Truth Magazine

By Keith Sharp

Truth is the reasonable course between extremes. This old cliche, while not an inspired safeguard against error, is certainly a general truism. In the church of Christ today there are two opposite extremes being taken toward church finances. Both of these radical positions stem from a failure to recognize the divine pattern for church finances. I believe inspired truth is to be discovered about mid-way between these poles.

On the one hand, with examples so numerous I will not burden you with their repetition, many avowed churches of Christ have begun using denominational methods of raising money for congregational endeavors. Selling tickets to dinners, seminars and even movies are becoming fairly common. In this and other regards, such churches directly parallel the movement to denominational status of the Christian Church in the 19th century. In the 1800’s

. . . a portion of the church made a transition in the last half of the century from s system of fund-gathering by weekly contributions to more organized methods. The change was typical of the denominational evolution taking place In the church… (David E. Harrell, Jr., The Social Sources Of Division In The Disciples Of Christ 1865-1900, p. 62)

A century later “progressive” churches of Christ follow belatedly along.

On the other hand, some members of the Lord’s church deny the very necessity of a contribution to the local church each first day of the week. In an article written specifically to debunk the idea of a binding pattern of Lord’s day public collections, one brother demanded:

How can it be dogmatically said that a weekly pooling of funds is a FACT taught in 1 Cor. 16:1, 2? (Donald W. Trash, “Lay By Him In Store: A Study of 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2,” Sentinel of Truth, May, 1970).

I believe the truth lies between these extremes. In this study we will seek to answer the inquiry: Did first century churches have regular Lord’s day contributions?

From the very beginning of the church of Christ on Pentecost following the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, public collections were a regular activity of local churches. “And all that believed were together, and had all things common” (Acts 2:44). A “treasury” is “the place of deposit and disbursement of collected funds. . . the funds. . . kept or held to be kept in such a depository (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, p. 2434). Thus, in having “all things common,” the Jerusalem church, from the very’ beginning, had a treasury.

This practice of gathering individual funds into a public treasury for the collective work of the congregation continued, without revealed interruption, throughout the first century (Acts 4:32-37; 5:1-11; 11:27-30; Rom. 15:25-28; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 and 9). There are those who have contended with me, in private conversation, that a congregation could conceivably exist scripturally for years with no treasury and no collection. This not only contradicts the examples and commands we just cited but also violates the nature and work of the local congregation.

A local church of Christ is simply a group of disciples of Christ in a given locality who agree to worship God together on a regular basis and to do God’s work collectively (cf. Acts 2:44-46). New Testament congregations worked through the planned use of collected funds (cf. Phil. 4:14-18). These principles being true, without a treasury and a collection, Christians violate the very nature of the local church and do no work as a church.

From a practical viewpoint, would you want to be a member of a congregation that did no work at all? How can a church do a scriptural, collective work without a treasury compiled through a Lord’s day contribution? Those who would fail to give on the first day of the week , or who hold back some of what they might have contributed either are refusing to give to the Lord’s work altogether or claim to have superior wisdom to the elders of the church in selecting spiritual uses for such funds. Is either attitude pleasing to God?

The only passage which details the “how” and “when” of this collection is 1 Cor. 16:1-2. It says, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Paul did not merely make a suggestion in this passage. This contribution was a command. He declared, “as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” The term “given order” means “to appoint, arrange, charge, give orders to” (W.E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words, III, 145, so J.H. Thayer, A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament, p. 142); “order, direct, command” (W.F. Arndt and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek English Lexicon Of The New Testament, p. 188). Cf. Lk. 17:9-10; Acts 18:2; 23:1; 1 Cor. 7:17.

Some argue that this collection could not be a command since it is a matter of free will.

Would not the requirement to give be in contradiction to: Acts 5:4; 11:29; 2 Cor. 8, 9? Does not God provide us with opportunity and leave us free to determine if, when, and how much we give?” (Trask, Ibid).

Obedience to the Gospel is of one’s own free will (Rev. 22:17). Is obedience to the Gospel commanded? Old Testament “free will” offerings were commanded (Ex. 35:4-9; Deut. 16:10-11). God commands a first day of the week contribution. We exercise free will in determining whether or not to obey and how liberally to give.

