Do Paul's epistles contain any "meat", or just the "milk"?

[Joseph Antley]

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.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes. He is much more worried about their disunity, contentions, and doctrinal confusions, to the point that he probably doesn't think it wise to delve into anything deeper. He instructs them to be faithful, be charitable, be united under Christ, and to remember his Atonement and resurrection.

But this leaves us with:

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either). 2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I used this very argument before here: http://strongreasons.blogspot.com/2008/02/...-pastor_04.html

The pastor didn't get it.

[SteubieU]

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.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes. He is much more worried about their disunity, contentions, and doctrinal confusions, to the point that he probably doesn't think it wise to delve into anything deeper. He instructs them to be faithful, be charitable, be united under Christ, and to remember his Atonement and resurrection.

But this leaves us with:

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either). 2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

Hebrews 6:1 talks about the "milk." He says that he will talk about other things if God permits. Then he goes to talk about the Melchizidek priesthood and how that relates to Christ. So... there ya go.

[ERMD]

Romans is pretty meaty. The more I study it, the more elegant it becomes.

[jadams_4242]

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.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes. He is much more worried about their disunity, contentions, and doctrinal confusions, to the point that he probably doesn't think it wise to delve into anything deeper. He instructs them to be faithful, be charitable, be united under Christ, and to remember his Atonement and resurrection.

But this leaves us with:

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either). 2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

There are many allusions and pretty good evidences to meat in the bible, {new testament}. But these things didnt suit the ancient translators purposes; too bad they didnt remove "all" of the stuff they thought they did?.

[lds in tenn.]

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.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes. He is much more worried about their disunity, contentions, and doctrinal confusions, to the point that he probably doesn't think it wise to delve into anything deeper. He instructs them to be faithful, be charitable, be united under Christ, and to remember his Atonement and resurrection.

But this leaves us with:

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either). 2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

Firstly, I completely agree with you. But I agree because we are probably of the same faith. I can see how someone not of our faith wouldn't automatically come to the same conclusion as you have.

[Mudcat]

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.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes. He is much more worried about their disunity, contentions, and doctrinal confusions, to the point that he probably doesn't think it wise to delve into anything deeper. He instructs them to be faithful, be charitable, be united under Christ, and to remember his Atonement and resurrection.

Hi Joseph,

I must admit, I have an affectation for your posts. You think quite a bit..... it's always interesting to me.

But this leaves us with:

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either).

That is possible. If that is the case, we should have to accept all of 1 Corinthians, at the very least, as "milk" doctrine. If so, I suppose it would be worthy to discuss what is actually "meat" doctrine and how it contrasts.

To me, I think Paul seems to differentiating himself from Apollos in this process. How do you think that interplays, or does it?

2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

I think you are taking a big stretch to go from what seems to be posited as "milk" in 1st Cor. and applying it to the whole of the NT. Do you feel that the information of 1st Cor. is representative, in full, of the NT?

[BCSpace]

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either). 2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

One of the deepest doctrines, Theosis, is found in Paul's letter to the Philippians. 2:5-6 and 3:21. Also, a repudiatation of the modern ev notion of salvation in 3:13-14.

Imho, the meat begins with the esoteric temple rites which are only alluded to in the Bible. Every one of our doctrines though, is milk, which of course should be taught line upon line.....

[why me]

I think that it would always be difficult to give people meat in a letter. A letter can be interpretated in many different ways. I have this sense that Paul gave people more meat when he came to preach. But in a letter he gave much milk. However, we will never know. I am sure that Paul said and did much more than what is in the New Testament.

[Lars Umlaut]

There are many allusions and pretty good evidences to meat in the bible, {new testament}. But these things didnt suit the ancient translators purposes; too bad they didnt remove "all" of the stuff they thought they did?.

What are you talking about?

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

Imho, the meat begins with the esoteric temple rites which are only alluded to in the Bible.

I agree. In fact, the context of the 1 Cor. passage quoted in the OP is the musteria, that is, the secret rituals.

You might find the following presentation insightful:

(part 1)

(part 2)

[Deborah]

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes.

Joseph Smith expressed much the same thoughts and said that there is so much more he would tell the saints but they weren't ready. I think every prophet probably has much deeper knowledge than they are able to impart.

[soren]

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.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes. He is much more worried about their disunity, contentions, and doctrinal confusions, to the point that he probably doesn't think it wise to delve into anything deeper. He instructs them to be faithful, be charitable, be united under Christ, and to remember his Atonement and resurrection.

