When the apostle uttered the
words which form the title of this booklet, it would
of course have been possible for an extreme literalist
to have attempted to show that, unless the apostle had
confined himself entirely to a literal quotation of
the actual words of Moses and the prophets without
adding any words of his own, his statement was not
true. We can hardly believe, however, that anyone
would, in fact, have adopted such an extreme attitude.
If such a view were legitimate, Paul's `one word' of
Acts 28:25 would be open to criticism, for the
quotation which constitutes this `one word is made up
of 55 `words' in the Greek, and 70 `words' in the
English. Many more such examples could be given, but
we fear that the average reader would grow impatient,
and feel that we were wasting time. We have an object,
however, in view, and that is to show that, even
though Paul's utterance were not simply quotations,
and even though some of his teaching does not appear
upon the surface of the Old Testament Scriptures, the
language of the Prayer Book is applicable here, when
it speaks of the doctrine of Holy Scripture `and
whatsoever may be proved thereby'.
In the New Testament we learn that Abraham not only
received the land of Canaan as an inheritance, but
that he also looked for a `better country, that is, an
heavenly'. Although the New Jerusalem is never
mentioned in the Old Testament Scriptures, it is
nevertheless true that this `city which hath
foundations' constituted a real and blessed hope in
Old Testament times. When we read such verses as
Hebrews 11:9,10,13-16, we may feel at first that here
at least the apostle is saying something more than
`the prophets and Moses did say should come'. Let us
observe, however, exactly what is written in Hebrews
11.
We know, from the record of Genesis, that Abraham
`believed' and had `faith'. The nature of faith is not
enlarged upon by Moses and the prophets to the extent
that it is so treated in the New Testament, and the
reason is fairly obvious.
To teach that Abraham's faith was `the substance of
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' is
certainly an expansion of the Old Testament account,
but it is not an addition. How shall we intelligently
interpret the fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were
willing to be tent-dwellers in the very land of
promise, dying in full faith without possessing more
than a burial ground in the land, unless we believe
that they knew that the promise upon which they rested
demanded the resurrection of the dead for its
fulfillment and enjoyment? Paul himself tells us that
`they that say such things, declare plainly' (Heb.
11:14 A.V.) or `make it manifest' (R.V.). While we may
have to admit that some of ` the deductions tabulated
in Hebrews 11. 9,10 and 13-16, were not so `manifest'
to us, our own poorness of insight is surely not the
standard whereby we must judge the apostle. From the
recorded attitude of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it is
`manifest' that they sought a country, and it is also
clear that if they had had an earthly country in mind,
they could have found an opportunity to have returned.
As they did not, it is obvious that such pilgrims and
strangers, with such promises apparently unfulfilled,
yet with such triumphant faith, must have had a
heavenly country and a heavenly city in view, for
there is no other alternative.
We must now consider some of the statements made by
the apostle with reference to Melchisedec in Hebrews
7. We first meet Melchisedec as `Priest of the Most
High God', in Genesis 14:18. Nothing more is said of
him in the Old Testament until we reach Psalm 110,
where we read:
`The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at My right
hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.
Thou art a Priest for ever after the order of
Melchizedek' (Psa. 110:1,4).
When this Psalm was written, there was in existence
the divinely appointed Aaronic priesthood. The
greatness of
Melchisedec's order of priesthood is proved from
several statements made by Moses in the Book of
Genesis.
(1) The fact that Melchisedec had `no father or
mother' (i.e. no 'pedigree'), and no specific end to
his ministry, is in strong contrast with the law
regulating the Aaronic order. In these things
Melchisedec fore-shadowed the Son of God, `Who abideth
a priest continually'
(Heb. 7:3).
(2) Genesis 14:20 records the fact that Abraham gave
tithes to Melchisedec. In Hebrews 7 Paul states that
`without all contradiction
the less is blessed of the better' (Heb. 7:4-8).
(3) `If I may so say', continues Paul, 'Levi, who was
in the loins of Abraham, paid tithes to Melchisedec.
This shows that the Levitical order was imperfect, and
that a change in the priesthood was necessary (Heb.
7:9-11).
(4) This change necessitated the transfer of the
Melchisedec priesthood from earth to heaven: `For it
is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah' (Heb.
7:12-14). For if He were on earth, He should not be a
priest' (Heb. 8:4).