Does this passage authorize a collection for purposes other than the relief of needy saints? Most assuredly the local church has a collective work to do in addition to the work of individual Christians (1 Tim. 5:16). This includes the use of its resources to provide for edification (Heb. 10:24-25; 1 Tim. 5:17-18) and evangelism (Phil. 4:14-18), as well as the relief of needy saints. The passage before us is the only one in the New Testament which specifies how the resources for that collective work are to be raised, and it thus constitutes the New Testament pattern on how the local congregation can raise its funds.

A great number of lexicons and commentaries, in discussing 1 Cor. 16:2, assert that “lay by him in store” means to “put aside at home something from his weekly earnings” (The Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 1194, as quoted by Trask). Several translations render the wording in agreement with this position. Thus, we are told, 1 Cor. 16:1-4 has no reference to a congregational collection, but only to a private saving.

This position is neither supported nor contradicted by the Greek. It is a matter of Biblical interpretation. When a lexicon of accepted quality defines a word, that carries significant weight. When it gives the opinion of the author on the use of a word in a particular context, it is acting as a human commentary and carries no more weight than any other human opinion. Noted scholars can be quoted on both sides of this question.

However, I believe the context destroys the “private savings” position. If this were something to be done at home, why were they to perform this act on the “first day of the week” (v. 2), the very day the saints assembled to commemorate the Lord’s death (Acts 20:7)? If no public contributions were being made, would this not necessitate a special collection for the needy saints when Paul arrived in Corinth, the very thing he sought to avoid (v. 2)?

The apostle’s meaning is, that every first day of the week each of the Corinthians was to separate, from the gains of the preceding week, such a sum as he could spare, and put it into the treasury; that there might be no occasion to make collections when the apostle came (James MacKnight, Apostolical Epistles, p. 208).

The term “lay by” teaches stewardship giving. In this collection we are laying up treasures in Heaven (Matt. 6:19-21). The word “himself” along with “every one of you” emphasizes the individual responsibility of each Christian to so give.

How often was this contribution taken? The apostle simply stated, “Upon the first day of the week.” The literal translation of the phrase is “Every one of a week” meaning “On the first day of every week” (Alfred Marshall, The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, p. 704). As regularly as the first day of the week arrived, such a collection was to take place. Was this to be done in the assembly? Why else would the first day of the week, the day when all Christians assemble, be specified as the time for the collection? How else would such a congregational collection be carried out? I believe the passage necessarily implies the collection took place in the assembly.

Therefore, I conclude that the New Testament evidence warrants these conclusions. Churches of Christ in apostolic times had treasuries and regular collections. At least by the time the apostle Paul wrote the first letter to Corinth (ca. 55 or 56 A.D.), the divinely commanded practice was a public contribution of the members of the local church each first day of the week.

This constitutes the New Testament pattern of church finances. Local congregations should solicit funds in no other way. Individual Christians are obligated to give as they have been prospered each first day of the week into the treasury of the church that the work of the church might go forth. This is the truth between extremes. Let us diligently follow this God ordained rule.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 8-10
January 5, 1978

By J.W. McGarvey

“How often should the Lord’s Supper be observed? The various religious denominations have agreed that each party may settle this question according to its own judgment. This principle, when applied to matters on which the Lord’s will has not been revealed, is generally a good one; but when applied to things concerning which the divine will can be known or determined even approximately, human judgment should yield to it. The Disciples of Christ contend that it should be celebrated every week. But why do you observe it so often?’ asks one of our religious neighbors, who thinks twice, three times, or four times a year often enough; ‘by what authority do you hold that this solemn feast should be spread every Lord’s day?’ Before answering this question, we will put one to our interrogator: `What is your authority for the religious observance of the first day of the week?’ He will doubtless answer: First, the intimations in the New Testament; second, the universal testimony of antiquity, that the Christians, in the age immediately succeeding that of the apostles, met for worship every Lord’s day, and that they regarded it as a custom established by the apostles. This we regard as sufficient evidence for the religious observance of this day.’ This answer is correct. Now, we have precisely the same authority, based on the same evidence, for the weekly observance of this Supper. In Acts xx.7, the inspired historian says: ‘And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them,’ etc. We learn from this passage that the chief object of these disciples at Troas, in assembling on the Lord’s day, was not to hear Paul preach, but `to break bread;’ and it is the universal testimony of antiquity, that in the age immediately following that of the apostles, the disciples celebrated this feast every first day of the week, and that they regarded it as a custom established by the apostles. Consistency demands, therefore, that every religious denomination, while contending for the religious observance of the Lord’s day, should also insist, with equal zeal, on the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper.”

