Bible Study Book of Hebrews

[stovebolts]

A great theological point Sissy! I like how you study and what you bring to this forum.

I don't want to rail the thread, but theologically speaking I've always looked at the curse kinda like this.
Before the fall, man was given work to do, and his work was blessed by God and produced fruit. After the fall, God did not bless the hand of man, so where man worked, he wasn't guaranteed fruit, but rather the land could become barren, and all of man's work meant nothing as thorns and thistles could be the product of all of man's toils without God's blessing.

So when I look at this rest spoken of in Hebrews 4, I see a place that is full of god's blessings where we are able to find comfort in the presence of God. Of course, this is only one aspect of this rest and there are many more for sure.

 

[Nathan]

That could be a whole thread of it’s own!
But rather than writing an essay of all the scriptures to explain the difference (which will probably be revealed throughout this thread anyway), I will give my personal conclusion.

From a theological standpoint, my view is that a completely separate word was used in order to completely distinguish it from any type of “rest” that was experienced by the Israelites.

In the beginning God hovered over an earth in chaos and created a world of order and no curse.
No curse upon man or land. And then …. rested.

When the curse came upon man and land, cursed man had to sweat and toil the cursed land that brought forth weeds and thorns.

In the end, the world will again be in chaos and God will create a new world of order and no curse.

In short, I believe this “Sabbath rest” in verse 9 is speaking of our eternal rest where there is no curse upon man, and no curse upon the land. (No sweat and toil, no weeds and thorns.)

Very nice! I figured seeing how you brought it up, you should be the one to expound on it. I had not studied it that in-depth yet, but when you pointed it out at first I saw it.

What I also find interesting is that in verse 3 we do enter a 'rest' of sorts. Albeit not the 'eternal rest'. We enter the 'rest' of "ceasing from our own works, as God did from His", and eventually we will enter the complete rest that God has created. Very nice, very nice indeed.

Without this knowledge, people get confused and think that we have already entered the 'eternal rest'. This points out very vividly the difference in the "rest's".

 

[Sissy]

What I also find interesting is that in verse 3 we do enter a 'rest' of sorts. Albeit not the 'eternal rest'. We enter the 'rest' of "ceasing from our own works, as God did from His", and eventually we will enter the complete rest that God has created. Very nice, very nice indeed.

Excellent way to put it!

I am going to suggest that the limited rest we have already entered into is the rest from the bondage of the old law.

Under the old law, circumcision of the flesh was mandatory. Not any more.
Under the old law, sacrifice was mandatory. Not any more.
etc.

The New covenant has freed us from the bondage of the old law, because Christ fulfilled the law without any work from us.

So, while we have entered into a rest from the bondage of the law, we still struggle with sin.
Our eternal rest, when all struggle of sin is gone, will be our ultimate rest.

 

[Nathan]

Excellent way to put it!

I am going to suggest that the limited rest we have already entered into is the rest from the bondage of the old law.

Under the old law, circumcision of the flesh was mandatory. Not any more.
Under the old law, sacrifice was mandatory. Not any more.
etc.

The New covenant has freed us from the bondage of the old law, because Christ fulfilled the law without any work from us.

So, while we have entered into a rest from the bondage of the law, we still struggle with sin.
Our eternal rest, when all struggle of sin is gone, will be our ultimate rest.

I agree, but it is also more than just 'bondage' to the law. It is in all reality bondage from sin that we are free from. In reality, we do not struggle with 'sin' but with that which wants us to sin; spiritual forces. Our mind.

*heart of man*-------mind of man-------*flesh of man*​

Check it out; Our hearts have been 'made' alive in Christ Jesus. Our flesh is corrupt because of the world. Our minds is what connects the two.

verse 7 "...To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts."

The 'word' of faith comes in through our mind to our hearts. Is it any wonder why our physical eyes and ears are interconnected to our physical mind/brain?

Hbr 4:2-3 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Now we know that what a man takes in does not defile him, it is what comes out of the heart that defiles him. So at the very beginning all hearts are desperately wicked and evil. So how does the word of faith come past the outward flesh, past the mind of flesh, and enter the heart; in order for it to come out of the heart and be united in faith?

