, or at least every text that has been used to assert contradictory positions, occurs without any theological, literary, and historical or cultural context. However, the claim that every such text occurs in a vacuum would be false; rather, the truth is that every text in the Bible appears in some context that places great restrictions on its possible meanings and applications. If a letter must be read in relation to its adjacent letters in order to form a word, and a word must be read in relation to its adjacent words in order to form a sentence, then a sentence or a paragraph must also be read in relation to its context in order to form a thought.

To illustrate, there is the commandment, “Honor your parents,” and this includes the idea to obey them, to do what they say. Parents are human, and as such they are vile sinners like all men and women. So it is not unusual for parents to manipulate their children with this text. Even non-Christian parents sometimes use it to impose their evil wishes on their children. However, the commandment was not discovered in a fortune cookie, but God announced it in the context of the Ten Commandments, which in turn were revealed in the context of his mighty signs and wonders in Exodus, and in the context of the whole law.

The authority of parents was sustained and restricted by the law, and they had to obey the law. The parents themselves would have been punished by the law if they had violated its commandments. If a parent had commanded his child to worship an idol, to commit perjury, or to do some other thing that was contrary to the law, such an instruction would have carried no force, and the child was under no obligation to obey it; rather, he would have had to resist it and even report it, so that the parent may receive the punishment he deserved from the law. Thus Paul writes, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.” If your parents tell you to take out the trash or wash the dishes, or something much more significant than that, do it. But if they tell you to worship an idol, to accept a non-Christian teaching or ideology, to lie to someone, or to overlook sin, then disobey them and plead with them, and if that fails, rebuke them and defy them to the death.

Or, how about the proverb, “In the multitude of counsellors there is safety”? Using this, people have tried to impose their bad advice on me. They not only forced me to listen, but it was assumed that unless their advice affected my decision, I was rejecting counsel and disobeying the Bible. However, in Proverbs 11:14, the statement applies to a people or a nation, and in 24:6, it refers to waging war. Admittedly, this does not prevent it from being applied on a smaller scale, so a more significant consideration is that Proverbs itself distinguishes between the wise and the fools. And it says, “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed” (13:20). Thus it is assumed that the multitude of counselors are wise men. As 20:18 says, “Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war” (ESV). Who are the wise men? Proverbs says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, so non-Christians have not even started to possess it.

The truth is that most people are non-Christians, that most people who claim to be Christians are not, that most real Christians are uneducated in the word of God, and that most genuine Christians educated in the word of God are nevertheless biased because of their sinful desires and religious traditions. Most people who offer advice, offer bad advice, because most people have no idea what they are talking about. In the multitude of fools, there is much danger. “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise” (12:15). This is true, but in the context of Proverbs, it is assumed that such counsel is godly and wise. Now, not all good advice agree, and even when all agree, it does not always mean that it is the right advice for you. You could take it into account but then do something else. But foolish advice from foolish people are to be rejected, no matter which verse they use to manipulate or threaten you. Do not feel fear or guilt about dismissing them. If possible, get acquainted with people who revere God, and who know and believe the Scripture, and seek advice from them.

Thus to wildly sling a verse taken out of context all over the place does nothing to promote truth and godliness; instead, it damages the faith and the lives of those who respect the Bible and try to obey it. Much harm has been done by the misuse of Hebrews 10:25. It has been used, often without regard to the context of the verse or the situation of the audience, to demand church membership and church attendance, and to threaten those who abstain or withdraw. But the reason for withdrawal is paramount in this verse; in fact, unless our understanding of the verse is thoroughly colored by it, we would miss the point of the verse, and indeed the point of all of Hebrews. The reason for withdrawal is so important that it is questionable whether the verse can be applied outside of the context. It restricts the possible applications.

Beginning from the first verse of Hebrews, the writer offers a meticulous demonstration of Christ’s superiority over the Jewish system. He shows that Jesus Christ is superior to Moses, Aaron, the prophets, and even the angels, who must worship him. He shows that Christ stands in a superior order of priesthood, that he administers a better covenant with better promises, in a more excellent sanctuary, and that he has offered a superior sacrifice, one that was complete and permanent.

The comparison is made not against the popular religion of the Jews, which was corrupted with rules and traditions invented by men that claimed to enforce the law but in fact subverted it, but it is made against the actual law that God himself established in the Old Testament. The writer does not suggest that the law was a mistake, but that it was always meant to be the shadow that would introduce the reality, that is, Jesus Christ: “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves” (10:1). Or, as Galatians 3:24 says, “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.”