But this leaves us with:

1) There were obviously other doctrines that Paul knew but that he did not write down (at least in this epistle, and I don't believe he did in any of his others either). 2) Thus, the New Testament does not contain everything pertaining to the Kingdom of God (unless we assume that the "meat" is contained elsewhere in the Gospels, Revelation, or other epistles, which is doubtful).

I think "meat" refers to theological doctrine and milk refers to moral instruction that must precede those teachings. Paul thinks that understanding the high things of God requires moral rectitude as opposed to carnality. One has to reject sin before receiving truth. Thus, teaching a child not to lie is a prerequisite for teaching him about the divine nature. Because the Corinthians are in need of moral instruction, Paul gives that to them first.

I am not at all saying that there aren't doctrines not explicit in Scripture. In fact, I think the New Testament is an arcane book, and Paul's epistles in particular are filled with allusions to secret teachings. I just don't think that that is what milk/meat happens to be about.

[Joseph Antley]

Hi Joseph,

I must admit, I have an affectation for your posts. You think quite a bit..... it's always interesting to me.

I enjoy your posts as well.

That is possible. If that is the case, we should have to accept all of 1 Corinthians, at the very least, as "milk" doctrine. If so, I suppose it would be worthy to discuss what is actually "meat" doctrine and how it contrasts.

Paul states that the saints at Corinth weren't ready for "meat" and still aren't ready. That leads to me to believe that he did not consider any of the things he discussed in 1 Corinthians as "meat". If we can establish that, we can list the doctrines espoused in this epistle and reasonably categorize them as "milk".

To me, I think Paul seems to differentiating himself from Apollos in this process. How do you think that interplays, or does it?

I'm not sure if Paul wants to differentiate himself from Apollos (who Paul seems to respect as a valid teacher of the Gospels) so much as convince the people that he and Apollos don't represent separate factions; i.e., the people shouldn't be divided as followers of Paul and followers of Apollos, but rather all united under Christ.

I think you are taking a big stretch to go from what seems to be posited as "milk" in 1st Cor. and applying it to the whole of the NT. Do you feel that the information of 1st Cor. is representative, in full, of the NT?

I guess I shouldn't have skipped most of the premises that I followed to the conclusion. My logic was (as I said above) that I think Paul considered everything he said in 1 Corinthians to be "milk". Were I less lazy, I could make a long list of doctrines espoused in the epistle, and then cross-reference it with the rest of the New Testament, and then examine the left-overs and decide if, based on the list of "milk" that we already have, if these are "milk" or "meat".

But this is finals week, and I'm wasting too much time on this as it is. Maybe in a couple weeks....

[Joseph Antley]

pmub.

[Sevenbak]

Joseph Smith expressed much the same thoughts and said that there is so much more he would tell the saints but they weren't ready. I think every prophet probably has much deeper knowledge than they are able to impart.

Agreed!!

Didn't both Joseph and Brigham say that if they told everything they knew, even the saints would kill them?

God's ways are higher than our ways.

[Mudcat]

Paul states that the saints at Corinth weren't ready for "meat" and still aren't ready. That leads to me to believe that he did not consider any of the things he discussed in 1 Corinthians as "meat". If we can establish that, we can list the doctrines espoused in this epistle and reasonably categorize them as "milk".

I would agree with that. It would've been contrary if Paul started dispensing meat, when he declared they still needed milk. As far as listing the "milk" that is in Corinthians, it's thread worthy, but I don't have the time for it right now either.

I'm not sure if Paul wants to differentiate himself from Apollos (who Paul seems to respect as a valid teacher of the Gospels) so much as convince the people that he and Apollos don't represent separate factions; i.e., the people shouldn't be divided as followers of Paul and followers of Apollos, but rather all united under Christ.

I agree that Paul's point was to draw unification to Christ, instead of himself of Apollos. But my thinking is that he was addressing a point that there were those in Corinth who had separated themselves into sides. Some for the teachings of Paul and some for Apollos'. If the two's teachings were identical, would the point be worthy of address? In my mind, it seems as though there was enough difference in doctrine between the two of them, for these people to form differing positions.

Its speculation on my part, but I think that this contrast between "milk" and "meat" were a parallel between the teachings of Paul and Apollos.

Though Paul doesn't directly refute Apollos' teachings, its quite possible that Paul felt some of the things that set the two apart were that Apollos had dispensed meat instead of milk. The letter, seems to be one Paul's more corrective type of letters and some of the letter may be addressing misunderstandings of what this meat actually was.