Ahhhh.....Hbr 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The word of God pierces the very 'flesh' of man, bypassing the outward way in, bypassing the mind, and implants the word of faith in our hearts. Then, when that faith starts to take root in our hearts, it then proceeds to our minds, and ultimately shows forth in our flesh.

Hbr 4:10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

This is why we are are to 'strive' to enter the rest. Our hearts desire it, but our minds are constantly at war with that on the outside trying to break back through and come to the inside. Striving is a mental thing, not a heart thing, and not a flesh thing.

There is much more to say, but I have to run for now.

 

[nmwings]

The book of Hebrews is a very confusing book. Scripture tells us in 1 Cor. 14:33, "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace...." Thus, we know Satan's claw marks are ALL OVER this book!

The writer of this book tells us he's confused in several of his chapters. The first time is here in 4:4, "For He has said[SIZE=+0] somewhere [SIZE=+0]concerning[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] the seventh[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] day..."[/SIZE] This "somewhere" is Gen 2:2. Then, the writer does it again in 4:5, "and again[SIZE=+0] in this[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] passage,"[/SIZE]They shall not enter into my rest," which actually is not found in Genesis 2:2, but in Psalms 95:11. In my opinion, this guy has misquoted Scripture in order to combine 2 VERY different topics! [/SIZE]One topic concerning God's seventh day Sabbath rest and/or The Millennial reign in 4:4, and one completely different topic concerning Israel's entry into the Promised Land. Notice how he switches mid-stream from the Future Rest, to the start of Israel's wandering in the Wilderness in 4:3? "For we who[SIZE=+0] have believed[SIZE=+0] enter[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] that rest[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], just[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] as He has said[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], '[/SIZE]As I have sworn in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest.'" [/SIZE]

Now this quote, "As I have sworn in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest" is taken from Psalms 95:11...not from Genesis! This is what Psalms 95:10 & 11 says, "Forty years long was I grieved with (this) generation, and said, It (is) a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known My ways: unto whom I SWARE IN MY WRATH THAT THEY SHOULD NOT ENTER INTO MY REST." This quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Sabbath rest or the Millennial reign! The word "rest" here is Strong's, 4494-4496, which can mean rest, but it has a variety of other meanings, "repose...peacefully.....an abode....a settled spot...a home..."

Now, let's see how Psalms 95:10-11 is worded in the Hebrew Tanach (Old Testament): "For forty years I was angry with THE generation; then I said, "An errant-hearted people are they, and they know not My ways. Therefore, I have sworn in My anger that they shall not enter My LAND of contentment."

Did you get that? "My land." When you go back to Hebrews 3:7-19, his subject is "THE" disobedient generation that wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. This writer is combining 2 different trains of thought. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he has another agenda.

When we continue forward in this confusing book, we will see.... he does have a hidden agenda! And he begins to set the stage and form the foundation for this hidden agenda in Hebrews 4:6, "Since therefore it remains for SOME to enter it, and those who FORMERLY had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience."

In his words, "some" will enter, but those who "formerly" failed, will not! This writer is setting up a division between the "some" and the "formerly," which is found nowhere else in Scripture!

 

[Nathan]

Very interesting nmwings. I can honestly say that I have never heard this brought up before. So I am going to guess that you do not find the letter to the hebrews God inspired?

 

[Nathan]

The writer of this book tells us he's confused in several of his chapters. The first time is here in 4:4, "For He has said[SIZE=+0] somewhere [SIZE=+0]concerning[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] the seventh[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] day..."[/SIZE] This "somewhere" is Gen 2:2. Then, the writer does it again in 4:5, "and again[SIZE=+0] in this[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] passage,"[/SIZE]They shall not enter into my rest," which actually is not found in Genesis 2:2, but in Psalms 95:11. In my opinion, this guy has misquoted Scripture in order to combine 2 VERY different topics! [/SIZE]One topic concerning God's seventh day Sabbath rest and/or The Millennial reign in 4:4, and one completely different topic concerning Israel's entry into the Promised Land. Notice how he switches mid-stream from the Future Rest, to the start of Israel's wandering in the Wilderness in 4:3? "For we who[SIZE=+0] have believed[SIZE=+0] enter[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] that rest[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], just[/SIZE][SIZE=+0] as He has said[/SIZE][SIZE=+0], '[/SIZE]As I have sworn in My wrath, they shall not enter into My rest.'" [/SIZE]

I thought I would go ahead and at least address one of your concerns about the 4th chapter.

At first glance it does indeed seem as though verse 4 is taken out of context. But it is actually a rhetorical statement. Verse 4 is also a break of sorts i in between verse 3 and 5.

The "in this passage" is referring back to verse 3, and is indeed in that passage. Verse 4 was just a 'statement' concerning the manifested understanding that the reason for God's 7th day 'rest' was not because He was tired, but because there was a meaning behind it. That is why the writer address's it as such by wording the phrase like he did.

Its like when an investigative team comes upon a crime scene. And they find a shoe. Then a week or so later while driving down the street they notice a shoe on the side of the road. Upon pulling over they get out and lo and behold its a match to the one they found earlier. In a rhetorical manner one investigator might say, "where have we seen this before".

In all actuality, they had not seen that particular shoe before. But they had seen the identical mate to it. That is what the writer is addressing with verses 3-5. But the whole of the chapter also revolves around it. I do not have the time right now, but if you would like I would be more than happy to expound on your other concerns later. Just ask.

 

[nmwings]

Very interesting nmwings. I can honestly say that I have never heard this brought up before. So I am going to guess that you do not find the letter to the hebrews God inspired?

This book was one of the last to be canonized by the church fathers because the author was unknown, and there was a great deal of debate over its authenticity even then. And for those who know Scripture well enough, MANY errors can be found, which leads ME to believe it was NOT penned with a hand that is led by the Spirit of the Most High Living God.

 

[Elijah674]

This book was one of the last to be canonized by the church fathers because the author was unknown, and there was a great deal of debate over its authenticity even then. And for those who know Scripture well enough, MANY errors can be found, which leads ME to believe it was NOT penned with a hand that is led by the Spirit of the Most High Living God.

Red Flag! No scripture, No source, just un/inspired stuff of babel!

--Elijah

 

[Nathan]

Ok. Well then I suppose that you will not be joining us for the rest of the study then. Its not that you are not entitled to your opinion. But this is not a debate forum. So this thread is not open for those who are opposed to the authenticity of the letter. You are more than welcome to read what is going on, but please abstain from debate.

Lets ALL try to get back on topic, and not take this thread in an unproductive path.

Thanks.

 

[Sissy]

The plot thickens in chapter 5.

The chapter starts off with more said of the priesthood and it‘s purpose.
But not just the Levitical priesthood.
Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God is mentioned and will be expounded upon in the following chapters.


Hebrews 5
(1) For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:


No one could just self-declare himself as a high priest.
There was no volunteering or voting for who was to be high priest.
It was strictly up to God, and man had no choice in the matter.


Notice something else ….

Hebrews 5
(1) For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:


We know that the earthy priesthood and the earthly Temple was patterned after the heavenly (Heb.8:5).

Something to speculate on …..

Was there a high priest taken from among angels … for angels in the heavenly?

 

[Elijah674]

The plot thickens in chapter 5.

The chapter starts off with more said of the priesthood and it‘s purpose.
But not just the Levitical priesthood.
Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God is mentioned and will be expounded upon in the following chapters.


Hebrews 5
(1) For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:


No one could just self-declare himself as a high priest.
There was no volunteering or voting for who was to be high priest.
It was strictly up to God, and man had no choice in the matter.


Notice something else ….

Hebrews 5
(1) For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:


We know that the earthy priesthood and the earthly Temple was patterned after the heavenly (Heb.8:5).

Something to speculate on …..

Was there a high priest taken from among angels … for angels in the heavenly?

Hi, good post. 'Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God' was before God was asked by the Jews to stop verbal talk to them. Prior to that He directed them personally. Worship with a choosen High Priest by God was nothing new! Eccl. 3:15 and Heb. 13:8-9 finds an ETERNAL GOD/CHRIST in [PURE DOCTRINE!] Psalms 77:13 Sometimes 'i' wonder if we think that we are all that much needed?? Rom. 2:14-15 even! You know, these Gentile found Christ in His NATURE!