The fact that the argument entails this meticulous comparison with those things that were most important to the Jews could suggest that the readers were Jewish and that their condition was such that they needed to be reminded of the superiority of Christ. Nevertheless, a general teaching on the superiority of Christ is insufficient to establish this context. As I sometimes point out, scholars regularly assume that when a biblical writer exhorts his readers on a doctrine or practice, it must mean that they were believing or doing the opposite, or at least in danger of believing or doing the opposite. But this is a fallacy, since in reality any person can mention any matter to any other person for any reason, or just because he thinks it is important. This does not mean that the Bible contains irrelevant materials, because the whole Bible is important for Christians, so that the whole Bible is relevant to Christians – to all Christians in all situations. The point is that we cannot assume that relevance means that the original readers were always believing or doing the opposite of what was written to them. This seems to make it more difficult to learn the context (but the other way only produces an illusion of a good grasp on context), but contrary to scholarly opinion, it is almost never necessary to know the specific condition of the readers in order to understand and apply a passage.

When we tell a student to “study hard,” it does not necessarily mean that we think he is lazy. Perhaps he is already studying hard and the exhortation is intended as an encouragement for him to continue. A person who overhears this should have little problem understanding what the words mean even without any knowledge about the student. Granted, “hard” is relative and one could gauge the meaning only if he has a reference point. However, this reference point does not have to be the student. If this person follows us around instead of the student, he would soon grasp what we mean by “hard,” perhaps even better than if he were to follow the student around.

Likewise, there is no need to follow the readers of Paul and Peter to understand what the apostles mean. I can follow Paul and Peter by reading the Acts of the Apostle and their many letters. The entire New Testament helps me understand their culture and background, and thus what they mean by their teachings. In fact, we could say “study hard” to no one in particular and a person who overhears us could still gain some insight into our thinking. He would understand that this is what we value, and again, he could gauge what we mean by “hard” by knowing more about us, without any need to know more about whom we say this to, which in this case is nobody at all.

On the other hand, biblical scholars are often so obsessed with researching extra-biblical information to enlighten their reading of biblical passages that they fail to read the biblical passages themselves. It is not unusual to find a commentary that provides pages of uncertain historical information only to prove what the verse explicitly says, often within the same sentence, or worse, to find that it makes false inferences from already dubious research to draw a conclusion that is explicitly contradicted by the verse, or perhaps the next sentence in the passage. The first, the most important, and also the most neglected rule of biblical interpretation is to read the words.

Now, if we were to say, “Study hard – stop being so lazy,” then a person who overhears would also gain some knowledge concerning not only what we value but also the condition of the student. This can be useful, but again, it is unnecessary in understanding the exhortation to “study hard.” Nevertheless, there are statements in Hebrews that provide us with this direct insight into the condition of its readers. For example, 5:11 says, “We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn.” To say “learn faster” would not indicate that the readers were slow to learn (again, biblical commentaries constantly commit such a fallacy), but “you are slow to learn” would no doubt indicate this. The statements surrounding such a description, if they are obviously related to it, would also provide information about the readers. After that, when we encounter statements in other parts of Hebrews that echo the same emphasis, it would be reasonable to assume that they also address the condition of the original audience.

With this in mind, the section beginning from 5:11 indicates that the readers had been slow in making progress in the faith (5:11-14), with special emphasis given to their lack of advancement in the comprehension of Christian doctrines (6:1-3). There is a warning or exhortation (6:4-8), but the writer notes, “We are confident of better things in your case – things that accompany salvation” (v. 9). Then we see this: “And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (v. 11-12, ESV). If we were to discover this statement in another place, we would not be able to conclude that it is written to address the readers’ specific condition. But we can draw this conclusion here because the statement appears in the context of a direct address and description about the readers (5:11, etc.). After this, it becomes reasonable to assume that similar statements in Hebrews are also written for the same reason and with the same intent (3:14, 4:14, etc.).

To summarize, the readers were believers and have made some progress since they were converted, but they have come under persecution because of their faith and were pressured to abandoned the Christian faith, and to return to a former way of life, very likely the Jewish way of life. Using a sustained and mature theological argument, the writer of Hebrews demonstrates that Jesus Christ is the superior way and the only way, and that rather than become slack and fearful, and rather than turning back to their previous lifestyle, the readers ought to press forward in the faith and follow through, and to persist to the very end.

This is how we should understand the statements surrounding our text: “Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful (v. 23)….Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy…How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God…and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? (v. 28-29)…Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering….So do not throw away your confidence (v. 32, 35)…You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised (v. 36)….But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved (v. 39).”

The theme that penetrates every passage is Jesus Christ, no doubt to drive home this exhortation: “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart” (12:2-3). So the thrust of 10:25 cannot suddenly be about the church as such. The message of Hebrews is that Christians should cling to Jesus Christ, and not that they should cling to one another. These two are not the same. Members of a local congregation can remain together, and together they could forsake Christ and head toward the wrong direction, as many churches have done. But the message of Hebrews would demand a person to stand alone and cling to Jesus Christ even when all the other members of a congregation forsake the faith.

