people in thoughtful conversation

Reflecting on Hebrews 10 23-36

We will need to think hard about whether, and how, the distance between the first century CE and our own time affects the meaning of what the author of Hebrews is saying. That’s because we are studying Hebrews 10:23-36 (more inclusively, 19-39) for Sunday, August 15. [Some notes on the text are here.]

This week’s text comes right out and presents the salvation available in Jesus Christ as superior to the religious goods available to first century Jews. In fact, it argues that Christ has abolished the familiar sacrificial system, and has established a new, effective way of sanctification. These days, that claim will likely raise questions about Christian exclusivity, and those questions are likely to make most Christians uncomfortable. Recent findings of the Arizona Christian University American Worldview Inventory 2020 show that 63% of Americans and 68% of American Christians have the idea that it really doesn’t matter which religious faith a person professes, as long as they have some faith; that is, most American Christians say they believe that all faiths are basically equal.

Christian orthodoxy is not like Family Feud; it’s not decided by audience poll. So this text, more than most, may force us to wrestle with the tradition and its authority for us. If we take this to an extreme, we’ll have to confront this question: what do we do when a text from the Bible makes a theological claim that we find difficult or impossible to affirm?

If that’s not enough, or if it’s too much, here are a few more questions we might want to consider or discuss in class:

red line embellished

What is “the confession of our hope”? What does it mean to “hold fast” to it, do we think? What does it include?

What does encouraging one another to acts of love and good deeds have to do with “holding fast” to that “confession of hope,” do we think? Why?

What does meeting together have to do with “holding fast” to that “confession of hope,” do we think? Why?

red line embellished

Verses 26-31 describe an expectation of future punishment for those who have “spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace” (v29). Most commentators suggest that this section is addressed to first century believers, possibly Jewish Christians specifically, who are tempted to renounce Christian faith and return to the non-Christian community. That is, many readers see it as a effort to argue against apostasy or what we might call “de-conversion.” Does thinking of the purpose of this text as being the prevention of apostasy make any difference in the way we understand the message of the text? What difference? Why is that?

[More personal] How does the description of God in these verses express the way we ourselves think about God? How does it differ from the way we think about God? What thoughts or feelings do we have about this? Why?

[More theological] According to Calvin, knowledge of Jesus Christ is what permits people to think of God as forgiving and to approach God with confidence. If we read the text with this idea in mind, does it affect what the text means for us in any way? How?

red line embellished

V32 raises the issue of sufferings, which seem to be connected in some way to Christian faith. What images come to mind when this topic comes up? Do we ourselves have any experience of suffering or loss for the sake of ideas or faith commitments? Do we want to share any of those experiences? Did those experiences make it more or less difficult to affirm those ideas or commitments? Why was that?

red line embellished

Overall, we probably need to spend some time working through the messages in the text, and clarifying those as much as possible. Then we can explore whether any of those messages are difficult to accept, and if so, why that is. We might also explore whether the difficulties we have depend on some particular understanding of the text, or whether they are present for any plausible reading of the text. Finally, we might want to ask ourselves whether the text has any implications for our own faith or practice.

red line embellished

I also confess: I think the next time someone mentions “the Old Testament God of wrath” vs. “the New Testament God of love,” which people still do even though they should know better, I’m going to remind them of Hebrews 10:31.

red line embellished

Men in conversation

Image: “The Conversation,” Arnold Lakhovsky, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

4 responses to “Reflecting on Hebrews 10 23-36”

  1. knowledge of Jesus Christ is what permits people to think of God as forgiving Calvin is being very narrow here. The forgiving God is very clear in the Old Testament. You just have to learn how to read it right. Psalm 146 is a very good example. As are all the texts based on Exodus 34. The character of God in the Old Testament is no different to the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It may be fearful to fall into the hands of the living God but there’s no better place to be.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi, Bob! Thanks for the comment – and for reading! I’m always pleasantly astonished that anyone actually reads this blog.

      I think Calvin’s point is fundamentally a Trinitarian one, too: that the human experience of God as loving and forgiving and the opposite of merely terrifying is always already an apprehension of “God the Redeemer in Christ.” Whether or not explicitly. [Calvin might not actually have said that, but I think that’s what Barth meant, and he was basically a Calvinist.] I would go along with that, too, despite being one of those “most Christians” who aren’t comfortable with Christian exclusivism, and would say something like “at least, that’s how we Christians understand it.”

      Hebrews is just really hard for me, honestly. I have been fighting a losing battle for over 20 years with church friends who persist in talking about “the Old Testament God of wrath and the New Testament God of love” despite my persistent objections. [Because, who am I, anyway, vs. their pastors over the 50 years before that?] I don’t think the book of Hebrews is our ally in this particular fight. One of these days we will succeed in stamping out the Marcionite heresy, but that day is not yet.

      So, basically, I agree with you. Except for the part where you criticize Calvin lol.


      • Thanks for the reply. Sorry about my run on sentences. It comes from losing my first comment on my phone and then reconstructing the thought without commas and quotes!

        I am not a trained theologian, but I have translated Tanach and have some insight into both NT and the Hebrew Scriptures. I am a scientist and programmer and musician, and God gets my listening and my words through music and programming. I do not believe contradictions. We have two responses to evil, to imitate it or to absorb it. Imitation is destructive. Absorption is painful. I reflected again on the character of Jesus recently – based on my reading of Hebrews – here – in a few subsequent posts I have reflected on the character of the Protagonist of Tanach – and responded to some posts on Bart Ehrman’s blog – he is usually a more careful reader than recently.

        My naïve hope continues in spite of all that occurs in the world. I certainly no longer think in proof texts. Beauty is the operative word.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for that link, Bob! That’s a cool way of thinking about the use of Psalms in the book of Hebrews, and frankly inspirational. I also think you are right about beauty. Not so sure the hope is naïve – unless you mean you’re on your “second naïveté.” That I could believe. 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: