Of Meat and Milk

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.  I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?  For when one says, "I am of Paul," and another, "I am of Apollos," are you not mere men? (1 Corinthians 3:1-4 NASB)

Paul refers to the content of his teaching and describes two levels, meat and milk.  He refers to the food of infants and real food for the more mature.  And the teaching references are spiritual references, so I'm assuming the maturity is also spiritual.  I don't think anyone would debate that part, but the content of either I believe would be debatable.

Here, Paul writes to people who consider themselves 'spiritual' and even grade themselves in relation to the spirituality of others; competitively it seems.  Seeing this behavior Paul calls them 'fleshly'; the polar opposite of 'spiritual'.  Since he's writing to such people, is it possible that the content of his letter would constitute 'meat'?

I suppose the problem we face as 21st Century believers, followers of the same Jesus, is that Paul's letters are very often in response to problems within the church rather than to relate deep spiritual truth, the meat.  He is fixing things (or attempting to) for 'infants' so that the content would be expected to be more 'milk' than 'meat'.  This makes the debate about the content of his deeper spiritual content more difficult.  But I wonder if it 'peeks through' in some places.

When I think of 'building on a foundation' and compare or relate that to 'teaching' what I envision is what we call 'unpacking' a topic or truth.  Therefore, if Paul lays the foundation which is Jesus and Him crucified, then what is built on that foundation would be teaching stemming from that truth.  So far you should be saying, 'well duh.'  If you're not, you probably won't like where this is going.

Since teaching stemming from the truth of a Crucified Jesus would have been taught in a culture, over 2000 years old, there is a real possibility what Paul unpacked would not make all that much sense to us today.  For instance, in this letter, he spends an inordinate amount of time on the topic of food sacrificed to idols; not something we concern ourselves with as we shop in Walmart or Windixie.

So, some topics that constituted Paul's 'meat teaching' may have made little sense to us today.  On the other hand, much of what Paul teaches about spiritual gifts does seem to apply today, and gets largely ignored.  That may indicate we have more 'infants' than we thought.  It may also indicate that much of the 'meat teaching' of Paul would apply to us today.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is to catch glimpses of Paul's 'meat teaching' through his letters to churches.  On the other hand it would then be expected much more of this teaching to peek through in his letters to Timothy and Titus, perhaps Philemon.  But what about Luke and Acts?  Luke's writing is accepted because of his association with Paul, so it would also be assumed that Paul's teaching peeks through in Luke's writing.

Considering these sources, the pastoral epistles, to a lessor degree the church epistles, and perhaps below that Luke and Acts; what can be gleaned from them of the deeper teaching, the continued building and growth of Paul's teaching?  I don't truly know.  I don't believe I have spent enough time in depth in these works to be confident that I can relate what I would call Paul's deeper teaching.  But I will, or at least I hope to.  My goal is to work through the whole of Scripture from the original languages (not the original texts, but what my Master has preserved for me through today).  As I do, I will be looking for the gleanings of Paul's deeper teaching.

I suppose the lesson I learn from this passage is that there is more than even what I read in the 'milk' of Paul's teaching.  But part of what I learn from this more shallow teaching is that what lies below will correspond to what has been found already.  I won't dig to find some acceptance of a sinful lifestyle which he denounces in the more shallow stuff.  I won't find toleration of sin below.  I won't find a weakening of the deity of Christ Jesus down there.  I won't find some teaching that undermines the inspiration of Scripture in among the tilings as I mine the words of Paul.  I have no doubts about that, none.

I suspect I will find as I dig clearer understanding of what it means to perambulate before the throne of my Master every minute of every day, and the unimaginable joy found therein.  I will be characterized by peace, kindness, gentleness, and the wholeness sought so diligently by Eastern Mysticism in the wrong place.  But I also believe I will loose myself, forgetting somewhat who I am and what I have tried to make myself about.  Discovering instead that my striving was all for nothing compared to what my Master had for me all along, there will also be mourning over the waste I created, but only momentarily.  For I will also discover eternity.