Is this a command to church? Heb 10:25

[NeoPatriarch]

Hebrews 10:25
25 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.

Traditionally this verse is used to suggest a command to church. If this is a good reading, then church is indeed an assembly of believers., which of course is in keeping with the greek word.

If this verse isn't about church specifically, then you have to go somewhere else for your definition.

Curiously, neither reading truly makes church compulsory. Even this verse leaves it optional, as only "some"were in the practice.

So what are your thoughts?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Your understanding of the some and to whom it refers is not correct. It is not "some were in the habit of meeting." The text is pointing out the opposite. It refers back to the nearest antecedent clause, and thus the "some" refers to the habit of those who were forsaking the assembly of believers to which they were told not to do that. Therefore, it is indeed a command or a part of the NC law of Christ that believers are to meet with other believers that they are in covenant bond with.

Those who do not desire to meet with other believers in Christ for the purpose of sharing their life in Christ and to accomplish the purpose of Christ are running against the grain and examples of Scripture.

However, the words "go to church," as the book Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna wrote so accurately pointed out, is an unbiblical concept. Many people now see this ideology to be part of a weak view of the NT position. The believers did not go to any one place like a building to have church and the church is certainly not a building. The church met together but people did not go to a location in the sense that when they arrived there that they were then at church. They WERE the church or the body of Christ wherever they lived. However, they did meet with one another to serve one another, to have fellowship, to be taught by the elders, and to encourage one another as they lived out their life of faith in love and grace.

As for is the ecclesia, it is very much true that it was in the NT an assembly of believers. The ecclesia is a body of people who have the Lord in them through the presence of the Holy Spirit who has created that supernatural body through his baptismal work, sealing, and indwelling presence (see 1 Cor. 12 and Eph. 1:1-13).

 

[Scarecrow]

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

To isolate yourself from other believers (forsake the gathering) is to make yourself the sheep that wandered off from the flock and very vulnerable.

 

[welltan]

Good points all. The understanding is correct that there should be a local gathering. However, the modern use of the scripture is used as a threat rather than to exhort to fellowship. Each little denominational group or 4-walled "church" uses this to blackmail members or those attending to prevent them from visiting other Christians and fellow-shipping with them. It never occurs to most that the scripture actually exhorts to visit and find other Christians and to not forsake these Christians wherever else they are. Miss one Sunday at the risk of being called a church hopper and lose your reserved pew spot.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Hebrews 10:25
25 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.

Traditionally this verse is used to suggest a command to church. If this is a good reading, then church is indeed an assembly of believers., which of course is in keeping with the greek word.

If this verse isn't about church specifically, then you have to go somewhere else for your definition.

Curiously, neither reading truly makes church compulsory. Even this verse leaves it optional, as only "some"were in the practice.

So what are your thoughts?

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together

Command

as the manner of some is

Example of people who broke the command

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The command applies to a set of people

The some are the set of people who broke the command within the set that was given the command

At least that is the way I see it

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That being said if you have to receive the mark of the beast, or commit other grievous sins, in order to attend Church it is self-evident that Church attendance is not required in such a situation.

I would suggest that Church attendance is a command of light importance compared with some other heavier commands and can be refrained from in order to keep heavier commands.

Also I do not think one is required to force others to go to Church especially at least not if it would encourage them to break a heavier command.

If for instance someone is married, they could assemble with two people to worship, rather than going to the local government Church to receive the mark of the beast.

I am not necessarily saying the Mark of the Beast is yet active, just that....... I can already know who would push other people to receive it.......

"As Christians we are obligated to obey the law of the land even if that means taking the mark of the beast and worshiping those who the government has said to worship" (sarcastic mockery of how I could see....)

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

Good points all. The understanding is correct that there should be a local gathering. However, the modern use of the scripture is used as a threat rather than to exhort to fellowship. Each little denominational group or 4-walled "church" uses this to blackmail members or those attending to prevent them from visiting other Christians and fellow-shipping with them. It never occurs to most that the scripture actually exhorts to visit and find other Christians and to not forsake these Christians wherever else they are. Miss one Sunday at the risk of being called a church hopper and lose your reserved pew spot.

Oh No the reserved pew spot :shock: :? :|

 

[Anonymous]

The command applies to a set of people

The some are the set of people who broke the command within the set that was given the command

At least that is the way I see it

DTT, I don't know where you found the excerpt that included the above quote, but my friend you need to continue your research, because this one is totally inadequate. Light commands and heavier commands are not choices we are authorized to make. If God commands it, it is important, whatever "it" is.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

:?:

I think DTT was quoting the original post. From what it looks like to me he agrees that the command is to all believers, that is if I am reading what he said above correctly.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

You can't have a church without deacons and elders. You can't have deacons and elders unless they are properly appointed.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Uh oh Hugh....you forgot about Corinth.

The spirit birthed that church and it was indeed without any elders for many many years. If you will read the Ante-Nicene Fathers you can see that Clement, one of the elders of Rome, talks about when they did finally receive elders, yet even then they were so immature and so used to not having any elders that they ran them for and were then chided by elders from surrounding regions.

