Good morning in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Did you know that spiritual maturity is not explicitly talked about much in Scripture? We have a few references in the Pauline epistles and a couple of mentions in the letter to the Hebrews; a mere eight references in some way to the word we translate as “mature”, τέλειος. Now “mature” isn’t exactly a direct translation, as τέλειος more literally refers to “completeness” or “perfection.” But the translation “maturity” seems to capture the transition from elementary knowledge. This is easily seen in the text I want to focus on, Hebrews 6. Hebrews 6:1 begins with this text:
Διὸ ἀφέντες τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον ἐπὶ τὴν τελειότητα φερώμεθα
Here we see a command, prefaced by Διὸ, to “flee the elementary teaching of Christ and press on towards maturity.” It is here that we know to look back on what was written previously, in order that we might understand the Διὸ ("Therefore"). In 5:11-5:14 we see a bit of a scolding by the author upon the readers because they are “unskilled in the word of righteousness” and “need milk, not solid food.” They are “dull of hearing” and it is suggested they ought to be teachers by this time.
It is here that I think we all need to take a step back and consider where we are in our understanding of the Scriptures. Would we consider ourselves “skilled in the word of righteousness?” Do we consume “solid food,” in reference to the teaching we receive? I think many of us would be guilty of indulging in worldly pleasures instead of undergoing the training commanded here.
So we then come to 6:1, where it is commanded that the readers “flee the elementary teaching of Christ and press on towards maturity,” we have to wonder what is elementary and what is mature. The phrase τὸν τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον is in direct contrast to τὴν τελειότητα:
τῆς ἀρχῆς - the beginning, first, principle
τὴν τελειότητα - the completeness, perfection
Thus, when we compare the two, the idea is that there is a beginning teaching that spiritually immature Christians know, and there is a more complete and perfected teaching that spiritually mature Christians know. Not skipping ahead too fast, let us consider the gravity of what is being said here. We are not to remain idle in our learning of “the word of righteousness” (5:13). We are to continue learning, even unto perfection! Do not ever be fooled into thinking that studying the scriptures and immersing yourself daily in the teachings of Christianity is a worthless endeavor! This produces maturity and completeness!
The author continues on to give a list of what constitutes “the elementary teaching of Christ” and a the θεμέλιον (foundation) of our faith: Repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. These are considered elementary! I think at this point we can use this as a personal check-up so to speak; are we knowledgeable of these things? Are these foundational to our Christianity? Are these really “elementary teachings?” If we personally don’t feel that way, it is time to correct our thinking and align it with the words of Scripture.
Now, the author gives us examples of elementary teaching, but does he give us any examples of mature teaching? Well, it would seem that 5:11 through 6:12 is a bit of an interjection in a much larger argument the author is making. In fact, the author has been talking about the high priesthood of Jesus since 1:17, and even prior to that it seems the author is laying a foundation. We see a quotation of Psalm 110:4 back in 5:6, and then a section from 6:13 to 7:28 which continues the doctrine of Melchizedek: the basis for the following arguments in chapters 8-10 (Now the point in what we are saying is this, 8:1). At this point most people say “Melchize-who?” and lose interest, which is unfortunate. I think if we walked around our church and asked our elders and teachers to explain the doctrine of Melchizedek, we might get some strange looks, or even outright admittance of ignorance. There is a major problem with this, though. As previously stated and linked with 6:1, the doctrine of Melchizedek is given as an example of mature teaching. In fact, besides a brief mention of maturity in Phil 3:15 (press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Let those of us who are mature think this way…), this is the only specific example in Scripture given as the mark of a mature Christian. At least, I can’t see how to read it any other way; the author scolds the readers for not having matured, suggests they should already know all of this and be teachers by now, and then continues laying out a well-formulated teaching regarding Melchizedek and the high priesthood of Jesus. To me, it sounds like a test of maturity in the faith is whether one is well acquainted with this particular doctrine. And yes, I think that sounds alarming to our ears when we first hear it (unless you are well-versed with the doctrine of Melchizedek, you are an immature Christian!), it is also alarming that no one ever seems to talk about Melchizedek in our churches. At least, not in the churches I have been in. I can recall a few times I’ve discussed it in Sunday School but that is about it. Why is that? Is it because Melchizedek is difficult to pronounce and sounds weird? Is it because Melchizedek doesn’t go well up on our church signs (such as “choose the bread of life, or you are toast”)? Or is it just difficult to teach or understand? Maybe we are all too lazy to learn about this. You have to wonder.
In the coming days (or weeks, depending on how much time I have) I will attempt to tackle the doctrine of Melchizedek with a mini-series of posts. But I first wanted to lay out the introductory point: spiritual maturity is important, and completeness in the faith, according to the Scriptures, is directly related to our knowledge of the word of righteousness, and in some sense, our knowledge of the doctrine of Melchizedek.
Grace and Peace,
Joel
No comments:
Post a Comment