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, p. 8
January 5, 1978

By Patrick Farish

The questions of when, and with what frequency, the Lord’s Supper is to be eaten, are not new. The practices of the religious world today range from the wrong frequency (annual, quarterly, etc.) through the wrong day (Thursday, or any day the notion strikes) to the right day and frequency for the wrong reason (it was my “delightful” experience to sit in a classroom with mostly Baptists and Methodists and hear the wife of a digressive preacher inform all that “the reason we take it every Sunday is [giggle] we’re so sinful!”).

In this paper, though, we are indifferent to the judgments of sectarians, as well as to the practices reported in secular history of the ancients, even when they tend to support our convictions. Our appeal is for a thus saith the Lord: “what say the Scriptures?”

When Should We Eat The Lord’s Supper?

The words of Jesus as He instituted the Supper (Matt. 26:26-29) and those of the Holy Spirit, through Paul, rebuking the Corinthians’ sin in connection with it (1 Cor. 11:17-31), give us no hint as to the “when.” The only “word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17) we have relative to the day the church gathered for the Lord’s Supper is the approved apostolic example found in Acts 20:7, “And upon the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and prolonged his speech until midnight.”

The practice of the early Christians, under the direct oversight of an apostle of Christ in what they did, was to gather on “the first day of the week” to break bread. This practice of the early Christians was also recorded by the inspired historian Luke without criticism or qualification. No other day being indicated in Scripture, this practice or example under apostolic direction is exclusive: by its force, the second through the seventh days of the week are eliminated from consideration.

Examples of approved apostolic behavior, one of three ways by which authority is discovered, provide us with instruction with an extra degree of clarity. There is a “background command” for every approved apostolic example, which the apostles knew and obeyed. God viewed their action as sufficient for our instruction and thus did not deem it necessary to record the background command-just the examples reflecting it. The idea that, before an example can be binding there must be discoverable the “background command” corresponding to it, is transcendingly puerile. What is the need of appeal to example-with the accompanying hassle-if prerequisite to the force of an example is a recorded command? In such a case, simply read the command and proceed. The assertion of need for a discoverable “background command” is a clumsy, transparent effort to avoid the force and binding effect of approved apostolic examples.

But, force and binding effect have been assigned by God to approved apostolic examples. He caused Paul to write, “be ye imitators of me” (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1) and “For yourselves know how ye ought to imitate us . . .” (2 Thess. 3:7) and “to make ourselves an ensample unto you, that ye should imitate us” (2 Thess. 3:9) and “The things which ye both learned and received and heard and saw in me, these things do: and the God of peace shall be with you” (Phil. 4:9). In the same vein, the Hebrew writer’s exhortations were to be “not sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (6:12) and “Remember them that had the rule over you, men that spake unto you the word of God; and considering the issue of their life, imitate their faith” (13:7).

Some will continue to rail against the power of approved apostolic examples to reveal the will of God, and thus to bind and loose: but the Scripture is plain. Therefore, as to “when” the Lord’s Supper is to be eaten, we are bound by the Bible to the first day of the week.

Let it here be noted that this is the extent of the binding. The effort some make to establish one time on the first day of the week as the time, and insist that those who do not eat then cannot eat at all, is a presumptuous effort. There is not a first and a second and a third Supper, there is only the Supper, and every Christian is instructed to eat it on the first day of the week.

It is deplorable that some will negligently absent themselves from a service, planning to be present at a later service for the Supper; but abuses are not properly corrected by substitution of new abuses, i.e. binding where the Lord has not. The local church may choose to assemble one time, two times, three or ten times on the first day of the week, with the Lord’s Supper available at all these times. What should we say of such provisions? Only, that they are authorized. Demands arising from illness in the family necessitating that someone always be with the sick one or from shift work in employment or from conditions requiring multiple assemblies to accommodate the crowds, provide circumstances in which making the Lord’s Supper available at only one time would be inexpedient, and exclude faithful people. Let us deal with the problem of indifference or whatever that causes some to neglect some assemblies by working on their hearts, as the Lord instructed-not by seeking to impose our will on them, by going on beyond His word.

How Often Should The Supper Be Observed?

The conclusion generally accepted by Christians is that the Lord’s Supper should be eaten each first day of the week. This conclusion is in conflict with the judgment of the religious world generally, which observes it with a variety of frequencies, other than weekly. A commonly advanced defense for a quarterly or annual observance-or indictment against a weekly observance-is along the lines of the Supper’s becoming commonplace, if eaten weekly: supposedly the less frequent eating keeps the event significant–or novel. This objection grows out of a complete misunderstanding of what the Supper is, and how it is to be observed. Those so arguing yearn for an experience which externally moves them, rather than the self scrutiny and reflection the Scripture prescribes, for reminder and renewal each Lord’s Day.

Arguments supporting the weekly observance have ranged from the reaction of the children of Israel to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” (Ex. 20:8 = they remembered every Sabbath, so we should observe every first day) to the weekly collection as reflected by 1 Cor. 16:1f and the fact that it is understood to be each week. These arguments are appreciated; but the argument here is, that we eat the Supper every first day of the week as a necessary inference from the language of Acts 20:7.

“Inference” involves drawing a conclusion from evidence presented. The conclusion is implied by the evidence. A “necessary” inference is an inference or conclusion from which there is no escape, given the evidence. While He was on earth, Jesus expected men to whom He spoke to use their reasoning power, to draw conclusions. The Sadducees, who believed there was no resurrection, had been trying to pose problems that would cause Jesus to falter, as recorded in Matt. 22:23-33. Rather than wasting time on their hypothetical case, Jesus answered them this way: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (vs. 31, 32). Jesus did not say explicitly (i.e., in so many words), “There is a resurrection.” Jesus did say, implicitly (i.e., by the information He conveyed), “There is a resurrection.” If God is the God of the living-and He is; and if God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at a time subsequent to their “shuffling off this mortal coil”– and He is (confer Exodus 3:6), then the only possible conclusion (the necessary inference) is that after they died, they lived. Jesus employed necessary inference in His teaching, and He expected men to draw the right conclusion.

An attempt is made to evade surfaces here: some say “yes, I know Jesus used necessary inference, and I accept His use of it; what I draw back at is man’s using it.” This unnecessarily clouds the issue. The proper use of inference today is the same as when Matthew wrote: the facts are provided by the Lord; and men must draw the conclusion.

When Acts 20:7 reveals that the disciples gathered for the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week, we conclude that this means every first day of the week. Our conclusion is forced (the inference is made necessary) by consideration of the question, “upon which first day of the week may we sinlessly refuse to do what the Lord said to do, on the first day of the week?” The alternative to weekly observance of the Supper is the sin of presumption. The notion that we can choose to omit the Supper on the first day of some weeks is a notion without authority: it is presumption, it is going “onward and (abiding) not in the teaching of Christ”; and he who so acts “hath not God” (2 John 9).

Conclusion

God expects that Christian who is able to assemble with the saints on the first day of the week to do so, and to break the bread every time the first day of the week occurs. Things beyond our control (i.e. illness, etc.) may make this impossible, sometimes; but we should be careful that they are beyond our control and not rather matters of our making the wrong choice. God knew our needs: among them was this need of a weekly reminder of our helplessness, and of His graciousness.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 6-8
January 5, 1978

By Jerry Parks

No one should appreciate the unique activities of the Lord’s day more than the Christian. Yet often those claiming to be Christians seem to show the least appreciation for this day. One of the things associated with the Lord’s day is the action of assembling with the saints.

Proof That The Early Church Assembled

When we examine the scriptures, we see many references to the assembling of the saints. Acts 20:7 is such an example. “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” This is an approved apostolic example teaching us that the first century brethren came together on the first day to break bread. The first day comes once each week, thus the early church met each first day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:2 indicates a weekly gathering and gives significance to the first day. In Matt. 18, Jesus was teaching concerning how to deal with offenses between brethren. Verse 15 says to “tell him his fault between thee and him alone. . .” Verse 16 says to take one or two with. you if the first attempt at reconciliation fails. Then, in verse 17, he says what to do if he neglects to hear them; and that is to tell it unto the church (assembly). This portrays an action taking place when the church was gathered together. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul is instructing the Corinthian brethren as to what to do with the man among them that was living in adultery. In verse 4, he said, “In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together (Emp, mine, 1.P.), to deliver such a one unto Satan . . . .” This action was to be taken when they were gathered together. In 1 Cor. 11, Paul dealt with another problem within the church at Corinth. They were abusing the Lord’s supper by turning it into a drunken feast. Notice Paul’s wording in verse 20 as he described their abuse: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper . . . .” Their mistake was not coming together, but rather what they were doing when they came together partake of the Lord’s supper. This is what they had been commanded to do. In 1 Cor. 14, Paul dealt with the problem the Corinthian brethren had concerning an improper attitude towards spiritual gifts. In verse 23, he described the church coming together in one place where these gifts were being exercised. They were right to come together but wrong in placing undue significance on spiritual gifts. James 2 speaks about the problem of respect of persons. Such respect was evidently being displayed when they came together to worship. James 2:2 says, “For if there come unto your assembly (emp. mine J.P.) a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel . . . .” Who can deny, when we consider the import of these passages, that the early church assembled with the saints? Thus, from these passages alone we can see that the first century Christians considered assembling with the saints an important aspect of their lives.

Part of God’s Divine Purpose

The Hebrew writer, in chapter ten, settled the matter of the importance of our assembling with the saints by the use of the negative command “not to forsake the assembling of ourselves together.” I believe, however, that we do a great injustice to this wonderful chapter by pulling the passage out of its context. The author of this epistle is not only giving a command to assemble, but also showing how that this is a part of God’s divine purpose in saving man. Assembling with the saints is for our benefit and thus should be regarded as a privilege rather than an obligation. When one asks the question, “Do I have to attend all the services?”, he is manifesting that he does not understand that assembling with the saints is a part of God’s divine purpose for saving man.

The book of Hebrews contains a number of practical exhortations. Throughout the book, a principle is argued and then a plea is made. Nowhere is this easier to see than in Hebrews ten. Let me relate these pleas to the matter of faithfully assembling for worship and study.

Throughout the book, Jesus is portrayed as the Great High Priest through whom all blessings flow. As a result of these blessings we have boldness to enter into the holiest by His blood. He is both the High Priest who made the offering and the actual sacrifice itself. This is the fact that is being established in Hebrews ten. The writer makes the application and plea. Notice the context beginning in verse 19:

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promised; and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works:

Because of who Christ is and what he has done for us, we are encouraged to do several things. This can easily be seen by noticing the phrase “Let us” in verses 22, 23, 24. Let us examine each of these:

(1) Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith (v. 22). Think of the impact of that statement! To be able to approach your heavenly Father as one of His children. As a result of what Christ has done for us we can approach God as our Father. James said “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you” (James 4:8). The priests of the Old Covenant drew near to God, symbolically, whenever they approached the golden alter to burn incense, but the veil still intervened between the worshipped and the worshippers. The whole scene was one of mystery and terror to the priests as well as the people. But now, through Christ all this has changed and we can boldly approach God crying Abba, Father (Rom. 8:15).

(2) Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering (v. 23). We are still pilgrims here. The tendency is to hold fast to the things we have accumulated in this life and to let the things that are of eternal consequence slip from us. This is why we have so many admonitions throughout God’s word for us to give diligence to make our calling and election sure. Robert Milligan’s translation of this verse expresses this idea, very well. He said, “Let us hold fast the faith which we have confessed and cling to the hope which it ministers” (New Testament Commentary on Hebrews p. 283). We have not reached the goal of our destiny. Eternal life is still with us an object of hope. And hence, the necessity of clinging to this hope as the anchor of our souls.