As we have already remarked, these features may not
have been obvious to its, but to the apostle they were
`without contradiction'. He could, therefore, speak of
the heavenly calling and the heavenly priesthood
without going beyond that which was revealed in the
Old Testament, even though these things were not
expressed in so many words by the Old Testament
writers. Those who would object to the apostle's claim
must, to be consistent, criticize also the statement
of Matthew 2:17,18 that the massacre of the innocents
`fulfilled' the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:15, and the
further statement of Matthew 2:23, `He shall be called
a Nazarene' - for this actual expression is not to be
found in the Law and the Prophets. Who would have
dreamed that the language of Deuteronomy 30:12,13
could possibly have referred to the gospel, or to the
ascended Christ, and His death and burial?
' And yet the apostle makes no apology for using the
passage in this way. The same argument applies to the
statement that some will be living at the Coming of
the Lord and will not `prevent' those that sleep. Such
a statement does not go beyond the testimony of Moses
and the prophets.
If Paul had uttered one word that associated any
believing Jew or Gentile with the seated Christ at the
right hand of God, in the holiest of all, he would
most certainly have gone beyond the limits of the
inspired testimony of Moses and the Prophets and have
revealed truth that was exclusive to the dispensation
of the Mystery. It is this that makes the apostle's
claim so important to all who would appreciate the
distinctive nature of the Mystery. The heavenly
calling, with its city the New Jerusalem, is not
related to the Mystery, and rightly falls within the
limits set by the apostle.
The mention of the Mystery may perhaps cause some
reader to remember that, long before the prison
epistles were written, Paul spoke of several
`mysteries' (secrets). Can these mysteries possibly
fall within the limits of `Moses and the prophets', or
will their investigation prove that the apostle was,
after all, wrong in claiming that he had said `none
other things than those which the prophets and Moses
did say should come'?
No. 7
The Mysteries (Secrets).
The mystery of Israel's blindness (Rom. 11:25) and the
mystery that was silenced (Rom. 16:25) considered in
the light of our title.
We have already seen that the gospel, the inclusion of
the Gentile, the hope entertained by the early church,
and the possession of spiritual gifts, all fall within
the testimony of the Law and the Prophets. There
remains, however, one other subject which at first
sight may seem to upset all our previous arguments -
the subject of the `mysteries' of which Paul was a
steward long before the `mystery' of the prison
epistles was made manifest.
There are five mysteries specified in the epistles
written before Acts 28, that must claim our attention:
(1) The MYSTERY of Israel's blindness (Rom. 11:25).
(2) The MYSTERY that had been kept
secret (Rom. 16:25).
(3) The MYSTERY of the wisdom
of God (1 Cor. 2:7).
(4) The MYSTERY in relation to
resurrection (1 Cor. 15:51).
(5) The MYSTERY of iniquity (2 Thess.
2:7).
Let us examine these five mysteries, and see whether
we find them in agreement with the Old Testament
Scriptures, or whether we shall have to admit that
they go beyond them.
The mystery of Israel's blindness (Rom. 11:25).
`For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant
of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own
conceits; that blindness in part is happened to
Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in'
(Rom.11:25).
In this same chapter we have another reference to the
blindness that fell upon Israel, in verses 8-10:
`According as it is written, God hath given them the
spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and
ears that they should not hear; unto this day. And
David saith ..., Let their eyes be darkened, that they
may not see'.
We have here three quotations taken
from Isaiah 29, Deuteronomy 29, Isaiah 6:9 and Psalm
69:22. If we turn, first, to Isaiah 29:10 we find no
hint of the `secret' revealed in Romans 11, but as we
read on to verses 17 and 18 we become aware of the
fact that a change is intended. Instead of judgment we
have restoration; Lebanon shall be turned into a
fruitful field, the deaf shall hear, and `the eyes of
the blind shall see'. The secret of Romans 11 is here,
for those who are able to discern it.
The passage in Deuteronomy 29:4 does not refer
primarily to the time of which Paul spoke, but to the
condition obtaining when Israel came out of Egypt. The
words: `unto this day' as uttered by Moses can have no
other interpretation. There is a hint, however, of
further and fuller revelation in the last verse of the
chapter - a verse that has suffered somewhat at the
hands of translators. We transcribe the note given in
The Companion Bible:
`The italics in the AN. (put in Roman type in the R.V.)
show that the Hebrew was not clear to the translators.
They make good sense in English, but this is not the
sense of the Hebrew text. The words rendered `unto the
LORD our God' should have the extraordinary points
(Ap.31) to show that they form no part of the text.
The meaning then is:
`The secret things, even the revealed things, (belong)
to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all
the words of this law'; i.e. the revealed things, and
the secret things which have not been, but will yet be
revealed'.
Israel had `seen' the miracles which had been wrought
in Egypt, but these `revealed' things had left them
blind. Their children, however, were to `do all the
words of this law', so that the fact that blindness
was only for a time was evidently a part of the
`secret'. Moreover, it is the `nations' that comment
upon Israel's excision (Dent. 29:24-28), and that are
likely to become `wise in their own conceits'.
Isaiah 6:9 and 10 - the third passage mentioned above
- is followed by the prophet's question `LORD, how
long?' and the LORD's answer m verse 11. In verse 13,
also, we have the pledge of the remnant. Even Psalm
69, which seems to speak of hopeless misery, ends on
the same note: `God will save Zion'.
We may conclude, therefore, that the secret of
Israel's blindness is well within the testimony of
Moses and the prophets.
The mystery that had been kept secret (Rom. 16:25).
We have now to enquire whether or not this secret is
outside the scope of Moses and the prophets.
If we examine the structure of Romans, it becomes
clear that the complete epistle demands the inclusion
of Romans 16. 25-27; otherwise the opening salutation
of Romans 1. 1-7 is without its corresponding member.
In verses 1-7 we have the gospel, `which He had
promised afore by His prophets in the Holy
Scriptures', concerning Christ as the Seed of David
and Son of God, `for obedience of faith among all
nations'. In the corresponding passage at the end of
the epistle, Romans 16.25-27, we have, not the
`preaching' of the gospel or its `power unto
salvation', but a reference to `Him that is of power
to stablish you according to my gospel, and the
preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation
of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world
began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures
of the prophets, according to the commandment of the
everlasting God, made known to all nations for the
obedience of faith'. In Romans 16 we have an advance
on Romans 1, but not something entirely different. The
secret `now' made manifest (that is, at the time of
Paul's writing) is said to have been `silenced' in aionion
times. Let us give this statement our careful
attention. Where the Authorised Version reads `kept
secret' we have substituted `silenced', What is the
justification for this alteration and what does it
imply? The word used in the original is sigao, and
occurs nine times in the New Testament. One of these
occurrences is in Luke 9, where the disciples had
heard the voice speaking out of the cloud saying:
`This is My beloved Son; hear Him'. Immediately after
this we read:
`And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone.
And they kept it close, and told no man in those days
any o€ those things which they had seen' (Luke
9:36).
Again, in Luke 20, after the Lord had answered the
question put to Him regarding the lawfulness of giving
tribute to Caesar, we read:
` `And they could not take hold of His words before
the people: and they
marvelled at His answer, and held their peace'
(Luke 20:26).
The remaining occurrences are Acts 12:17;
15:12,13; Romans 16:25; I Corinthians 14:2$,30 and 34.
There is no suggestion in any of these passages of
`keeping a secret', but rather the consistent idea of
keeping something quiet.
Returning to Romans 16, we observe
that this act of `silencing' is said to have taken
place `in aionion times', whereas the mystery
of Ephesians is related to a period `before the
overthrow of the world' (Eph. 1:4), or `before aionion
times' (2 Tim. I:9). The mystery of Romans 16 cannot,
therefore, be the mystery of Ephesians 3 or Colossians
I. Moreover, this mystery, which was silenced in age
times, was made manifest by the apostle Paul and `by
the Scriptures of the prophets'. It has been suggested
that these `Scriptures of the prophets' are not the
Old Testament prophecies, but the `prophetic writings'
of the New Testament, either the epistles of Paul
himself, or the writings of those who had the gift of
prophecy in the early church. So far as Romans 16
itself is concerned, there is no positive evidence
either way, so that we must turn to other passages for
help. In Romans 16 we have graphon prophetikon, `writings
prophetic' and in 2 Peter 1:19 prophetikon logon,
`prophetic word'. In the latter passage we are not
left in doubt as to whether this `prophetic word' was
uttered by Old Testament or New Testament prophets,
for the inspired comment reads:
`For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by
the Holy Ghost' (2 Pet. 1:21).
As this is the only other occurrence of prophetikon,
we feel bound to accept the view that the word refers
definitely to the Old Testament writers.
If we examine the Epistle to the Romans carefully, we
discover that it contains an inner and an outer
section, which may be set out as follows:
Romans l:l to 5:11
Romans 5:12 to 8:39
Romans 9:1 to 16:27
Outer Portion
Inner Portion
Outer Portion
a While the outer portion deals with Abraham, the
inner is concerned with Adam - and it was this truth
relating to Adam which, though incipient in the pages
of Genesis, was `silenced' while the truth relating to
Abraham occupied the bulk of the Old Testament.
Of the glorious doctrine of
justification, the apostle wrote:
`But now the righteousness of
God without the law is (hath been) manifested,
being witnessed by the law and the prophets' (Rom.
3:21).
Of the equally glorious doctrine of Romans 5:12 to
8:39 the apostle declares that it had been silenced in
age-times, but was now made manifest and by prophetic
scriptures made known to all nations for the obedience
of faith.
Truth has its times and
seasons. Man must first realize his own sinnership and
personal transgression, before he learns of his
association with the ruined race and a federal head.
At the time when Romans was written, the moment had
come when the full teaching concerning the `one
offence' and the `one righteousness' must be brought
out of obscurity and made manifest. No uninspired
commentator could ever have brought out from Genesis 3
what Paul makes known in Romans 5, but, on the other
hand, there is nothing revealed in Romans 5 which
cannot be dimly perceived in the ancient record, when
once the light of inspiration is turned upon it.
The reconciliation of the Gentile was never a secret.
We have already considered the testimony of Moses and
the prophets regarding the inclusion of the Gentile,
and this inclusion of necessity involved their
reconciliation. The reconciliation of one portion of
the race (the circumcision) with the other (the
uncircumcision) now gives place to the deeper
reconciliation of the race as such, for in Romans 5,
where the silenced secret has been made manifest and
Genesis 3 made to speak, neither Jew nor Gentile is
mentioned.
We offer the above comments with full confidence that
all who are willing to follow, the lead of the
inspired Scriptures only, will find no difficulty in
believing that, so far as these two mysteries in
Romans are concerned, they do not go beyond the things
`which the prophets and Moses did say should come'.
No. 8
The remaining mysteries of Paul's early ministry,
considered in the light of the apostle's claims.
We have so far examined the mysteries of Romans and
found no reason to call in question the accuracy of
Paul's statement before Agrippa, and we must now go on
to consider the two mysteries that are specifically
mentioned in 1 Corinthians. We use the word
`specifically' because there are also two general
references in chapters 4 and 13:
'Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of
Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God' (1 Cor.
4:1).
`Though I ... understand all mysteries and all
knowledge ... and have not charity (love), I am
nothing' (I Cor. 13:2).
These `mysteries' however, are not defined and cannot
therefore be called upon as evidence in the case we
are examining. The two mysteries in 1 Corinthians 2
and 15 on the other hand, are specific, and must
therefore be examined.
The first of these passages reads as follows:
`We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the
hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world
unto our glory' (1 Cor. 2:7).
Because we have a reference here to a time `before the
ages', there has sometimes been a tendency to ignore
context and assume that the passage refers to the
mystery of Ephesians and Colossians. If we go back to
the, previous chapter, we find that the apostle speaks
of the wisdom of God
in connection with the cross of Christ (1 Cor. 1:24),
and also, by contrast, of the wisdom of this world (1
Cor. 1:20,21). In the second chapter, he reminds the
Corinthians that when he came to them, he did not
pander to human fancies and indulge in `excellency of
speech or wisdom', but rather `determined to
know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified'. The apostle was most anxious that the
faith of these believers should not stand in the
wisdom of men, but, although he so ruthlessly sets
aside human wisdom, he assures the Corinthians that he
does speak wisdom `among them that are perfect'. The
identity of these `perfect' ones may be gathered from
a comparison of 1 Corinthians 3 and Hebrews 5
and 6.
1 Corinthians 3
Hebrews 5 and 6
Babes, carnal, fed with milk, Need
of milk, not strong not with meat.
with meat.
Building
A babe. Full grown (perfect ones). Those
upon the one foundation, that
Those who go on to perfection. The earth
which may be rewarded or
either received blessing or is nigh unto
go on unto perfection by fire.
is nigh unto cursing. Whose end is to be burned.
For our present purpose, it is enough to note that the
`perfect' one is one who has grown in grace, who has
got beyond the `first principles', and who can be
taught further and fuller truth. In contrast,
therefore, with the basic truth of `Jesus Christ and
Him crucified' the apostle continues:
'Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect'
(1 Cor. 2:6). His subject is still `wisdom', though
not, as he had already said, `the wisdom of this age,
nor of the princes of this age that come to naught'.
Nothing has so far been said about `the mystery'; the
apostle has confined himself to the one subject of
`wisdom', the kind of wisdom of which he spoke, and
the kind which he repudiated.
Instead of going to Corinth, and speaking to the
unprepared multitude the whole truth of God at once,
the apostle fed them according to their capacity. To
babes he gave the `milk' of the Word, to adults the
`meat'. In Galatians 2 he tells us that, when the
great controversy was raging concerning the place of
the uncircumcised Gentile in the Church, he
`communicated unto them that gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were
of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had
run, in vain' (Gal. 2:2).
So the apostle here tells the Corinthians that he had
spoken the wisdom of God in a mystery (secret). He
does not say that he told them `the Mystery' for this
would have been altogether foreign to his thought. The
presence of the word `hidden', coming so near the word
`mystery' has led the superficial reader to a false
conclusion. It was not the mystery that was hidden,
but the wisdom, and it was this of which Paul spoke to
those who were perfect - and so, `in a secret'. He
clinches his argument with a quotation from the
Prophets, a proof that `the Mystery' of Ephesians was
not in mind:
`But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the
things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.
But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for
the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things
of God' (I Cor. 2:9,10).
The apostle's intention here is made very clear by his
own expansion of the argument. He proceeds, in verse
12, to place in contrast the `spirit of the world' and
the `spirit which is of God' - an evident parallel
with the contrasted `wisdom of the world' and `wisdom
of God' in the earlier part of the chapter. In verse
12 we read that this `spirit which is of God' is given
so that `we might know the things that are freely
given to us of God, which things we speak' (1 Cor.
2:12,13). Here we are back again to the subject of
verses 6 and 7, which deal with what the apostle said,
and how he said it. In verse 13, he repeats the
statement that he did not speak `in the words that
man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost
teacheth,
explaining spiritual things to spiritual persons'.
Then follows in verses 14 to 16 the contrast between
the natural man and the spiritual man, and then in
chapter 3 the subject of chapter 1 is resumed. A
careful examination of the context shows that
`wisdom', either human or divine, is the subject, and
that being so, there is no necessity to question the
apostle's statement that he did not go beyond that
which `the prophets and Moses did say should come'.
We must now pass on
to the second `mystery' of Corinthians, which is found
in chapter 15 and has to do with resurrection:
`Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption
inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We
shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a
moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:
for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be
raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For
this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this
mortal must put on immortality ... then shall be
brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is
swallowed up in victory' (1 Cor. 15:50-54).
We observe first of
all that the `mystery' here is associated with the
testimony of the prophet Isaiah, whose prophecy
relates to Millennial times (Isa. 25:6-9). Both in 1
Thessalonians 4 and here in 1 Corinthians 15, the
apostle distinguishes between those who shall be
`alive and remaining' at the coming of the Lord, and
those who have already `fallen asleep'. When the
change takes place, with regard both to the `living'
and the `dead', the prophecy of Isaiah 25:6-9 will
have been fulfilled.
When we examine 1
Corinthians 15:51 more closely we observe that there
is no word in the original that can really be
translated `show'. The original reads: Musterion
humin lego, `A mystery to you I speak'. Moreover,
it is necessary to consider whether these words would
not be more correctly rendered in the form of a
question. To make this point clearer, let us turn for
a moment to Luke 16.
It may be that some
readers are still perplexed to find our Lord
apparently saying, in connection with the parable of
the unjust steward: `But I say unto you, Make unto
yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness'
(Luke 16:9).
Most of our readers, however, know
that the words Kago
humin lego should be translated in the form
of a question: `And do I say unto you ... ?', the
question being followed by the reasons why the Lord's
people should not in
any sense emulate the spirit of the unjust steward.
Returning to 1 Corinthians 15, and
examining the apostle's words again, we discover that
there is no `mystery' here at all. In verses 47-49 he
contrasts the first Adam with the Second Adam, and the
image of the earthy with the image of the heavenly,
and verse 50 opens with the words: Toutode
phemi: `But this I say'. The apostle then
proceeds to declare that `flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God: neither doth corruption
inherit incorruption'. Immediately following this, in
verse 51, we have: Musterion
humin dego: `Do I speak a mystery when I
tell you this?' - the implied answer being, of course,
`No'. To sum up, we may conclude that, when the
apostle taught the glorious doctrine of the
resurrection, he did not go beyond the testimony of
Moses and the prophets.
There is now only one other
`mystery' to be considered: `The mystery of iniquity'
in 2 Thessalonians 2:7. It hardly seems necessary to
quote from the Book of Daniel to prove that the rise
of the Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition, is entirely
within the scope of the Old Testament prophecy. The
mystery of Godliness, God manifest in the flesh, is
enshrined in the Old Testament title Emmanuel (`God
with us'), and the mystery of iniquity is but the
Satanic travesty of the truth. The Man of Sin sets
himself up `as God' and will one day have his `parousia'
(coming) with its preliminary `lying
wonders' (2 Thess. 2:9).
There is a possibility that the
correct reading of Isaiah 11:4 should be as follows:
`With righteousness
shall He judge the poor, and reprove with equity for
the meek of the earth: and He shall smite the
Oppressor (ariz instead of `earth' erez)
with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His
lips shall He slay the wicked'.
The manifestation and destruction of this Man of Sin
were fully known to the prophets. That which has an
end must obviously have had a beginning, and that
which finally dares to come out into the light of day
may well begin secretly at first. In all this there is
nothing that goes beyond the testimony of the Law and
the prophets.
We have now examined the various mysteries that are
found in Paul's early ministry, and have discovered
nothing in any one of them that goes beyond what `the
prophets and Moses did say should come'.
No. 9
Is the `Church' within the testimony of the Law and
the Prophets?
We have now considered Paul's teaching in
connection with the gospel, the inclusion of the
Gentile, the hope, the gifts of the Spirit, and the
mysteries, and have found in all these instances the
words used in his defense before Agrippa to be
literally true. There is no need to lengthen this
investigation unduly, and we believe that the most
exacting of 'I our readers will be satisfied with the
list of subjects examined, if we conclude with some
consideration of the `church' and its relation to Old
Testament prophecy. By the church here we mean, of
course, the church of the early Acts and Paul's
earlier epistles, and not the church of the One Body
as revealed in Ephesians.
It is common knowledge that the word translated
`church' is the Greek ekklesia, from ek, `out of', and
kaleo, `to call'. The term is used mainly in a
New Testament setting, but Stephen does not hesitate
to speak of the nation of Israel called out from Egypt
in the fulfillment of God's purposes as the `church in
the wilderness' (Acts 7:38). Stephen was fully
justified in the choice of this word, for both the
Septuagint Greek and the Old Testament Hebrew contain
the Greek and Hebrew equivalents in abundance.
The New Testament writers did not invent the title of
the 'church' neither did they invest it with entirely
new attributes end associations. The meaning of the
word will, therefore, be dearer if we examine some of
its Old Testament occurrences.
The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament in Greek
contains no less than seventy unquestioned occurrences
of ekklesia, and there may be several more.
There are also six occurrences of the verb ekklesiazo,
`to gather' or `assemble'. The first occurrence of ekklesia
is in Deuteronomy 4:10, where the verb ekklesiazo
is also found. The ward is usually translated in the
English version o€ the Septuagint either `assembly'
or `congregation'. In addition to the Book of
Deuteronomy, the word is also found in Joshua, Judges,
1 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Joel and
Micah. It will be seen, therefore, that the word was
in common use nom the days when Israel were assembled
before Moses, up a the time of Ezra, Nehemiah and the
prophets.
The word that the Greek translators had before them
was he Hebrew kahal, `to calf, to gather, to
assemble'. It is not necessary to enumerate all the
many occurrences, but we give few that are
outstanding.
`The whole assembly of the congregation of
Israel shall kill it in the evening' (Exod. 12:6).
The exclusive nature of an ekklesia is
illustrated in Nehemiah 13:1:
`On that day they read in the book of Moses in the
audience of the people; and therein was found written,
that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into
the congregation of God for ever'.
The Book of Genesis uses the word kahal in the
following passage in chapter 28:
`And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful,
and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude
of people' (Gen. 28:3).
The translation of kahal by multitude: here is
unwarranted. The Authorised Version itself bears this
out for, apart from the parallel passage in Genesis
48:4, the word `multitude' is never again used as a
rendering of kahal. The A.V. translators
themselves were evidently not quite satisfied, for in
the margin they give as an alternative, the word
`assembly'. The second and third occurrences of kahal
in Genesis are in chapters 35 and 48:
`A nation and a company
of nations shall be of thee' (Gen. 35:11).
`I will make of thee a multitude of people
(Gen. 48:4).
These three passages in Genesis are three prophetic
statements in connection with the blessing given to
Jacob, who was also named Israel. However strange or
improbable it may appear at first sight, these three
passages constitute the foundation of every reference
to the ekklesia, the `church' in the Old or New
Testaments. When, therefore, we read in Matthew 15:24
that the Lord said: `I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel', and in 16:18: `upon
this rock I will build My church', we do not feel
under any necessity to modify the limitation of
chapter 15 or to expand the exclusive company of
chapter 16. The `church' to which the Lord added
daily,, on and after the day of Pentecost, was an
Israelitish assembly, as a reading of Acts 2 will
show, and subsequent statements in the Acts will
confirm (e.g., 10:28 f and 11:19). The inclusion of
the saved Gentiles into the ekklesia was
explained by James as being quite consistent with the
testimony of the prophets (Acts 15:14-I8).
The Septuagint translators of Genesis do not use the
word ekklesia to translate kahal, the
`assembly' or `congregation', but the wood synagogue.
We must never forget that the `church' began in the
synagogue. After he was `separated' by the Holy Ghost
at Antioch, we read that the apostle `preached the
word in the synagogue of the Jews' (Acts 13:5).
Further on in the same chapter we read that `they came
to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on
the sabbath day, and sat down' (Acts 13:14). Upon
being invited to speak, the apostle gave that
wonderful address which contains the first positive
statement in the New Testament concerning
justification by faith (Acts 13:39). Moreover, when
the Gentiles desired to hear more concerning this
truth, it was to the synagogue that they had to go
(Acts 13:42). Even though the apostle turned from
Israel in Acts 13:46, we find him in I the very next
city preaching in the synagogue (Acts 14:1). Not until
we reach Acts 19 do we find the believers
withdrawn from the synagogue and meeting on neutral
ground (Acts 19:8,9).
In Paul's own summary of his life in Acts 22, we read:
`And I said,
Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every
synagogue them that believed on Thee' (Acts
22:19).
James also, who tells his hearers to call the Elders
of the church, speaks of the synagogue as the place of
worship (Jas. 2:2; 5:14).
When, therefore, the apostle confesses in Galatians
1:13 that `beyond measure I persecuted the church of
God', we must remember that that church, as the Acts
of the Apostles shows, largely was associated with
the synagogue, both of the land and of the dispersion.
Today, in the light of the Mystery, the word
`church' has taken upon it a higher meaning. The
church of Ephesians was most certainly not within the
range of Moses and the prophets; but, while Israel as
a nation stood before God, there was the
kahal, the called-out people, the church of God,
and while the hope of Israel remained, as it did until
the end of the Acts (Acts 28:20), there could be but
one `assembly' or `church', and to this the Gentile
believer
was added.
We trust that the reader has by now satisfied himself
that Paul meant exactly what he said in his defense
before Agrippa. Should further and fuller confirmation
be sought, let each reader take up the Book and
examine its testimony. We do not fear the result. Not
only did Paul say that he had not said anything
outside the testimony of Moses and the prophets, but
he also said at the close of this first ministry:
`I have not shunned
to declare unto you all the counsel of God' (As
20:27).
This of course, did not mean that Paul had exhausted
the mind of God; but simply that everything that
had then been made known he had honestly and
unreservedly declared.
In conclusion, may we say that we are grateful to the
correspondent who originally challenged us on this
question' Truth has nothing to fear from examination:
the more it is investigated in the right spirit, the
clearer it will become.