Hebrews 10:25 must be colored by this context and message, and therefore the point is that believers must not withdraw from a local congregation due to spiritual weariness or fear of persecution. That is, if the writer had added a verse that says, “And do not leave the country,” in this context it could not be interpreted as a prohibition against travel, but the meaning would be, “Do not run away (even out of the country) because of spiritual weariness or fear of persecution.”

Thus Christian leaders cheapen the verse and draw attention away from its main theme – Jesus Christ – when they use it mainly to demand church membership and church attendance. It is often said that no believer can grow or remain faithful without constant fellowship with other believers. Rubbish! There are indeed several verses in Hebrews telling Christians to encourage one another, but the Bible never says that no one can stand without this. Rather, no one can stand without Jesus Christ, that is, his grace to sustain our faith in him. And with his strength, anyone can stand alone, not only against unbelievers, but even against ten thousand apostate churches. Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, not the church or other believers. He may use other people to accomplish his purpose, but nothing in the Bible suggests that he must.

There are significant ramifications. For example, this leaves the possibility that a person may suspend his attendance or withdraw his membership, not out of spiritual weariness or fear of persecution, but precisely due to faithfulness to Christ. One cannot say to him, “But the Bible says ‘not forsaking the assembling of ourselves.'” No, it does not say that, not exactly. The context is like a phrase or statement in parenthesis. So the verse really says, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves (out of spiritual weariness or fear of persecution).” Of course, it is possible that he is using faithfulness to Christ to excuse himself, but first, he might indeed be withdrawing due to faithfulness, and second, as long as he makes this claim, even if he is making an excuse, 10:25 does not directly and immediately apply to him.

There are many possible manifestations of this. Remember that Christ and his doctrines are not to be separated (6:1-3). To advance in Christ is also to advance in Christian theology, among other things. Suppose you are the pastor and a member complains, “Your preaching is so shallow and even heretical that it is better for me to stay home and read a book.” He wishes to stay away from you precisely because he wishes to cling to Christ and make progress in the faith. He is not abandoning Christ, but he leaves your church precisely because he does not want to abandon Christ. He is not going back to his former life, but he is leaving you and going forward with Christ. And he is leaving your church precisely because he is unafraid of persecution, even persecution from you and your people.

So you cannot use Hebrews 10:25 against him, not unless you can demonstrate that you are in fact skillful and orthodox in the biblical doctrines and that this person does not know what he is talking about. You may disagree with what he is doing or with his reasoning, but you will need a biblical basis other than 10:25 to support your view. However, if he is right, then Hebrews 10:25 in fact works against you – you are the one who has failed to cling to Christ, even though you remain in an assembly, and probably an assembly of people just as destructive and heretical as you. You see, because its true meaning has been obscured, it has been used by church leaders to threaten believers into submission without having to improve their own ministries or to allow people to follow Christ when their leaders have failed.

If the argument is that we attend church not only to receive but to contribute, then do you allow him to contribute? If he cannot progress in Christ without your church, and if he is not qualified to contribute, then demonstrate this to him, but notice that 10:25 still does not apply. And if he is correct that your church is problematic, and if he is qualified to contribute, then why is he not permitted to start his own church or ministry? Hebrews 10:25 does not prevent him, and does not force him to stay with your particular assembly, so again it does not apply. He would be leaving your church because he is full of zeal and courage, not because of weariness and fear.

In an age of spiritual apathy and callousness, many congregations are losing members. Leaders become nervous and desperate, and somewhat angry, and they threaten the sheep with verses taken out of context, such as Hebrews 10:25. However, the true solution is to declare the same message that the writer of Hebrews wrote to his readers. That is, Jesus Christ is superior to all things, and he is the only way to life, to rest, and to salvation. If those who rejected Moses died without mercy, how much more severely will God punish one who turns away from Jesus Christ? There is no religious diversity with God, but there is only one Lord, one faith, one focus. There is mercy in Christ, but none apart from him. It is either Jesus Christ, or everlasting pain and torture in hell. But this message would not serve your private agendas and ministry ambitions — you can do this only by distorting Scripture. Therefore, we ought to press on with Jesus Christ and make progress in the faith, whether with or without a local congregation, and whether for or against a local congregation, for salvation and spiritual progress are in Christ and not the church. Some leaders would rather make empty threats than to press on with Christ themselves. They are the ones who will be left behind.

Lest the above is still subject to misunderstanding, since the traditional use has been so cemented in people’s minds that any challenge against the distortion might be interpreted as a challenge against the church itself, I will stress again that nothing I have said constitutes an argument against the church, church membership, and church attendance, since I endorse all these things. The argument is against the misuse of a verse, against leaders who make excuses, and against, whether intentionally or not, replacing Jesus Christ with church fellowship. Let us rightly interpret Scripture, not forsaking context, as the manner of some is, but focusing our mind and energy on Jesus, hold fast to our confession of faith.