(3) Let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works (v. 24). Christianity is not a religion of isolation. It is not “every man for himself.” Throughout the New Testament, the idea is stressed that the various relationships that we sustain one to another will have a direct bearing on our relationship with Christ. We are not to be selfish, carying merely for ourselves, but to consider how we might help others to draw near to God and hold fast without wavering. Consider the following passages: Matt. 25:40; Gal. 6:1-10; Eph. 4:1-3; Phil. 2:35; Col. 3:1-24. Because of what Christ has done we should “draw near,” “hold fast,” and “consider one another.”

Now here is the point: If the things previously mentioned are important, which obviously they are, then so are the assemblies of the saints. This is exactly the reason for our assembling together, to draw near, hold fast and to consider one another. How can we draw near to God when we are staying away from the services devoted to Him? You cannot go north and south at the same time. Nor can you get nearer to God by moving away from Him. Remember what James said, “Draw nigh to God and he will draw nigh to you.” Again, how can we hold fast the profession of our faith when we are losing our grip by unfaithfulness? It is illogical and unreasonable to think that we will be made stronger by failing to assemble with the saints. Notice, we are to hold fast “without wavering.” What about those who attend once in a while or hit and miss, are they not wavering? Again, how can we consider one another to provoke unto love and good works” when we are not concerned enough as to wonder what my absence is saying to others about how important we consider these matters? When we absent ourselves from the services of the church for any flimsy excuse, are we not encouraging others to be unfaithful and indifferent?

Let me also point out that when we examine the context of Hebrews ten and view the 25th verse in the light of this context, we see that the assembly is not an end to itself. Assembling with the saints is simply a means to an end. Just “being in attendance” is not the desired goal. Using this opportunity to grow, to enrich one’s faith, to join with others in those things we know from God’s word to be acceptable forms of worship to Him and to help others to enhance their faith, is the purpose of the assembly. That is the goal we are seeking to reach. That is God’s divine purpose for commanding us to assemble with the saints. Ritualistic attendance is not satisfying to God nor beneficial to us. But when we “desire the sincere milk of the word,” “love . . . God with all thy heart . . . soul . . . mind,” and “seek ye first the kingdom of God,” (1 Pet. 2:2; Matt. 22:37; Matt. 6:33), then we will welcome each opportunity to associate with brethren of like precious faith and do all possible to worship and glorify God.

With these facts in mind it is easy to see why the Hebrew writer goes on to say the things we find recorded in verses 25-29:

Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, :b the manner of some is: but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who bath trodden under foot the Son of God, and bath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and bath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

I believe we can safely say that verse 25 is a transition verse. The writer is shifting gears so to speak. He goes from the subject of perseverance to the subject of apostasy. Satan is no respector or persons. The Christian is constantly the object of Satan’s relentless attacks. Attending the assemblies is a safeguard against such apostasy. Thus, again we see the importance of the assemlbies which is expressed in the negative command that Christians not forsake them.

He then points out the seriousness concerning this matter of forsaking the assemblies. He says it is willful sin, that there remains no more sacrifice for sin, only a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation. Such a one has trodden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace. We need to realize what a man is involving himself in when he forsakes the assemblies of the saints: (1) He disobeys a divine commandment. (2) He disrespects the Lord’s will that he break bread on the Lord’s day; (3) He neglects his spiritual development; (4) He fails to engage in the other items of scriptural worship; (5) Usually, such a one fails to give as he has been prospered, (6) He fails to assist the church in its greatest mission, (7) He may lead others astray. I believe this is enough for us to see why attendance at the congregation assembly is such a serious matter.

If we can continually keep before our minds the importance of assembling with the saints, then we will be less likely to employ flimsy excuses to absent ourselves from the wonderful opportunities we have to worship and draw near to God, strengthen our faith, and encourage one another by our joint participation in the unique activities of the Lord’s day.

Truth Magazine XXII: 1, pp. 4-6
January 5, 1978