And about your other questions, + speculation? Cannot we believe Eccl. 1:9-10 + Eccl. 3:15 in even a TWICE documention + Gen. 41:32! (and sure, it is things then that are important, (Salvation) or else God does the easy things for us & tells us the lesser times that there are No Repeats.. like Hosea 4:6 & about a rainbow & No more world floods.)

Personally, 'i' don't like the word of speculate!

--Elijah

 

[Sissy]

Hi, good post. 'Melchizedek, priest of the Most High God' was before God was asked by the Jews to stop verbal talk to them. Prior to that He directed them personally. Worship with a choosen High Priest by God was nothing new! Eccl. 3:15 and Heb. 13:8-9 finds an ETERNAL GOD/CHRIST in [PURE DOCTRINE!] Psalms 77:13 Sometimes 'i' wonder if we think that we are all that much needed?? Rom. 2:14-15 even! You know, these Gentile found Christ in His NATURE!

And about your other questions, + speculation? Cannot we believe Eccl. 1:9-10 + Eccl. 3:15 in even a TWICE documention + Gen. 41:32! (and sure, it is things then that are important, (Salvation) or else God does the easy things for us & tells us the lesser times that there are No Repeats.. like Hosea 4:6 & about a rainbow & No more world floods.)

Personally, 'i' don't like the word of speculate!

--Elijah

Nothing wrong with speculating on a subject. As long as we keep it biblical, and not just start making up stuff.

I asked about angels having an order in heaven similar to what the Israelites had.
We are told that what they had was a "pattern" of things in heaven.

In particular I was thinking of Satan, and if he at one time had a high position.

But I digress.
We should stay on the book of Hebrews.

 

[Sissy]

Hebrews 5
(10) Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
(11) Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
(12) For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
(13) For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
(14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


Apparently, there is lots the author would like to discuss about Melchizedek, but the listening crowd is too dull of hearing to be able to understand.

It could be that they (Jewish converts) are still being persuaded that they need their old type high priest to mediate for them.
And it is hard for them to understand how Christ could be their high priest (since He was not of the Levi bloodline).

It's almost as if they do not understand that Christ replaced the old priesthood. And they are thinking they need Christ AND the old priesthood.

 

[Elijah674]

Hebrews 5
(10) Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
(11) Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.
(12) For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
(13) For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
(14) But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.


Apparently, there is lots the author would like to discuss about Melchizedek, but the listening crowd is too dull of hearing to be able to understand.

It could be that they (Jewish converts) are still being persuaded that they need their old type high priest to mediate for them.
And it is hard for them to understand how Christ could be their high priest (since He was not of the Levi bloodline).

It's almost as if they do not understand that Christ replaced the old priesthood. And they are thinking they need Christ AND the old priesthood.

Hi,
it could be something like that? but I think that it is MUCH DEEPER than that. Remember that there were NO JEW'S per/say when God SURELY DID HAVE AN HIGH PRIEST! (even Tithes) + God told us WHY HE CALLED Abram. THINK of Why, & what we today are having for our daily diet? Matt. 4:4.

And the verses were given for why God CALLED Abe in Gen. 26:5. And this was long before any Jew was on the scene.

SO: It is not todays Jewish converts that satan has made shipwreck with only, but the Broadway ones of Matt. 7 + the Rev. 17:1-5 [The Complete PROPHESIED bunch]. And the reason why has to do with why Abe was called in the above verses! And that will be DOCUMENTED when you'all get to Heb. 11:13! 'THESE ALL DIED [IN THE FAITH]' Eph. 4:5 (not just having faith)

--Elijah

 

[Sissy]

Hi,
it could be something like that? but I think that it is MUCH DEEPER than that.

The "DEEPER" is what the author is admonishing them for not grasping.

Remember that there were NO JEW'S per/say when God SURELY DID HAVE AN HIGH PRIEST!

Precisely.
Which is what the author is trying to painstakingly explain to these Jewish converts who had been living according to the old law for hundreds of years.

There was a high priest BEFORE God gave them instructions for their Levitical priesthood.
There was a high priest BEFORE God gave them instructions for their Tabernacle/Temple.
There was a high priest BEFORE God gave them instructions for their law (which included circumcision of the flesh, Sabbath keeping, sacrifice instructions, marriage restrictions, etc.).

These Jewish converts would naturally have a hard time understanding that all the above was actually never needed in order to be faithful to God.
Trying to break free of the years and years of tradition they had been living would prove to be a stumbling block for some to overcome.

But the author will continue to lay it out for them, and climax the main point.

Hebrews 7
(11) If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
(12) For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
​

 

[Nathan]

I have not been devoting as much time to this study as I should have lately. But upon reading the chapter again just now, one thing that strikes me abruptly is the last verse.

Hbr 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

It speaks of constant practice. And a distinguishing of good from evil. How often do we think of maturity as having "great faith". Laid back, easy come easy go. I am speaking a little light heartedly here. But in all seriousness, here the writer tells us the mark of maturity is by practicing discernment skills in detecting right and wrong. All too often I think we think of maturity of 'grasping' the idea that we are not 'under the law'. I think that is new born babe stuff, according to the writer.

The 'mature' stuff is knowing good from evil. And in that knowing is included 'doing'. In other words, when a 'mature' believer knows good from evil, then the 'mature' believer does the good and NOT the evil. I think what the writer is frustrated at, by indication of the last 4 chapters, is the idea that some believers still struggle to understand they have been bought with a price, that their sins are forgiven, that they have been given a new identity, and that there is a High Priest that constantly serves to make intersession for us when we do sin.

It is as if these people he is writing to cannot get a grip that sin no longer has dominion over them, that they can walk in the newness of life offered freely by faith in the complete finished work of Christ. And here at the end of the 5th chapter he just lets all the frustration out that has been building. I think as we move along we will see the change in demeanor of writing from one of admonishment to that of instruction. But as we will see in the next chapter, he still deals with this bunch that just cant 'let go of' sin, even though it has no dominion over them.

 

[Sissy]

I have not been devoting as much time to this study as I should have lately.

No hurry as far as I am concerned.
I'd rather take my time on a good study than to rush through it.

But upon reading the chapter again just now, one thing that strikes me abruptly is the last verse.

Hbr 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

It speaks of constant practice. And a distinguishing of good from evil. How often do we think of maturity as having "great faith". Laid back, easy come easy go. I am speaking a little light heartedly here. But in all seriousness, here the writer tells us the mark of maturity is by practicing discernment skills in detecting right and wrong. All too often I think we think of maturity of 'grasping' the idea that we are not 'under the law'. I think that is new born babe stuff, according to the writer.

The 'mature' stuff is knowing good from evil. And in that knowing is included 'doing'. In other words, when a 'mature' believer knows good from evil, then the 'mature' believer does the good and NOT the evil. I think what the writer is frustrated at, by indication of the last 4 chapters, is the idea that some believers still struggle to understand they have been bought with a price, that their sins are forgiven, that they have been given a new identity, and that there is a High Priest that constantly serves to make intersession for us when we do sin.

It is as if these people he is writing to cannot get a grip that sin no longer has dominion over them, that they can walk in the newness of life offered freely by faith in the complete finished work of Christ. And here at the end of the 5th chapter he just lets all the frustration out that has been building. I think as we move along we will see the change in demeanor of writing from one of admonishment to that of instruction. But as we will see in the next chapter, he still deals with this bunch that just cant 'let go of' sin, even though it has no dominion over them.

Ahhh, the milk and the meat.

A child begins to mature when he can "reason".
Having a bottle handed to you is one thing.
Understanding WHY is another.

When you begin to understand the process of just how that milk came to be, then you do not take it for granted.
You don't take cows for granted.
You don't take the grass that cows eat for granted.
And you don't take the rain that causes grass to grow for granted.

When you realize the process necessary for you to have milk, you have reverence for everything involved with the process and not just the milk itself.
You end up cherishing the rain, the grass, and the cow; because without all of them, you have no milk.
If all you ever knew was that milk was just handed to you (without knowing the process), you would be little more than a fool and the consequences of not having any rain, grass, or cows would be of little interest to you.
Realizing the process and the consequences gives you a whole new perspective on things.

Psalms 111
(10) The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.


Likewise, you will have a whole new outlook on things like adultery.
Not committing adultery simply because it was against the law is one thing.
But when you understand the pain and suffering it can cause your family, it takes on a whole different perspective as to WHY you should not commit adultery.

 

[Nathan]

Very good. I like that outlook on 'milk and meat'. When I look at it, I see it from a different perspective. But may be it is the 'middle' of the road person I am between Calvinism and Armenianism. I probably could have left that dig out, but I just had to insert it.:D

What I see is that with milk, it is fed to a baby. There is no work involved, they just take it in.....and put it out. lol. Man am I glad my wife and I are done with that for now. lol.

But with a child who is eating meat, they take a piece, chew on it, move it around in their mouths, 'mull it over', and then swallow it. And it usually does not come out near in the same consistency that it went in with either. And usually by that time they are knowledgeable of what to do with the 'waste'.

I find it interesting, because the last part of chapter 5 there deals with 'practicing of dicernment' between good and evil. A conflict of sorts. Does a person just 'pop' a piece of meat in their mouth and swallow? No. They have to have 'conflict' with it in their mouth. There is a 'battle' that takes place in the mouth.

Lol. I have to think back to when I took my oldest son squirrel hunting last year. I had not been in ages, since I was young. Well, not to actually harvest one to eat at least. But I told him that we were going to eat whatever we harvested. So, as it happened, we came home with two squirrels. When I cooked them I was amazed at the tastiness of the little critters. lol. Stay with me here, I know it can be a grose thought to imagine.

So as I was enjoying the meat that was on my plate, I noticed my son not eating his. I asked him what was wrong, it seemed very tasty to me. He told me he just could not eat it. Not wanting it to go to waste, I proceeded to eat it myself. Low and behold, when I tried to bite into the meat, it was like trying to bite into a cinder block made of hard rubber. lol. It happens that we harvested a very young, tender, squirrel; and another that had spent its days frolicking around the tree tops for quite some years I suppose.

Moral of the story; Not all meat is the same. LOL. My son eats meat, but his 6 year old teeth at the time just could not tear into the meat. It won over his mouth. He was not able to take it in. I tried my best at it, and even my own mouth had an extremely hard time. So, maturity is even measured beyond eating meat, into the realm of what types of meat you are able to eat.

Ahhh...the richness of His wisdom.

Heb 5:7-11 "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.
Warning Against Apostasy
11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing."

Why on earth we would think that we could ever get to a place of not learning is beyond me. Maturity is marked by a constant discernment of good and evil. That would imply that its not that one knows right off the bat what is good and evil, but one studies the 'information' laid out before him, and then makes a decision about it. That is discernment. That is maturity. How do we know this? Would it not seem that maturity is marked by a definite understanding; a 'preconceived' idea of right and wrong; a 'foreknowledge' of the truth and falsehood? No, in fact we see the simple statement by the writer saying;

...it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing

Dull of hearing. Hummm.... Is that not what the world considers "faith"? "I know for sure what I believe, do not bother me with the truth..."

A good question for us all.

 

[Elijah674]

Nate say's in part...

Why on earth we would think that we could ever get to a place of not learning is beyond me. Maturity is marked by a constant discernment of good and evil. That would imply that its not that one knows right off the bat what is good and evil, but one studies the 'information' laid out before him, and then makes a decision about it. That is discernment. That is maturity. How do we know this? Would it not seem that maturity is marked by a definite understanding; a 'preconceived' idea of right and wrong; a 'foreknowledge' of the truth and falsehood? No, in fact we see the simple statement by the writer saying;

...it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing

Dull of hearing. Hummm.... Is that not what the world considers "faith"? "I know for sure what I believe, do not bother me with the truth..."

A good question for us all.

And he gives this truth...

Heb 5:7-11 "In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

But it seem that knowledge alone, study alone without CONDITIONAL REQUIRED OBEDIENCE is not Maturity. The ones of Rom. 8:1 are JUSTIFIED & then come to Rom. 8:14 of being LED into Maturity If they can be. And just having this knowledge is NOT Maturity! Going either way with or against this LEADING is what is Maturity. (one way or the other) This is what David knew knew about himself & gave Inspired warning to us'ins! Psalms 19:13

So Maturity IS Godly Obedience to what the Holy Spirit has Inspired! Matt. 4:4

--Elijah