What do you think?

Good luck on your studies and your finals.

[Cold Steel]

The pastor didn't get it.

They rarely ever do. They're victims of the apostasy, and they're entrenched with the errors that have crept in year after year. They almost always seek to mitigate their positions by noting that despite the large number of varying denominations, the differences between them are actually very small, yet they're large enough to form entire sects. They also (as you found) are quick to quote Isaiah 44 and 45 as to God's "oneness," but they can't see the stark contradictions in their notions of the Trinity. We have the great God of Heaven stating categorically that He knows of no other gods; that He's it, yet seconds later they're prattling on about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit!

Yet they see no discrepancy whatsoever.

They also are quick to say that Jesus is the manifestation of God's love, but if asked why Jesus must die to atone for sins that most likely could be forgiven by any omnipotent being, they fold. They have no idea why the eternal sacrifice was required. As far as I know, the Latter-day Saints are the only ones who maintain that it was beyond God's power. If He could have removed the bitter cup, He would have. But had He attempted it, He would have violated universal laws that even He cannot violate.

The Trinity is nowhere taught in the scriptures and is still regarded as blasphemy by the orthodox Jews. Even the New Testament distinguishes between "God" and "Jesus," and nowhere are the two are identified as being the same. Whether it's the ice, water, steam thing or the three candles forming one flameâ??these are all modern adaptations quite foreign to the concepts of the writers of the New Testament.

Salvation also is an area of dispute. To these people, there is but one heaven and one hell. Even though the resurrection was said to include various degrees of glory, specifically three were mentioned, most Christians feel justified in ignoring this because it was not fleshed out and explained in detail. Salvation comes through only belief, not through works. And even though Jesus said baptism was essential to salvation, well, it's a work, so it's not necessary. They refuse to believe what Nephi clearly taught, and that is that while works cannot save, you cannot be saved without them. That both ideas can be true and consistent with one another does not occur to them.

The malady is the same suffered by the ancient Jews, and that is an ability to expand one's mind and learn new truths. I'm old enough to remember preachers using that ridiculous argument that the final verses in Revelation closed the door to further scripture. "Doesn't the Bible tell us that we should neither add to it nor detract from it," they would ask. I haven't had anyone bring that up to me in years. I think people know more now.

[Tarski]

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.

For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"

(1 Corinthians 3:1-3)

Paul, speaking to the Corinthians, says he has to feed them with "milk" because they cannot yet handle the "meat". He obviously has deeper, "spiritual" doctrines that he would like to convey, but instead has to convey the "carnal", as if they were babes. He is much more worried about their disunity, contentions, and doctrinal confusions, to the point that he probably doesn't think it wise to delve into anything deeper. He instructs them to be faithful, be charitable, be united under Christ, and to remember his Atonement and resurrection.

Atonement and resurrection are not the meat of the gospel? There are grander and deeper things? Need more?

Itching ears? 2 Timothy 4:3

[EverASurprise]

They rarely ever do. They're victims of the apostasy, and they're entrenched with the errors that have crept in year after year. They almost always seek to mitigate their positions by noting that despite the large number of varying denominations, the differences between them are actually very small, yet they're large enough to form entire sects. They also (as you found) are quick to quote Isaiah 44 and 45 as to God's "oneness," but they can't see the stark contradictions in their notions of the Trinity. We have the great God of Heaven stating categorically that He knows of no other gods; that He's it, yet seconds later they're prattling on about God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit!

Yet they see no discrepancy whatsoever.

They also are quick to say that Jesus is the manifestation of God's love, but if asked why Jesus must die to atone for sins that most likely could be forgiven by any omnipotent being, they fold. They have no idea why the eternal sacrifice was required. As far as I know, the Latter-day Saints are the only ones who maintain that it was beyond God's power. If He could have removed the bitter cup, He would have. But had He attempted it, He would have violated universal laws that even He cannot violate.

The Trinity is nowhere taught in the scriptures and is still regarded as blasphemy by the orthodox Jews. Even the New Testament distinguishes between "God" and "Jesus," and nowhere are the two are identified as being the same. Whether it's the ice, water, steam thing or the three candles forming one flameâ??these are all modern adaptations quite foreign to the concepts of the writers of the New Testament.

