But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Heb 5:14, ESV)
We've been studying Hebrews in church, and the passage last week, Hebrews 5:11-14, was particularly troublesome. There was some disagreement in the Sunday School class, and it has lingered with me, so I decided to do some digging on my own.
First, the passage (quoted from the ESV)
11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 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. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Here's MacArthur's commentary on v. 14:
5:14 of full age [ESV "mature"]. The same Gr. root is translated “perfection” in 6:1 and is elsewhere translated “perfect” (7:11,19,28; 9:9; 10:1,14; 11:40; 12:23). It is used in Hebrews, including this text, as a synonym for salvation. In that sense, it refers to the completion which comes when one becomes a believer in Christ, rather than referring to a Christian who has become mature, as is typical Pauline usage (see marginal note, cf. Col. 4:12). Jesus invited unbelieving Jews to the salvation perfection which came only through following Him in faith (Matt. 19:21). Paul wrote that those who had come to Christ by faith were thereby mature and able to receive the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 2:6). He described believers as “mature” when he referred to those whose righteousness was in Christ (Phil. 3:2–20), as opposed to those who had confidence in the flesh.
[MacArthur, J. J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible (electronic ed.) (Heb 5:14). Nashville: Word Pub.]
Let's read verse 14 again, and I'll substitute the word "saved" to emphasize his point:
"But solid food is for the [saved], for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil."
Now once more, this time back in context:
11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 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. 14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
Is the writer really trying to say that solid food belongs to the saved? Or is it more consistent to read this passage as a comparison between immature and mature believers? I'm open to correction if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me that, despite what John MacArthur (and most other commentaries on this passage say), this reference is not to unsaved people, but to believers who are infantile and need to grow up. This is the plain-sense meaning of the text, and to assert anything else requires some real linquistic gymnastics.
[Note: My original post used the New King James Version, since that is what MacArthur quotes from in his Study Bible and his one volume Bible Commentary. However, when I went to the Thomas Nelson website, and found out that their quotation policy requires that "two complete copies of a work using quotations from the NKJV (except for sermons, church bulletins, orders of service, Sunday School lessons, church newsletters, and similar works) must be sent to the following address: Thomas Nelson Publishers, Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, 501 Nelson Place, Nashville, Tennessee 37214-1000," I opted for my preferred translation, the ESV. Thomas Nelson, if you read this, please offer an alternative to written copies being sent in--gimme an e-mail address and I'll drop you a note with the permalink to my blog entry; otherwise, I probably won't ever quote from you on my blog. ]
15 comments:
This is an interesting question. I studied Hebrews in some depth a number of years ago. It took us about twenty weeks. I don't remember hearing that slant on the verse you menion.
My 16 year old daughter and I are reading Hebrews together, and we haven't got there yet. You have me eager to start looking it up, but I have to teach sunday school this week, and the lesson is supposed to be on Elisha. Maybe they'd like a little Hebrews.
If Paul meant "saved" why didn't he use a word that specifically meant saved?
Kim: If Elisha can wait a week, then this would be a worthwhile study. I'll send you my notes when I get home; in the meantime, here is the lesson (in PDF), and the sermon (in Real Audio).
Dr. Mike: I don't actually have any of those commentaries. I'm just starting my commentary collection. Do you have a recommendation for Hebrews?
To all: thanks for your comments. I probably should have said "seems a bit of a linguistic stretch," since John has both experience (doing this for 30+ years) and Greek knowledge, whereas my experience is limited and my knowledge of Greek is worse than my español. I wasn't trying to impugn his exegesis per se, just trying to understand how he made the leap that he did--it seemed out of place.
My main goal was to get the ball rolling, which I think has been done. Hebrews is very confusing to me. There are days when I think I get it, and other days when I think it could spend lifetimes pouring over the text without coming to a right understanding.
Dr. Mike: thanks for the recommendations. I probably need to find a way to get my hands on some of these texts.
Dox: you trouble-maker, uh, thanks for stopping by.
Chris: thanks for your insights on the text. I agree with much of what you've said, but I still have questions.
I agree with Chris wholeheartedly on the authorship issue of Hebrews, and I had to alter my original post because I had misunderstood John's thrust in presenting Paul's views. I originally misread him as bringing in Paul's view, but on second look, realized he was arguing just the opposite.
As I mentioned, we just finished the text above, and I had some lingering questions. Heb 6 does indeed loom large, like a shadow over the entire text, but in the end, I decided to post what I had, knowing that a) it would probably take some time to sort it out anyway; b) my intentionally provocative title might attract some folks that could help me understand the text and MacArthur's position better; and c) if I am wrong I can always change my mind. I'm more interested in being Scriptural than being right (though in the end I'd prefer to be Scripturally right).
At times, it seems like popular interpretation of Hebrews goes something like this: those who think you can lose your salvation have their prooftexts, and at times, it seems like those who reject that notion make decisions about those particular texts (in Heb 2:1, parts of 4, and of course 6), and then try to make the rest of the text fit with that.
In any case, here's where I'm at: Jim's view (that's my pastor, for those who don't know) is that the audience in Hebrews is believers. He reads the passages that some would see as loss of salvation (for either believers or non-belivers) as a loss of reward, not apostasy and/or loss of salvation. In some places, like 5:11-14, this seems to me to make perfect sense. But just then, I'll come to a verse like 6:8, and I think "are you really trying to say this isn't about eternal judgment?"
So how do you go about deciding if the audience is one group, like Jim thinks, two groups, like Chris has suggested, or even three groups, like MacArthur's contends in his commentary (something I hadn't read last night when I posted this)? It seems like the choice of who the audience is greatly affects your reading and exegesis of certain passages. Also, Chris, you stated that "the context indicates that the writer has a different group in mind altogether." But how do you know this? How do you know when the writer switches groups? And if you split the audience like this into multiple groups, don't you run the risk of reading into the text?
Not sure how much sense any of this is making. Again, like I said, I'm struggling through this. I loved Heb 1 & 2, and I can't wait for 11 & 12, but in the interim, I feel like I'm stuck in the Slough of Despond.
Thanks ahead of time for any help or insights you might have.
It's certainly helped me. Thanks for taking the time to write. I'll keep wrestling through the text.
I also thought Jim's message on Sunday was a good encouragement to fill our lives up with Scripture.
Sorry to everyone. I will delete my comment as well.
After reading the quotation policy for the NKJV I am quite amused. I guess I won't be quoting from the NKJV very often...
Oh, and Matt - you might want to peruse this. It may explain MacArthur's position in more depth.
I am working on getting the quotation policy changed, but in the mean time, blogs are very similar to "sermons, church bulletins, orders of service, Sunday School lessons, church newsletters, and similar works", at least when written by a Christian :). BTW my real blog address is bookblog.blogstream.com
Post a Comment