NOTES for Heb 10:19-31

Apparently, the catastrophe of AD 70 affected the spiritual state not only of the Synagogue but also of the Church. Many church communities were going through a spiritual and, along with it, organizational crisis during this period. It was clearly with this crisis that the author's appeals not to abandon church assemblies were connected (v. 25). One can think that this kind of practice was caused above all by disappointment and confusion connected with the destruction of the Temple and the cessation of sacrifices. It is possible that for many Christians, and first of all for Jewish Christians, the destruction of the Temple meant the impossibility not only of sacrifice but also of the breaking of bread, so that they no longer saw any point in taking part in church assemblies. This is not surprising: traditional Jewish ideas of that time did not separate one from the other, and Jews and Jewish Christians looked at the breaking of bread and at the ritual meals centered on it as a continuation of the sacrificial meal, without which the breaking of bread was thought spiritually and religiously to be completely impossible.

Meanwhile, the author of the letter calls his fellow believers to hold to the former order of church life, pointing out that even in the absence of the Temple and traditional Yahwist sacrifices, full spiritual life is still possible for Christians: the One who brought the Kingdom into the world, becoming the true High Priest for His followers, does not alter either the promises once given or the union-covenant once concluded (vv. 19-24). Moreover, the author considers leaving the Church a betrayal of this union-covenant, comparing it with apostasy, which according to the norms of the Torah is punished by death (vv. 28-31). He reminds them that the Torah allows the possibility of cleansing only from sin committed through weakness or ignorance, but not from sin committed consciously and voluntarily. And for him, voluntarily abandoning the church assembly is an example of precisely such a sin, equivalent to voluntary apostasy (vv. 26-27). This is not surprising: through the breaking of bread, which takes place in the assembly in which the Risen One directly participates, that new union-covenant is realized, the one of which Jeremiah had already spoken and which became reality with the coming of the Savior into the world. The covenant that opens to those seeking the Kingdom. Refusal to take part in the breaking of bread therefore means nothing other than refusal of the covenant, and therefore of the Kingdom.