Question: Please explain the difference between milk and strong meat. Could this be the transformation from the old law to Christ, with the law being milk and everything since, being meat? (Ok.)

Answer: Many theories have been advanced about the difference between milk and strong meat. Some have even claimed this as the basis for classifying people to teach them i.e. everyone can-not receive strong meat hence the need to teach children in classes. Others classify certain teaching as "deep" or "the meat of the word" while referring to other teaching as appropriate for babes or the "milk of the word". In 1 Pet 2:2 "as newborn babes desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby..." The metaphorical phrase "newborn babes", was used of a babe at the breast in classical Greek. The people to whom Peter writes were infants in Christ. They were to long for or earnestly desire the word of God that was designed to nourish their souls. The word "milk" used here has a general meaning rather than any contrast between it and solid food, the idea being that in order to grow they must constantly feed from God's word. In Heb 5:12-14, however, we have a different situation. In these verses we have a contrast between "milk" and "strong meat". These Hebrew Christians are told that they need instruction again in the "first principles of the oracles of God." The English word principles translates a Greek word which refers to rudimentary ideas. First refers to "first in a series." Hence these people are told that they need someone to teach them again the "rudiments of the very beginning of the divine utterances in N. T. truth." (Wuest) 'Meat" translates a Greek word meaning food in general. Two classes of people are named. Those who are immature and require milk and those who are mature and are able to eat solid food. These people should represent the later group i.e. they should have "by use" of their powers been able to distinguish between that which is good and that which is evil. But they could not. They stood on the brink of going back and embracing a law that had passed away with the death of Christ.

It would appear that much the same situation existed in 1 Cor 3:1-2 "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able." It does seem, then, that inspired writers recognized a difference in what might be called "rudimentary" ideas and "more advanced teaching." F. W. Grosheide (New International Commentary) described the feeding with meat as a "symbol of preaching in which it is possible to unfold the full richness and manificence of the gospel." There obviously has to be a beginning place for all of us. From that point we are all expected to grow and progress. If we fail to grow, we stay the same. The writer deals with this problem in both the Hebrew and Corinthian passages. Our study would be incomplete, it seems to me, without noticing what is said in Heb 6:1-4. Two important things are mentioned: first something must be "1eft" and secondly the people are commanded "1et us go on." In the first they are told to "1eave the principles of the doctrine of Christ." Leaving translates a word meaning "to put off or away." Alford translates the word "Leaving as behind and done with in order to go on to another thing." The question becomes then, what were these people to leave? What were they done with? And to what were they to go? Let us notice the meaning of the word "principles." In Heb 5:12 the word refers to the "elementary teachings of N.T. truth. In 6:1, however, a different is word is used, the meaning of which refers to the "beginning of the word of Christ, " a reference to the "teaching of the first testament where Messiah was first spoken of." (Wuest) To leave the principles of the doctrine of Christ has no reference to leaving any N.T. teaching, such as the plan of salvation or anything connected therewith. Such would be incompatible with other plain revelation. Secondly, the writer admonishes them to "go on to perfection." The words "let us go on" mean to "carry or bear," the idea being "let us be carried along." Since the major thrust of Hebrews is to show the superiority of Christ and His law over the law of Moses we must conclude that in this particular passage the writer is encouraging these people to leave the first testament and its ineffective sacrifices and go on to faith in the N. T. sacrifice. In some respects, when compared to the law of Moses, the entirety of N. T. teaching represents "advanced" learning. However to conclude that there is no difference in terms of difficulty or advancement in the teachings of Christ and His Apostles would, in the opinion of this writer be indefensible. (Send all questions to Ronny F. Wade P.O. Box 10811, Springfield, Mo. 65808)