Twenty-sixth Sunday after Pentecost

The habit of meeting together has not always been easy

Hannah Praying
Image: Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Detail from "Hannah praying in the temple for a son as Eli watches," ca. 1851-1860; licensed under CC0.

November 17, 2024

Second Reading
View Bible Text

Commentary on Hebrews 10:11-14 [15-18] 19-25



Hebrews 10:11–14 offers several comparisons between the Levitical priesthood and that of Jesus. The first point of comparison is the frequency of sacrificial offerings. Under the Levitical priesthood, the priest stands day after day for his priestly duties and repeatedly offers the same sacrifices. In contrast to the daily offerings of earlier priests, Jesus has offered a single sacrifice for all time.

The question of frequency relates to the second point of comparison: the consequences or efficacy of the sacrifices. The recurring nature of these sacrifices indicates their limited value. If these earlier sacrifices were fully effective, they would not have to be offered repeatedly. This understanding explains why the author insists that the earlier sacrifices “can never take away sins” (10:11). 

On the face of it, the author’s words seem to question much of Israel’s sacrificial system. They stand in tension as well with parts of Leviticus, which give the impression that sacrifices do remove or take away sin from the Israelites (see, for example, Leviticus 5–6). For the sake of clarifying, we may want to add a modifier to the words of Hebrews 10:11—the earlier sacrifices can never take away sins fully or completely

In contrast, the single offering of Christ “has perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (10:14). The verb translated as “has perfected” (teteleiōken) in the New Revised Standard Version can be understood in different ways. For many English readers, the language of perfection may carry strong moral and ethical connotations, like scoring a perfect score on an exam or having a perfect driving record. This may lead to the conclusion that Christians are incapable of committing sins after the single offering of Christ. Human experience and a range of theological traditions, however, make such an understanding difficult to maintain. 

The priestly context of the verb provides clarification. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, when the verb is applied to priests (see Leviticus 4:5; 8:33; 16:32; 21:10; Numbers 3:3), it has the sense of “consecrate” or “set apart for sacred service.” Along with a special anointing, the consecration of the priest formalizes his priestly responsibilities, such as the ability to access the tabernacle (skēnē). We can understand the reference in Hebrews 10:14 in a similar way: Jesus’ singular offering has consecrated for all time those who have been set apart. Like the priests in Leviticus, this consecration provides worshippers with access to the divine presence. 

This way of understanding teteleiōken has significant exegetical and pastoral advantages. First, exegetically, it frees up the way that this verb is used to describe Jesus. It is hard to reconcile the idea that Jesus, though without sin (4:15), somehow had to become “perfect” in any moral or ethical sense (see 2:10; 5:9; 7:28). Rather, when applied to Jesus, the verb refers to the consecration or appointment of Jesus as high priest. Second, pastorally, this reading does not require us to think that the Christian is somehow magically incapable of sinning. The emphasis is not on the moral or ethical fitness of the worshipper but on the surpassing value and efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice, which has finally and fully removed any obstacles to approaching God. 

In Hebrews 10:15–18, the author returns to the language about the new covenant in Jeremiah 31, which he has engaged more fully in Hebrews 8:7–12. Here the language about the new covenant no longer has as strong a future orientation. Instead, it verifies a present reality: God no longer remembers sin and lawless deeds. As the author concludes in verse 19, where there is forgiveness of sins and lawlessness, there is no offering for sin. The author thus reads Jeremiah 31 as a description of the finished work of Christ, which was the divine intention all along. 

Hebrews 10:19–25 acts as something of a hinge, connecting the material in Hebrews 5–10 with Hebrews 11–13. In verses 19–21, the author summarizes key elements of the preceding argument. First, the author reminds the hearers that they have bold confidence (parrēsia) to enter into the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus (10:19). They can do so because of the “new and living way” that Jesus has opened up for them (10:20). And they can do all of this because they have Jesus, a great high priest over the house of God (10:21). The point is clear: Jesus has removed all obstacles that might keep the hearers from entering into God’s presence. The problem, as the exhortation in verses 22–25 makes clear, is with the hearers’ willingness to keep drawing near.

Each verse in Hebrews 10:22–25 contains a verb of command followed by a number of modifiers or additional phrases: let us approach, let us hold fast, and let us consider. The first command has the sense of taking full advantage of the access to divine presence that Jesus provides. The second has a more static sense of holding fast to the confession of hope; this is a positive version of not drifting away from the message of salvation (2:1). The third commands the audience to see one another as a stimulus to community-building actions (“love and good deeds”) and to ensure that no one withdraws from it (“neglecting to meet together”). 

I have long understood the reference to not meeting together to be one of the major reasons the author wrote Hebrews in the first place. An element of the author’s religious and theological brilliance is his attempt to say that the inauspicious gatherings of a religious and political minority community in Asia Minor are the very location where people enter into the presence of God. As Hebrews 10:32–39 makes clear, though, the habit of meeting together has not always been easy. 

In these days of growing secularization, many ask explicitly or implicitly, “Why church?” Hebrews answers by insisting that the gathered community enters God’s presence. We in the Western world may miss just how bold this claim is. We may think of it as a commonplace or even deserved reality. Yet, this would have been a staggering and audacious claim in the first century. We also have a tendency to individualize and spiritualize it, thinking that we can draw close to God in the privacy of our own hearts, whether from a mountaintop or on our couches. Hebrews challenges this understanding. 

Our lectionary text this week offers the preacher challenging and inspiring answers to why Christians in the 21st century should not neglect their meetings together and should recommit to community-building actions of love.