Salvation also is an area of dispute. To these people, there is but one heaven and one hell. Even though the resurrection was said to include various degrees of glory, specifically three were mentioned, most Christians feel justified in ignoring this because it was not fleshed out and explained in detail. Salvation comes through only belief, not through works. And even though Jesus said baptism was essential to salvation, well, it's a work, so it's not necessary. They refuse to believe what Nephi clearly taught, and that is that while works cannot save, you cannot be saved without them. That both ideas can be true and consistent with one another does not occur to them.

The malady is the same suffered by the ancient Jews, and that is an ability to expand one's mind and learn new truths. I'm old enough to remember preachers using that ridiculous argument that the final verses in Revelation closed the door to further scripture. "Doesn't the Bible tell us that we should neither add to it nor detract from it," they would ask. I haven't had anyone bring that up to me in years. I think people know more now.

I quite enjoyed that post.

[Joseph Antley]

Atonement and resurrection are not the meat of the gospel? There are grander and deeper things? Need more?

Itching ears? 2 Timothy 4:3

It's possible for the Atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be both "milk" and "meat", depending on how you are discussing them.

[Deborah]

It's possible for the Atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be both "milk" and "meat", depending on how you are discussing them.

excellent point. There are layers within layers. There is the simple explanation I taught my Nursery babies and there are deeper aspects one can continue to learn. I don't think we will ever understand the full depths in this life. By the way one of the best ways to get an understanding is to have to break it down to the simplest levels first.

This is why its so hard to have a discussion with critics who like to pull writings or doctrinal ideas out of context, particularly from some of our older prophets who were more open in their speculation. Without an understanding of the most basic concepts and then learning precept on precept some of these things will never make sense. Even those who have been around awhile have an idea of what was meant but don't understand fully.

[Joseph Antley]

excellent point. There are layers within layers. There is the simple explanation I taught my Nursery babies and there are deeper aspects one can continue to learn. I don't think we will ever understand the full depths in this life. By the way one of the best ways to get an understanding is to have to break it down to the simplest levels first.

This is why its so hard to have a discussion with critics who like to pull writings or doctrinal ideas out of context, particularly from some of our older prophets who were more open in their speculation. Without an understanding of the most basic concepts and then learning precept on precept some of these things will never make sense. Even those who have been around awhile have an idea of what was meant but don't understand fully.

Exactly. While even a child can grasp the facts of Christ's atonement and resurrection -- that he paid the debt for our sins, was crucified, and rose from the dead -- there are very few (as an apostle has stated), if any, who gain a full understanding of those events in this mortal life.

[Joseph Antley]

Though Paul doesn't directly refute Apollos' teachings, its quite possible that Paul felt some of the things that set the two apart were that Apollos had dispensed meat instead of milk. The letter, seems to be one Paul's more corrective type of letters and some of the letter may be addressing misunderstandings of what this meat actually was.

What do you think?

No, I disagree. Paul doesn't originally draw a dichotomy between himself and Apollos as he does with the "milk" and "meat", but rather mentions at least four "factions" present in Corinth: followers of Paul, followers of Apollos, followers of Peter, and followers of Christ. Although, I am not sure that these "factions" were as distinct as we might think; I'm not sure that they were actually separated physically from one another in their meetings, but rather that they would argue using the different leaders' teachings (Paul said this, but Peter said this, but then Apollos said this, but then Jesus actually said this...).

And I don't think Apollos "problem", if he had one, was that he was teaching unnecessary "meat". In Acts, it describes Paul coming to Corinth while Apollos is present. He asks the Corinthian saints about baptism and they say that Apollos has only baptized them with water, after John's baptism, so Paul subsequently baptizes them into the new covenant. Apollos is always spoken of positively in Acts.

Good luck on your studies and your finals.

Thanks. I have no idea why I'm on here instead of studying right now.

[LeSellers]

In Acts, it describes Paul coming to Corinth while Apollos is present. He asks the Corinthian saints about baptism and they say that Apollos has only baptized them with water, after John's baptism, so Paul subsequently baptizes them into the new covenant.

It was Ephesus.

Apollos is always spoken of positively in Acts.

I disagree, at least in part.

Apollos' unauthorized baptism of the men in Ephesus and Paul's insistence on re-baptizing them for the remission of their sins is a subtle (but significant) rebuke of his acts. Even though he had taught them the Gospel (as far as hie had received it himself), his ignorance of the the necessity of baptism and of the Gift of the Holy Ghost show us that he was not only unauthorized to preach, but that he went off half-cocked.

Lehi