Thursday, August 20, 2020

Got milk?

Paul, writing to the Corinthians and the writer of Hebrews (Paul? Apollos? Priscilla? Barnabas?) writing to whomever [1] use the same metaphor to describe the theological immaturity of the recipients. Paul writes:
But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it. And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. (1 Cor 3:1-3)
Likewise in Hebrews we read
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, 13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.(Heb 5:12-13)
Paul, to the Corinthians, says in effect: “You are not ready for advances topics. You need remedial education.”

On the other hand, the writer of Hebrews takes the “let’s toss you in the deep end” approach. For just after telling his audience they still need to be on a milk diet, the writer declines to oblige them. We read:
Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity (Heb 6:1a)
Then, in what is really illuminating, the writer gives us a list of what is not going to be covered because it’s too basic—they were supposed to have already mastered the topics. The list included:

  • Repentance from dead works 
  • Faith toward God
  • Instruction about washings 
  • Instruction about laying on of hands 
  • Resurrection of the dead 
  • Eternal judgement 

Notably absent from the list of basic doctrine is anything regarding when or how the earth was created. Nor is that in the advanced doctrine to follow, which is all about Christ being the new and better (and eternal) high priest of a new and better law and a new and better covenant.


[1] The title “To the Hebrews” is an uninspired editorial addition, for the letter, uniquely, contains no salutation. It was perhaps assumed, early on, that the readers were Hebrews on the evidence that the letter appears to assume a fair amount of knowledge of Jewish practices. But the bottom line is that while there are various theories about the recipients, at the end of the day there is nothing but uncertainty.

2 comments:

  1. It could be argued, no doubt, that there's nothing about origins in this list because everyone knew how and when origins occurred. But, if that's the case, why is a topic that all believers should have known something about, faith toward God, included?

    Contrarywise, if everyone knew when and how origins occurred, what did they know about these subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Probably "contrariwise."

    ReplyDelete