Church history, and the lack of direction by Paul to any elders in both books, points out the truth that no ruling elders were present for the collective body of believers in Corinth for several years. There was no one mature enough in that region for some time to lead the multiple families and saints. Thus, for a time this body was led by the apostle until some matured to the point where they could be appointed into that role.

A church is established by the Spirit through the efficacious work of the gospel that draws the sinner to faith. The one who has then been born again will be baptized but elders or deacons are not the only ones who baptize. Any person in Christ is a priest and thus can immerse someone they disciple or a disciple who comes to them for baptism.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Church history, and the lack of direction by Paul to any elders in both books, points out the truth that no ruling elders were present for the collective body of believers in Corinth for several years. There was no one mature enough in that region for some time to lead the multiple families and saints. Thus, for a time this body was led by the apostle until some matured to the point where they could be appointed into that role."

I think that proves my point. We can call Corinth an "outreach" for several years. This is clearly why Paul seems to "meddle" in the internal matters of the church in Corinth, and you're not denying that he eventually approved the slate of elders for that church.

 

[cnystrom]

Obviously, denominations were not part of the plan (and I would even argue that it is sin from 1 Cor 3). Ideally the church would all meet together and not be fragmented. By that I mean that here in Austin, Texas all Christians would meet together and not break up into various sects ("Christ's Church in Austin, Texas"!!!).

However, I know of know easy solution to this except to do as Paul suggests and only identify ourselves with Christ and encourage others to do the same and to look for opportunity to heal the rifts and disputes.

God may choose to heal this rift by putting calamity upon us all to force us together. I have read that in POW camps Christians all ban together and do not worry so much about denominations and doctrinal disputes.

Breaking fellowship is a very serious matter and should be the step of last resort.

 

[Hugh McBryde]

Obviously, denominations were not part of the plan (and I would even argue that it is sin from 1 Cor 3)."

They become an unfortunate by product of error. As the Good Dr. and I are thrashing out elsewhere, it is clear that the church eventually fails in most cases and heresy creeps in. What to do then? Stay with them? I say yes and others say no, but eventually the heretics tell you "no" themselves. What do you do then?

Ideally the church would all meet together and not be fragmented. By that I mean that here in Austin, Texas all Christians would meet together and not break up into various sects ("Christ's Church in Austin, Texas"!!!)."

Would that it were so. I pray that each city be so blessed.

God may choose to heal this rift by putting calamity upon us all to force us together. I have read that in POW camps Christians all ban(d) together and do not worry so much about denominations and doctrinal disputes."

A variation of "there are no atheists in a foxhole." I like it. It is true that adversity helps us define who we really are.

Breaking fellowship is a very serious matter and should be the step of last resort."

When you get the "Left foot of Fellowship," you clearly weren't the one that wanted the breakup.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

:?:

I think DTT was quoting the original post. From what it looks like to me he agrees that the command is to all believers, that is if I am reading what he said above correctly.

It is either all believers or some believers, but the "some" is either some of the all or some of the some. The "some" does not mean that the command applies to some but "some" people broke the command.

It would be most likely be all believers except for when there are special exceptions.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

The command applies to a set of people

The some are the set of people who broke the command within the set that was given the command

At least that is the way I see it

DTT, I don't know where you found the excerpt that included the above quote, but my friend you need to continue your research, because this one is totally inadequate. Light commands and heavier commands are not choices we are authorized to make. If God commands it, it is important, whatever "it" is.

Statement 1a Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same way
Statement 1b but something can be true in one way and false in another way.

If statement 1a is false then statement 1a can also be true at the same time
If statement 1a is true then statement 1a is true

This leads to that it is self-evident that you cannot do two different commands that irreconcilably contradict each other in the same way at the same time.

So which one should you choose if you are to only do 1 or 0 of the 2 commands but cannot do 2 out of 2. The 1 command you should choose (if you should choose 1 instead of 0) is the heavier command in the circumstance in which it should be chosen, if should do 0 out of 2, then to do neither is is heavier then to do either 1 of 2 or 1 of 2, so there still is a heavier command.

For example when your town catches fire on the Sabbath

A.) Work on the Sabbath to put out the fire

or

B.) Let the town burn down but refrain from work on the Sabbath

or

C.) Work on the Sabbath and let your town burn down

If you come up with a creative solution to this one that does not mean that their will not be another case where you have to choose....

 

[cnystrom]

They become an unfortunate by product of error. As the Good Dr. and I are thrashing out elsewhere, it is clear that the church eventually fails in most cases and heresy creeps in. What to do then? Stay with them? I say yes and others say no, but eventually the heretics tell you "no" themselves. What do you do then?

When you get the "Left foot of Fellowship," you clearly weren't the one that wanted the breakup.

All good points Hugh. I think all you can do is handle your side of the relationship and leave the rest to God. Meet with who you can, build up who you can and have faith that the victory is assured and God's reward is waiting for us.