SBLGNT: καὶ γὰρ ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν χρόνον, πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε
τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς τινὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ, καὶ
γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες γάλακτος, οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς.
Paul Ellingworth indicates καὶ γὰρ buttresses the view that ἐπεί in Hebrews 5:11 is causal since καὶ γὰρ explains what precedes it. See Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews, page 302.
ὀφείλοντες occurs in Hebrews 2:17; 5:3. Ellingworth maintains that the participle is concessive in this case. See the NRSV. Morphologically speaking, ὀφείλοντες is the present active participle nominative plural masculine of ὀφείλω.
Dana Harris (Hebrews) observes that the infinitive εἶναι complements ὀφείλοντες, which depends on ἔχετε. Furthermore, the construction suggests concession. διδάσκαλοι is a predicate nominative: "In Hebrews the term does not denote a particular office, but rather the responsibility of mature believers" (Harris).
Harris suggests that διὰ τὸν χρόνον, which is idiomatic, modifies ὀφείλοντες εἶναι with respect to causality. πάλιν χρείαν ἔχετε-the first word of this portion is adverbial ("again"); the noun χρείαν is accusative singular feminine of χρεία ("use, need, necessity") and is the direct object of ἔχετε (Dr. Randolph Yeager, Renaissance NT).
τοῦ διδάσκειν ὑμᾶς τινὰ-The indefinite and ambiguous pronoun that could be interrogative or indefinite (τινὰ) is likely the subject of τοῦ διδάσκειν, "which takes a double accusative" (William Mounce, A Graded Reader of Biblical Greek, page 122).
Harold W. Attridge (Hebrews: A Commentary, page 158): "Making ὑμᾶς the subject of the infinitive destroys the antithesis with the preceding clause."
τὰ στοιχεῖα τῆς ἀρχῆς τῶν λογίων τοῦ θεοῦ-J. Ramsey Michaels explains that τὰ στοιχεῖα and τῆς ἀρχῆς reinforce one another and they are co-referential: they point to the same thing in this verse, namely, to the rudiments (ABCs) of the divine oracles (Galatians 4:3, 9). See The Cornerstone Biblical Commentary for 1-2 Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews. Attridge notes that τῆς ἀρχῆς is pleonastic here (Hebrews, page 158-159).
What does the writer mean by καὶ
γεγόνατε χρείαν ἔχοντες γάλακτος, οὐ στερεᾶς τροφῆς?
Ven. F.W. Farrar refers to Philo (De Agric Opp. I.301) and Paul (1 Corinthians 3:1-2) when commenting on γάλακτος (The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews, page 78). Attridge quotes Phil, Agric. 9 in his commentary.
Expositor's GT: "Milk represents traditional teaching, that which has been received and
digested by others, and is suitable for those who have no teeth of their
own and no sufficiently strong powers of digestion. This teaching is
admirably adapted to the first stage of Christian life, but it cannot
form mature Christians. For this, στερεὰ τροφή is essential."
So "milk" signifies the basics, the ABCs or rudiments of the divine oracles, specifically, concerning Christ. However, Christians should not remain with the milk, but they should "press on to maturity," thereby becoming able to digest more advanced teachings about Christ: the deeper things of God or "solid food." It seems that the Hebrews were regressing in some way, possibly as the result of persecution and other trials.
In view of their spiritual condition, the writer of Hebrews admonished them not to be content with "milk" (fundamental Christian doctrines). Westcott writes that the "true explanation" of Hebrews 5:12ff lies in Hebrews 6:1ff (Hebrews, page 134). He adds: "The older Christian ought to be able to assimilate fresh and harder truths" (Ibid.). Milk and solid food could be metaphors "for levels of instruction" (Craig Koester, Hebrews, page 302). There is a difference (spiritually speaking) between a high schooler and one who has finished K-12.
Thursday, June 16, 2022
Hebrews 5:12 (A Mix of Syntax and Morphology)--Solid Food and not Milk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I remember reading Philo's use of the milk analogy, and thinking straight to Hebrews.
On Husbandry 2(9):But since milk is the food of infants, but cakes made of wheat are the food of fullgrown men, so also the soul must have a milklike nourishment in its age of childhood, namely, the elementary instruction of encyclical science. But the perfect food which is fit for men consists of explanations dictated by prudence, and temperance, and every virtue. For these things being sown and implanted in the mind will bring forth most advantageous fruit, namely, good and praiseworthy actions.
There are other places he uses the analogy as well :).
Thanks for quoting that passage from Philo. I mentioned it, but did not quote the passage. But you're correct that he uses it elsewhere and you remind me that Clement of Alexandria likes this imagery too. See Craig Koester, Hebrews, page 302 for additional references from Philo and Epictetus.
https://www.academia.edu/41094994/Finding_Words_to_Nourish_Milk_and_Solid_Food_in_Earliest_Christianity_and_Today
"Although the New Testament writers utilize the metaphor of advanced teachings as ‘solid food’ or ‘chewables’, in our texts, they only do so in order to chastise readers for not being ready for it. An extra-biblical tradition, if credited, might provide a clue that enables us to recognize bits of
‘solid food’ in the New Testament. Each reader will have to decide whether
or not to credit this tradition. In a late second century text comparing the apostles’ practice to esoteric traditions among the philosophic schools, Clement of Alexandria claimed that Paul’s ‘milk’ was catechesis and his ‘chewable’ teachings were ‘mystic contemplation’
(Strom. 5.10.66.2).
The ‘chewables’, like key philosophic teachings, were intentionally passed on orally rather than in writing. In the
context of Clement’s explanation, ‘chewable’ teachings are depth readings of the Old Testament in which God’s peculiar power and essence become known through figurative interpretations. Clement provides an example.
‘Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us’ (
citing 1 Cor. 5:7b) exemplifies mystic contemplation (Strom. 5.10.66.5).
Clement’s clue opens some promising leads. In Pauline terms, if Clement is correct, ‘chewables’would be ‘mysteries’ –
things that God had in mind from ages past, left allusions to in the scriptures, but only recently revealed to Jesus’ people
(Rm. 16:25-27). The section in 1 Cor. 2:6-
3:17 would support such a reading. Paul speaks ‘mysteries’ to the mature. These mysteries are alluded to through a composite quotation from Isaiah
in which God’s wisdom in the cross was
revealed to Paul.
A quick survey of Paul’s revelation of ‘mysteries’ shows they are often offered
as deep insights into Old Testament writings as they foreshadow realities in Christ and the church (for instance, Rm. 11:25ff; 16:25-27; 1 Cor. 2:6ff; 15:51ff; Eph. 5:31-32).In the context of Hebrews, a similar identification would fit. The Hebrews writer wants to move
beyond ‘milk’ in his teaching and determines to do so if God allows (6:3). Much of his written homily consists precisely of typological readings of scripture, which Paul would have called
‘mysteries’."
I've long found Clement's language interesting, and it illustrates how later writers (post-NT) used the milk imagery, but I would not conflate his interpretation with the GNT usage. Clemtn has been accused of promoting a kind of Christian gnosis. Whether that is true, I think he mingles ideas that the writer of Hebrews was not even considering. The context of Heb. 5:11ff suggests "mysteries" are not the chewables Auctor had in mind.
Post a Comment