Which came first: The church or the nation of Israel?

[Live4Him2]

If you were to ask the average Christian “Which came first: the church or the nation of Israel?”, then they would inevitably answer that the nation of Israel came first.

They would base their answer on the commonly held belief that the nation of Israel greatly preceded the church because the church, according to them, didn’t begin until the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2 or long after the nation of Israel had already been in existence.

Although this is commonly taught and believed, is it actually true?

In this post, I will seek to scripturally refute such a belief and to replace it with what the Bible actually has to say in relation to this very important question.

This post will be rather long because I want to lay a serious scriptural foundation for what I’m about to assert.

This post will also basically be a treatise on the topic of marriage because God ordained marriage to represent the union between Christ and the church as will be thoroughly documented before this post is through.

With this introduction behind us, let the study begin.

Regarding God’s creation of the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, we read:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Gen. 1:26-27)

When Adam was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27, 5:1), he was created as a figure of him that was to come or as a type of Jesus Christ, “the second man” (I Cor. 15:47) or “the last Adam” (I Cor. 15:45).

In his epistle to the saints at Rome, the apostle Paul wrote:

“Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” (Rom. 5:14)

The underlying Greek word which is here translated as “figure” is “typos”…

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G5179&t=KJV

…and it is from this Greek word that we derive our English word “type”.

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=type

The dictionary defines “type” in the following manner:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/type

“A person or thing (as in the Old Testament) believed to foreshadow another (as in the New Testament).”

Similarly, the dictionary defines “antitype” in the following manner:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antitype

“Something that corresponds to or is foreshadowed in a type.”

Paul explained one way in which Adam, the type, prefigured or foreshadowed Christ, the antitype, in his epistle to the saints at Ephesus when he wrote:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” (Eph. 5:22-33)

While teaching on the subject of marriage, Paul went all the way back to the book of Genesis to establish his doctrine. While doing so, he explained how the natural union between Adam and Eve, the first human beings and the first husband and wife, was a great mystery in that it was a type of God’s desired spiritual union concerning Christ and the church where the two become one (Gen. 2:24, Eph. 5:31-32).

This typology is broken down into the two following types and antitypes:

1. Adam, the type, prefigured Christ, the antitype.
2. Eve, the type, prefigured the church, the antitype.

While describing this great mystery, Paul gave the two following parallels between Adam, the type, and Christ, the antitype:

1. Adam was the head of his wife, Eve, even as Christ is the head of his spiritual bride, the church (Eph. 5:23).
2. Adam was to love his wife as his own body (Eph. 5:28), even as Christ loves the church as his own body (Eph. 5:30).

Seeing how this great mystery concerning Christ and the church began in Genesis, we will turn there now.

We read:

“And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:20-24)

According to the Genesis account, Adam was created first (Gen. 2:7), and Eve was later made from one of his ribs (Gen. 2:21-22). While pointing his readers back to this account (Eph. 5:31), Paul not only stated that the husband is the head of the wife (Eph. 5:23), but also that men ought to love their wives as their own bodies (Eph. 5:28).

By preceding Eve in order of creation and by being a figure or a type of Christ who was to come (Rom. 5:14), Adam was designated as Eve’s head whereas she was likened to his body in that she was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh (Gen. 2:23). Similarly, Christ, the antitype, precedes the church in that his “goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Mic. 5:2), and he is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23) which is of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones (Eph. 5:30).

Drawing heavily from this Genesis account and the typology contained therein, Paul regularly used the terms “head” and “body” to describe Christ and the church throughout his epistles, and we will see many examples of the same before this post is through.

Paul more directly addressed the significance of Adam being created first when he wrote to Timothy:

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (I Tim. 2:11-14)

Contextually, the woman here refers to the wife because Paul, while drawing from the Genesis account, used Adam and Eve, the first husband and wife, as an example of what he was seeking to convey unto Timothy. Seeing how Adam was first formed, then Eve, and seeing how the same typified Christ preceding the church as its head or authority, Paul taught that wives ought not usurp authority over their own husbands, but rather be in subjection to the same.

When we come to understand this great mystery concerning Christ and the church, we then realize how it would be as wrong for a wife to usurp authority over her own husband as it would be for the church, whom the wife typifies, to usurp authority over Christ, whom the husband typifies.

Paul drew further from the Genesis account while describing this same truth in his first epistle to the saints at Corinth.

There, we read:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” (I Cor. 11:3-16)

While further describing the type of headship of which he wrote to the saints at Ephesus (Eph. 5:23) and to Timothy (I Tim. 2:11-14), Paul broke it down in the following order to the saints at Corinth:

1. God
2. Christ
3. Man
4. Woman

(Continued in Part 2)

 

[Live4Him2]

(Continued from Part 1)

The head of Christ is God (I Cor. 11:3) in that Jesus, after his incarnation, never spoke anything other than that which he first heard his Father speak and never did anything other than that which he first saw his Father do.

During his earthly ministry, Jesus made multiple comments along the following lines:

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (John 12:49)

“Then Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but, what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.” (John 5:19)

Although submission and subjection are very touchy topics for many today because they have been so perverted and abused, God’s kingdom is still one of headship or of delegated authority.

The head of Christ is God, and Jesus Christ is the ultimate example of one who truly is in submission or subjection to authority.

Moving further down God’s delegated chain of authority, Paul said that the head of every man is Christ (I Cor. 11:3). Here, Paul was speaking in relation to a husband as the context is clearly that of a husband and a wife.

With the Genesis account in mind, Paul wrote:

“For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” (I Cor. 11:8-9)

Adam, the first husband, was not of the woman, Eve, but the woman, Eve, the first wife, was of the man, Adam, in that she was made from one of his ribs (Gen. 2:21-23). Similarly, neither was the man, Adam, created for the woman, Eve, but the woman, Eve, was created for the man, Adam, or as his “help meet” (Gen. 2:20).

As Christ is fully submitted or subjected to his head, God the Father, so ought a husband be fully submitted or subjected to Christ as his head. No husband who is fully submitted or subjected to Christ will ever abuse his wife as abuse does not proceed forth from Christ. Instead, husbands who are fully submitted or subjected to Christ will nourish and cherish their wives and love them as their own bodies (Eph. 5:28), even as the Lord nourishes and cherishes the church (Eph. 5:29) as his body (Eph. 5:30).

Moving even further down God’s delegated chain of authority, Paul said that the head of the woman is the man (I Cor. 11:3).

Again, contextually, Paul was speaking in relation to a wife being in subjection to her own husband or saying the same exact thing to the saints at Corinth that he said to the saints at Ephesus when he wrote:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” (Eph. 5:22-23)

While further expounding upon the Genesis account from which he drew his doctrine, Paul wrote:

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” (I Cor. 11:7-10)

Adam, a type of Christ or a figure of him that was to come, was created as the image and glory of God (Gen. 1:27, 5:1) whereas Eve, a type of the church, was created as the glory of the man (Gen. 2:21-23). Seeing how Adam was not created for Eve, but Eve was created for Adam, Paul taught that a wife ought to have power on her head because of the angels.

The underlying Greek word which is here translated as “power” is “exousia”…

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1849&t=KJV

…and this same Greek word is often translated as “authority” in our English Bibles.

Here, Paul was seeking to convey that a wife ought to be in subjection to her own husband’s God-given authority over her because he was aware that the angels were watching (I Cor. 4:9, Eph. 3:10), and he wanted to be sure that “all things” were being “done decently and in order” (I Cor. 14:40).

Whenever a wife usurps authority over her own husband, headship becomes perverted and looks like the following:

1. God
2. Christ
3. Woman
4. Man

The wife is now uncovered (I Cor. 11:5, 13) or not covered (I Cor. 11:6), and she no longer has power on her head (I Cor. 11:10) because she is no longer submitted or subjected to her own husband’s God-given authority over her. When such a violation or perversion occurs, the wife dishonors her head (I Cor. 11:5) or dishonors her husband. Paul said that if it is not a shame for a wife to remove her spiritual covering or to come out from being under her own husband’s God-given authority over her, then let her also remove her natural covering, her hair (I Cor. 11:15), or let her be shorn or shaven (I Cor. 11:6).

Along these same lines, whenever a husband places himself under his wife’s authority, the husband not only dishonors his head (I Cor. 11:4) which is Christ (I Cor. 11:3), but he also symbolically has long hair (I Cor. 11:14) in that his wife is now his covering.

This is what Paul was addressing with the saints at Corinth, and this portion of scripture has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not men or women should wear head coverings in church. Similarly, this portion of scripture has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not men can have long hair as such was never a custom in the church (I Cor. 11:16).

Although there is God-given authority within the confines of marriage which typifies Christ and the church, when it comes to the matter of salvation, there is total equality between a husband and his wife.

For this cause, Paul wrote:

“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” (I Cor. 11:11)

The apostle Peter, who also wrote of God-given authority within the confines of marriage, similarly recognized equality between a husband and his wife in regard to salvation when he said that they are “heirs together of the grace of life” (I Pet. 3:7).

Furthermore, even though the woman is of the man (I Cor. 11:12) in that Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs, Paul said that even so is the man also by the woman (I Cor. 11:12). In other words, with the exception of Adam who was formed from the dust of the ground (Gen. 2:7), all men who have entered this world have entered it via the womb of a woman.

While still dealing with the issue of headship in marriage and the relationship between Christ and the church that it typifies, Paul wrote the following to these same saints at Corinth:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (I Cor. 14:34-35)

Once more, contextually, the women who were to keep silence in the churches were the wives who were being instructed to ask their husbands at home whatever it was that they might be inquiring about in the church.

When Paul said, in relation to wives, “for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law”, he was yet again referring to the Genesis account where we read:

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16)

When the LORD God told Eve “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”, he was rebuking her for her desire to usurp authority over Adam and commanding her to be under her husband’s rule instead. In fact, we see this same exact terminology being used by the LORD in relation to Satan's desire for Cain and Cain’s need to rule over him in Genesis chapter 4.

There, we read:

“And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Gen. 4:6-7)

Here, “sin” was personified as “his desire” and “him” because “he that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning” (I John 3:8). Cain didn’t rule over Satan as God told him to, but instead he submitted to Satan’s desire for him (I John 3:12), and such led to him murdering his brother, Abel (Gen. 4:8).

Looking back at Eve, when God told her that her husband shall rule over her, he was reinforcing Adam’s place of headship over his own wife which he had before sin ever entered this world.

No matter how unpopular a teaching it is in “this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4), God has ordained that husbands should rule over their own households, and such is a prerequisite for husbands who seek any place of authority within the church (I Tim. 3:4-5, 12).

(Continued in Part 3)

 

[Live4Him2]

(Continued from Part 2)

Again, seeing how the husband-and-wife relationship typifies the relationship between Christ and the church, whenever a wife usurps authority over her own husband, she is, in type, teaching that it is similarly acceptable for the church to usurp authority over Christ.

At the same time, whenever a husband places himself under his own wife’s authority, he is, in type, teaching that Christ likewise places himself under the authority of the church.

Additionally, whenever a husband abuses his wife, he is, in type, teaching that Christ similarly abuses the church as this is what is typified by the husband-and-wife relationship.

These are all very serious perversions of God’s intent for marriage and the great mystery that it represents concerning Christ and the church (Eph. 5:31-32). All who pervert the same will ultimately give an account for it before the Lord unless they first genuinely repent and bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.

How serious and far-reaching can the consequences of perverting headship within marriage be?

Serious and far-reaching enough to have ushered sin, death, and a curse into this world.

Going back to the Genesis account, we read:

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Gen. 3:17-19)

The actual cause of Adam’s sin and, consequentially, the actual cause of death and the curse which followed was that he hearkened unto the voice of Eve who was then deceived. Again, Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression (I Tim. 2:14).

With such being the case, Adam willfully chose to hearken unto Eve’s voice instead of the voice of the LORD God. By doing so, Adam not only greatly perverted his own headship over Eve which typified Christ’s headship over the church, but he also dishonored his head (I Cor. 11:4) which is Christ (I Cor. 11:3).

Thousands of years later, such perversions of God’s ordained headship within the confines of marriage are pretty much the norm, and the relationship between Christ and his church which marriage is supposed to represent is regularly misrepresented to the world.

Whereas Adam’s hearkening unto Eve’s voice instead of the voice of the LORD God genuinely ushered sin, death, and a curse into this world, Eve’s commanded subjection to her own husband’s rule over her (Gen. 3:16) was not a curse which Jesus later allegedly redeemed wives from. Not only was Eve’s commanded subjection to Adam merely a reaffirmation of Adam’s headship which he had before sin entered into this world, but wives are still commanded to be in subjection to their own husbands’ rule over them today in relation to the New Testament.

Some examples of this truth have already been cited, and here are some additional examples of the same:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” (Col. 3:18)

“The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Tit. 2:3-5)

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.” (I Pet. 3:1-6)

In relation to the New Testament, wives are yet commanded to be obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed (Tit. 2:5), even as Sarah obeyed Abraham to the point of calling him lord (Gen. 18:12, I Pet. 3:6). However, God has never commanded any wife to obey her own husband if doing so would cause her to sin in the eyes of the Lord.

For example, the same Peter who instructed wives to be in subjection to their own husbands (I Pet. 3:1) reproved Sapphira for agreeing with her husband, Ananias, to tempt the Spirit of the Lord. Immediately thereafter, she fell down dead, as her husband had before her, in an apparent judgment from the Lord (Acts 5:1-11).

Additionally, Abigail was tremendously blessed, and many lives were spared when she behaved in a manner contrary to the wickedness of her own husband, Nabal. Whereas she was blessed, her husband was eventually slain by the LORD for his own wickedness (I Sam. 25:2-42).

In instances where wives have husbands who “obey not the word” (I Pet. 3:1) or husbands who are not truly submitted to Christ’s headship over their own lives, they need to submit themselves directly to Christ’s headship, first and foremost. While doing so, they may possibly win their husbands “without the word” (I Pet. 3:1) via “a meek and quiet spirit” (I Pet. 3:4) as they maintain a “chaste conversation coupled with fear” (I Pet. 3:2) or a chaste behavior in the fear of God.

While drawing further still from this typology which was first introduced in the book of Genesis, a typology where the husband is the head (Gen. 3:16) of his own body (Gen. 2:21-23) or of his own wife, even as Christ is the head (Eph. 5:23) of his body (Eph. 5:30) or of the church, Paul wrote elsewhere in his epistles:

“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” (Eph. 1:22-23)

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” (Col. 1:18)

“Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.” (Col. 2:18-19)

When we read such portions of scripture as these just cited, we must understand that Paul did not choose to refer to Christ as being the “head” or to Christians as being members of Christ’s “body” without a scriptural precedent for doing so. Again, that scriptural precedent was set by God himself in the beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve, the first husband and wife, and the great mystery that it typified concerning Christ and the church.

With this same exact typology in mind, here are several more places where Paul deliberately used either the word “head” or “body” to describe the relationship between Christ and the church:

“For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.” (Rom. 12:4-5)

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” (I Cor. 10:16-17)

“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body,as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (I Cor. 12:12-27)

(Continued in Part 4)

 

[Live4Him2]

(Continued from Part 3)

“There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” (Eph. 4:4-16)

“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church:” (Col. 1:24)

“And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.” (Col. 3:15)

As the antitypes of Adam, the head (Gen. 3:16), and Eve, his body (Gen. 2:21-23), Christ is the head (Eph. 1:22, 4:15, 5:23, Col. 1:18, 2:19), and the church is his body (Rom. 12:5, I Cor. 10:17, 12:12-27, Eph. 1:23, 3:6, 4:4, 12, 16, 5:23, 30, Col. 1:18, 2:19, 3:15) which is comprised of many members (Rom. 12:4, I Cor. 12:12). In relation to the members, it matters not if we are Jews or Gentiles (I Cor. 12:13) because Christ has broken down the middle wall of partition between us to make in himself of twain, Jew and Gentile, one new man (Eph. 2:14-15).

With this same Genesis account in mind, Paul additionally wrote to the saints at Corinth:

“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” (I Cor. 6:15-17)

While likening the saints at Corinth to members of Christ (I Cor. 6:15) or to members of his body (I Cor. 12:27, Eph. 5:30), Paul returned yet again to the Genesis account where “two, saith he, shall be one flesh” (Gen. 2:24, I Cor. 6:16). While doing so, he not only likened the same to Christians or those who are joined unto the Lord becoming of his flesh (Eph. 5:30), but also becoming one spirit (I Cor. 6:17) with the Lord. He did so because, as was stated earlier, the natural union between Adam and Eve, the first human beings and the first husband and wife, was a great mystery in that it was a type of God's desired spiritual union concerning Christ and the church where the two become one (Gen. 2:24, Eph. 5:31-32).

When it comes to this great mystery concerning Christ and the church, we are by no means limited to Paul’s revelation of the same. Instead, as we read the scriptures ourselves, we come to realize that throughout both the old and new testaments alike, with this same exact typology from the Genesis account in mind, the LORD is regularly depicted as being a husband (Isa. 54:5, Jer. 31:32, II Cor. 11:2, Gal. 4:27) or a bridegroom (Isa. 62:5, Mat. 9:15, 25:1-13) whereas his people are regularly depicted as being his wife (Isa. 54:1, Rev. 19:7) or his bride (Isa. 62:5, John 3:29).

Furthermore, we also come to realize that there are multiple places throughout both the old and new testaments alike where the unfaithfulness of God’s people is likened to adultery (Jer. 13:27, Ezek. 23:43, Hos. 2:2, Jas. 4:4, etc.), and this terminology similarly relates directly to the husband-and-wife relationship that was first introduced in Genesis and the great mystery concerning Christ and the church that it typifies.

In the light of everything that we have covered thus far, must not we conclude that Christ’s church was actually founded in the beginning, and not on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2, which seems to be the mainstream belief among professing Evangelical Christians?

Have not we clearly seen that Christ and the church were initially typified by Adam and Eve, the first human beings and the first husband and wife, long before the nation of Israel ever came into existence?

Have not we also clearly seen that the relationship between the LORD and his people has consistently been likened to a covenantal, marital relationship from that point forward due precisely to this typology?

Despite this reality that I've only begun to document here, there are many within professing Christendom who go so far as to insist that the church was an unknown concept in the Old Testament.

If you're listening to any of these people or, even worse, if you're one of these people yourself, then I'll tell you plainly that you need to repent.

Well, as long as this post was, it was merely an introduction to what the Bible has to say in relation to this very important question/topic.

Who has ears to hear, let them hear.

 

[Magenta]

The word church is first used in the Bible by Jesus in Matthew.

Other words may have previously alluded to it, but the word itself? Nope.

 

[Live4Him2]

The word church is first used in the Bible by Jesus in Matthew.

Other words may have previously alluded to it, but the word itself? Nope.

Hi, Magenta.

I’m sorry, but what you’ve stated here is patently false.

Please seriously consider the following TRUTHS.

In the underlying Greek of the New Testament, the word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia appears 118 times, and it is translated as “church” 115 of those times in the King James Version of the Bible which is here being cited. The 3 other times that this word appears in the underlying Greek of the New Testament, it is translated in the King James Version of the Bible as “assembly” (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1577/kjv/tr/0-1/

This minority translation actually brings out the true meaning of the word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia which itself is a compound of the two following Greek words:

1. ἐκ or ek which means “out of” or “from”.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g1537/kjv/tr/0-1/

2. καλέω or kaleō which means “to call” or “to bid”.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g2564/kjv/tr/0-1/

Yes, the Greek word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia literally refers to a called-out congregation or to a bidden assembly of people.

Well, according to scripture, when did God begin to call out his congregation or to bid his assembly?

Did he begin to do so after the New Testament was ratified in Christ's blood (Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, I Cor. 11:25), or did he begin to do so at a much earlier point in time?

In other words, was Christ’s church truly founded on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts chapter 2, which seems to be the mainstream belief, or did God actually begin to call out his congregation from the time of Adam and Eve forward?

If God has not been calling out his congregation from the time of Adam and Eve forward, then where do we place Old Testament saints like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, who were all GENTILES, and who were all justified by their saving faith in Christ (Heb. 11:4-10)?

If these and other Old Testament saints are not a part of God’s called-out congregation, or bidden assembly, or “church”, then what are they a part of?

I mean, even Stephen referred to “the church (ekklēsia) in the wilderness” in regard to Moses and the children of Israel, didn’t he?

“This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:” (Acts 7:38)

Yes, as a matter of fact, he did.

Here's another TRUTH that we all need to seriously consider.

In the third century B.C., the Hebrew Old Testament was translated into Greek by 70 (some say 72) Jewish scholars, and said translation is commonly known as the Septuagint. Citations from it are normally denoted by the Roman numerals LXX which stand for 70.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

The same underlying Greek word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia, which is regularly translated as “church” in the New Testament of our English Bibles, frequently appears in this Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament.

There, it is given as a Greek equivalent of the Hebrew words קָהֵל or qahal and עֵדָה or `edah, which themselves are regularly translated as “congregation”, “company”, “assembly”, or “multitude” in our English Bibles.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6951/kjv/wlc/0-1/

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5712/kjv/wlc/0-1/

If you follow this link, then you will be given some examples of where this Greek word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia appears in the Septuagint:

http://olsenpark.com/Sermons07/CongregationOfTheLord.html

Seeing how this word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia referred to a called-out congregation or to a bidden assembly in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament which PRECEDED the writing of the New Testament, must not we strongly consider that this word was meant to be understood in the same manner by the writers of the New Testament which was written in Greek as well?

Keep in mind that many of the quotes from the Old Testament which appear in the New Testament are quotes which have been taken directly from the Greek Septuagint as opposed to the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.

For example, Genesis 2:24, which is a major foundational text in relation to everything that I covered in my post about the church earlier today, was apparently quoted from the Greek Septuagint by both Jesus and Paul as opposed to being quoted from the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text.

First, here is how this verse is translated into English from the Hebrew Masoretic text:

https://biblehub.com/text/genesis/2-24.htm

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24)

Now, notice how both Jesus and Paul quoted the same from the Greek Septuagint:

https://www.studylight.org/interlinear-study-bible/greek/genesis/2-24.html

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?” (Mat. 19:4-5)

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Mark 10:7-8)

“What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.” (I Cor. 6:16)

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.” (Eph. 5:31)

Whereas the English translation of Genesis 2:24 from the Hebrew Masoretic text reads “they shall be one flesh”, the English translation of the same from the Greek Septuagint adds the word “twain” or “two” in that it reads “they twain shall be one flesh” (Matt. 19:5, Mark 10:8) or “they two shall be one flesh” (I Cor. 6:16, Eph. 5:31).

Not only did both Jesus and Paul apparently quote this text from the Greek Septuagint, but Jesus also prefaced his quote with the question “Have ye not read?” (Matt. 19:4) in Matthew’s account.

Apparently, Jesus expected his audience to be as familiar with this Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures as he was.

With such apparently being the case, is it not reasonable to assume that both Jesus and the writers of the New Testament were also quite familiar with how the Greek word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia was used in the Septuagint?

Is it not also equally as reasonable to assume that the writers of the New Testament attributed the same meaning to this Greek word there that it previously had in the Old Testament which is that of a called-out congregation or a bidden assembly?

Not only was the church initially instituted by God, in type, in the beginning with Adam and Eve, but the same also PRECEDED the founding of the nation of Israel by at least 2,183 years as can easily be determined by examining the genealogies given to us in the Bible.

With such being the case, there is yet another question that we must ask ourselves:

How could the church have possibly replaced or superseded the nation of Israel in relation to God’s covenantal promises when it actually PRECEDED the nation of Israel by at least 2,183 years?

Sad to say, it is safe to assume that many will cry “REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY!” or “SUPERSESSIONISM!” in response to everything that has been covered in my posts on this topic so far.

Simply put, both “replacement theology” and “supersessionism” teach that the church has “replaced” or “superseded” the nation of Israel in relation to God’s covenantal promises.

Again, how could the church have possibly replaced or superseded that which it actually PRECEDED by at least 2,183 years?

Ironically, it is those who will cry “replacement theology” or “supersessionism” when they read this who are the ones who are truly guilty of the same. Yes, they are the ones who are truly guilty of replacing or superseding the ekklēsia, or called-out congregation, or bidden assembly, or church with the nation of Israel that came at least 2,183 years later.

Anyhow, according to scripture, the earliest believers in Christ were all GENTILES like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham in that they all lived and died before there was ever a natural Israelite or Jew upon the face of this earth. Again, the first Israelite doesn’t appear on the scene until at least 2,183 years from Adam or until the time that God changed Jacob’s (Jacob was a SYRIAN at the time) name to “Israel”. Of course, Jacob ultimately fathered 12 sons who became known as the twelve tribes of Israel, and his fourth son was Judah, from which we derive our English word “Jew”.

THIS IS THE TRUTH.

Who has ears to hear, let them hear.

 

[Magenta]

In the underlying Greek of the New Testament, the word ἐκκλησία or ekklēsia appears 118 times, and it is translated as “church” 115 of those times in the King James Version of the Bible which is here being cited. The 3 other times that this word appears in the underlying Greek of the New Testament, it is translated in the King James Version of the Bible as “assembly” (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).

Are any of those times preceding the gospel of Matthew?

 

[Live4Him2]

Are any of those times preceding the gospel of Matthew?

"Any of those times" in the underlying Greek of the New Testament?

No.

PLENTY OF TIMES, however, in the underlying Greek of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) which not only PRECEDED the writing of the New Testament, but which was also regularly cited by not only the writers of the New Testament themselves, but also by Jesus Christ himself.

If you understand that the word ekklēsia literally means a called-out congregation or a bidden assembly, even as I've already shown, then passages of scripture such as the following take on a much more informed meaning:

Matthew chapter 22

[1] And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,
[2] The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
[3] And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come.
[4] Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.
[5] But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:
[6] And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.
[7] But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.
[8] Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.
[9] Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.
[10] So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.
[11] And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
[12] And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
[13] Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[14] For many are called, but few are chosen.

Contextually, those who were "bidden" who "would not come" and, therefore, "were not worthy" (vss. 3-8) were the unbelieving Israelites/Jews. Yes, God ultimately "burned up their city" in his wrath (vs. 7).

My point?

This "bidding" or "calling" (vs. 14) was God "bidding" or "calling" them to be a part of THE CHURCH, or the ekklēsia, or the called-out congregation, or the bidden assembly.

In other words, in reality, THE CHURCH is seen everywhere in the Old Testament which PRECEDED the New Testament.

 

[Magenta]

"Any of those times" in the underlying Greek of the New Testament?

No.

PLENTY OF TIMES, however, in the underlying Greek of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) which not only PRECEDED the writing of the New Testament, but which was also regularly cited by not only the writers of the New Testament themselves, but also by Jesus Christ himself.

If you understand that the word ekklēsia literally means a called-out congregation or a bidden assembly, even as I've already shown, then passages of scripture such as the following take on a much more informed meaning:

I am not talking about any other word or word meaning or association with any
other word besides the actual word "church." I thought I was clear about that.

 

[Live4Him2]

I am not talking about any other word or word meaning or association with any
other word besides the actual word "church." I thought I was clear about that.

It's not "any other word".

Again, in both instances, whether it be in the Old Testament scriptures in the Greek Septuagint which PRECEDED the Greek New Testament, or whether it be in the Greek New Testament which SUCCEEDED the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint, the same exact word ekklēsia is used.

 

[Magenta]

It's not "any other word".

Again, in both instances, whether it be in the Old Testament scriptures in the Greek Septuagint which PRECEDED the Greek New Testament, or whether it be in the Greek New Testament which SUCCEEDED the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint, the same exact word ekklēsia is used.

Why did the KJV change it?

 

[Live4Him2]

Why did the KJV change it?

"Change it" how?

In the underlying Greek text of both the Old Testament Septuagint and the New Testament, it is the same exact word.

The KJV translates it into English as "church" in relation to New Testament believers, and it similarly translates Moses' interactions with the congregation or assembly of Israelites in the wilderness as "church" (Acts 7:38).

 

[Roughsoul1991]

"Change it" how?

In the underlying Greek text of both the Old Testament Septuagint and the New Testament, it is the same exact word.

The KJV translates it into English as "church" in relation to New Testament believers, and it similarly translates Moses' interactions with the congregation or assembly of Israelites in the wilderness as "church" (Acts 7:38).

Like many Hebrew or Greek words the English language has multiple diffrent words to reflect the intention of the reader versus how for example, the word day in Hebrew has multiple meanings or uses. It is based in context to what is being referred and even then modern translators still debate over which translation is best.

Ekklesia was used for church most often in the new testament it is also translated as assembly or an assembly to discuss legal matters.

Only in context do we see the difference in the assembly of Christians and Israel especially when you add in the different promises to the Gentiles/remnant Jews or to Israel who has been partly blinded to the truth.

 

[Live4Him2]

Like many Hebrew or Greek words the English language has multiple diffrent words to reflect the intention of the reader versus how for example, the word day in Hebrew has multiple meanings or uses. It is based in context to what is being referred and even then modern translators still debate over which translation is best.

Ekklesia was used for church most often in the new testament it is also translated as assembly or an assembly to discuss legal matters.

Only in context do we see the difference in the assembly of Christians and Israel especially when you add in the different promises to the Gentiles/remnant Jews or to Israel who has been partly blinded to the truth.

In context, Luke used the same exact underlying Greek word "ekklēsia" to describe the called-out congregation or bidden assembly of New Testament believers (Acts 2:47, 5:11, 8:1, 3, 9:31, 11:22, 26, 12:1, 5, 13:1, 14:23, 27, 15:3-4, 22, 41, 16:5, 18:22, 20:17, 28) and "the church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38) or the called-out congregation or bidden assembly of Israelites in the time of Moses.

Why then should we see a difference between the two...especially when this same exact underlying Greek word is used in the Septuagint to describe the called-out congregation or bidden assembly in the Old Testament?

The correct answer is that we shouldn't.

I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you mentioned "the different promises to the Gentiles/remnant Jews or to Israel who has been partly blinded to the truth", so I cannot comment on that right now.

Would you care to elaborate?

Thanks.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The KJV translates it into English as "church" in relation to New Testament believers, and it similarly translates Moses' interactions with the congregation or assembly of Israelites in the wilderness as "church" (Acts 7:38).

Your attempt to equate the UNBELIEVING AND REBELLIOUS congregation of Israelites in the wilderness with the Church is nonsensical.

The KJV translators perpetrated a huge blunder in Acts 7:38 and used the word "church" for "congregation". That should never have been the case. These same people perished in the wilderness as sinners and rebels and are on their way to Hell. Not so the Church.

As to the question in the title, it should be obvious that (a) Israel came before the Church and (b) the truth of the Church (redeemed Jews and Gentiles in one Body which is the Body of Christ) was in fact a mystery hidden from the OT prophets, and only revealed to the apostle Paul.

EPHESIANS 3: THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH REVEALED TO PAUL
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same Body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God,

 

[Live4Him2]

Your attempt to equate the UNBELIEVING AND REBELLIOUS congregation of Israelites in the wilderness with the Church is nonsensical.

lol.

You'll need more than bold-faced letters and capitalized words to refute any of the truths which I've presented here thus far.

The KJV translators perpetrated a huge blunder in Acts 7:38 and used the word "church" for "congregation". That should never have been the case. These same people perished in the wilderness as sinners and rebels and are on their way to Hell. Not so the Church.

Says you.

Contrary to your own nonsensical claim, there was no "huge blunder" at all.

Again, it's the same exact underlying Greek word "ekklēsia" that Luke used to describe the called-out congregation of New Testament believers and those in the called-out congregation in the time of Moses.

Furthermore, as I've already rightly stated here more than once, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which PRECEDED the Greek writing of the New Testament, the same exact word "ekklēsia" is used to describe the same.

As far as all of these people allegedly being "on their way to hell" is concerned, you might want to rethink that.

In other words, although there truly were many rebels amongst them who perished, there were also those who did what was right in God's eyes.

Let's look again at what Stephen said in the book of Acts:

Acts chapter 7

[38] This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
[39] To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
[40] Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
[41] And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

Were there those in that called-out congregation who "would not obey", and whose "hearts turned back again into Egypt", and who "made a calf in those days"?

Absolutely, BUT that's not the entire story.

In other words, there were also those like the Levites who brought swift vengeance upon the same:

Exodus chapter 32

[26] Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
[27] And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
[28] And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
[29] For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

Yes, the Levites were clearly "on the LORD's side", and they brought swift justice upon those who had sinned in making the golden calf in order that God might "bestow upon you a blessing this day".

In fact, it is precisely because of what the Levites did that day that the LORD chose them to be his priests:

Malachi chapter 2

[4] And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
[5] My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

With such being the case, don't be so hasty in your judgments as to who allegedly went to hell...especially when God himself gave some of them a "covenant...of life and peace".

As to the question in the title, it should be obvious that (a) Israel came before the Church and (b) the truth of the Church (redeemed Jews and Gentiles in one Body which is the Body of Christ) was in fact a mystery hidden from the OT prophets, and only revealed to the apostle Paul.

EPHESIANS 3: THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH REVEALED TO PAUL
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same Body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God,

Actually, the only thing that is "obvious" here is that you don't understand the Apostle Paul's use of the word "mystery" or "mystērion" in the underlying Greek text.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3466/kjv/tr/0-1/

In other words, Paul didn't use the word "mystery" as in something that nobody knew...as in an unsolved murder where the murderer is a "mystery" or unknown.

Instead, he regularly used this word in relation to "mystery religions" in which only the initiated understood certain things.

I'll be happy to prove my assertion from scripture if need be.

 

[Live4Him2]

EPHESIANS 3: THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH REVEALED TO PAUL
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same Body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel:
7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God,

I let you off the hook too easily in my last response.

As far as Gentiles being fellowheirs is concerned, as I've rightly pointed out in a previous post here, ALL OF THE EARLY BELIEVERS FROM THE TIME OF ADAM UNTIL THE TIME THAT THE NATION OF ISRAEL WAS FORMED CLOSE T0 2200 YEARS LATER WERE GENTILES.

You might as well say "AMEN!" because it's true.

Abel?

Gentile.

Enoch?

Gentile.

Noah?

Gentile.

Abraham (don't faint)?

Gentile.

Again, these GENTILE BELIEVERS all lived and died before God ever changed Jacob's (who was a SYRIAN at that time) name to "Israel", before his twelve sons were born who became known as the twelve tribes of Israel, and before Judah was born from whose name we derive the word "Jew".

All irrefutable truths...for those who actually believe the Bible and haven't been indoctrinated into truly nonsensical and heretical belief systems like that of "Dispensationalism".

 

[Roughsoul1991]

÷

In context, Luke used the same exact underlying Greek word "ekklēsia" to describe the called-out congregation or bidden assembly of New Testament believers (Acts 2:47, 5:11, 8:1, 3, 9:31, 11:22, 26, 12:1, 5, 13:1, 14:23, 27, 15:3-4, 22, 41, 16:5, 18:22, 20:17, 28) and "the church in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38) or the called-out congregation or bidden assembly of Israelites in the time of Moses.

Why then should we see a difference between the two...especially when this same exact underlying Greek word is used in the Septuagint to describe the called-out congregation or bidden assembly in the Old Testament?

The correct answer is that we shouldn't.

I'm not exactly sure what you meant when you mentioned "the different promises to the Gentiles/remnant Jews or to Israel who has been partly blinded to the truth", so I cannot comment on that right now.

Would you care to elaborate?

Thanks.

I understand that our interpretation will have us look at the church and Israel differently as you do see the truth in dispensations, pre-trib rapture and then comes the focus on Israel with the Kingdom to come like referenced in,


Acts 1:6-7
New International Version
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

As we have already interacted on the subject that will divide our view on eschatology that will also divide the difference between the church and Israel. Which may be the reason why some may want Israel and the Church to be of the same.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

lol.

You'll need more than bold-faced letters and capitalized words to refute any of the truths which I've presented here thus far.

Says you.

Contrary to your own nonsensical claim, there was no "huge blunder" at all.

Again, it's the same exact underlying Greek word "ekklēsia" that Luke used to describe the called-out congregation of New Testament believers and those in the called-out congregation in the time of Moses.

Furthermore, as I've already rightly stated here more than once, in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which PRECEDED the Greek writing of the New Testament, the same exact word "ekklēsia" is used to describe the same.

As far as all of these people allegedly being "on their way to hell" is concerned, you might want to rethink that.

In other words, although there truly were many rebels amongst them who perished, there were also those who did what was right in God's eyes.

Let's look again at what Stephen said in the book of Acts:

Acts chapter 7

[38] This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
[39] To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
[40] Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
[41] And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands.

Were there those in that called-out congregation who "would not obey", and whose "hearts turned back again into Egypt", and who "made a calf in those days"?

Absolutely, BUT that's not the entire story.

In other words, there were also those like the Levites who brought swift vengeance upon the same:

Exodus chapter 32

[26] Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
[27] And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
[28] And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
[29] For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

Yes, the Levites were clearly "on the LORD's side", and they brought swift justice upon those who had sinned in making the golden calf in order that God might "bestow upon you a blessing this day".

In fact, it is precisely because of what the Levites did that day that the LORD chose them to be his priests:

Malachi chapter 2

[4] And ye shall know that I have sent this commandment unto you, that my covenant might be with Levi, saith the LORD of hosts.
[5] My covenant was with him of life and peace; and I gave them to him for the fear wherewith he feared me, and was afraid before my name.

With such being the case, don't be so hasty in your judgments as to who allegedly went to hell...especially when God himself gave some of them a "covenant...of life and peace".


Actually, the only thing that is "obvious" here is that you don't understand the Apostle Paul's use of the word "mystery" or "mystērion" in the underlying Greek text.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g3466/kjv/tr/0-1/

In other words, Paul didn't use the word "mystery" as in something that nobody knew...as in an unsolved murder where the murderer is a "mystery" or unknown.

Instead, he regularly used this word in relation to "mystery religions" in which only the initiated understood certain things.

I'll be happy to prove my assertion from scripture if need be.

3466 mystḗrion (the root of the English term, "mystery") – mystery. In the Bible, a "mystery" (3466 /mystḗrion) is not something unknowable. Rather, it is what can only be known through revelation, i.e. because God reveals it.

 

[Live4Him2]

3466 mystḗrion (the root of the English term, "mystery") – mystery. In the Bible, a "mystery" (3466 /mystḗrion) is not something unknowable. Rather, it is what can only be known through revelation, i.e. because God reveals it.

I'm perfectly fine with this definition, and I think that it's brought out perfectly here:

I Corinthians chapter 2

[1] And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
[2] For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
[3] And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
[4] And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
[5] That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
[6] Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
[7] But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
[8] Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
[9] 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.
[10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
[13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
[15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Are we foolish enough to believe that Old Testament saints didn't have any of the Bible's "mysteries" revealed to them by the Spirit of God?

For example, did any Old Testament saints foresee Christ's resurrection by the Spirit of God?

Of course, they did.

Here is but one of many examples that I could give:

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. " (Psalm 110:1)

And here is what Jesus Christ had to say about the same:

Matthew chapter 22

[41] While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
[42] Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
[43] He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
[44] The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[45] If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
[46] And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

David, "in spirit", or by Divine revelation, not only called Jesus "Lord", but he also foresaw Christ's resurrection and ascension back to heaven ("Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool").

Along these same lines, we read:

Acts chapter 2

[22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
[23] Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
[24] Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
[25] For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
[26] Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
[27] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
[28] Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
[29] Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.
[30] Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
[31] He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

My point?

Well, although Christ's crucifixion truly was a "mystery" to many (I Cor. 2:7-8), at the same time, there were many, like David, who foresaw the same by the Spirit of God.

Again, Paul's use of the word "mystery" in his epistles does NOT mean something that nobody knew.

Instead, he used it repeatedly in the sense of "mystery religions" in which only the initiated knew and understood certain things.

David was one of those initiated, and so were many other Old Testament saints who had things revealed unto them by the Spirit of God which others didn't understand.

Hopefully, this makes sense.