must retain the simpler idea of `word', `saying' or `discourse' in verse 1. Logos is translated `account' in Hebrews

13:17 and again in Philippians 4:17. To translate arche `principles' is a double violation of its meaning. It is

singular in number, whereas the A.V. and the R.V. render it by the plural, and in every other occurrence of the word

in Hebrews it is rendered either by `first' or `beginning'. If we use the word `account' here in Hebrews 6:1 we read:

`Leaving the account (narrative or treatise) of the beginning of Christ'.

it may turn us to the opening of the Acts of the Apostles. Green translates the passage `The former account I

composed, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach', and this leads us to the Gospel by Luke.

Here we arrive at something tangible.  The Gospel narratives are a beginning, their sequel, `perfection' or

completion must be sought elsewhere. Where we are speaking of Israel, the Hebrews, perfection will be found in

the New Covenant. The exhortation of Hebrews 6:1 does not speak of the present calling of the church of the

Mystery, although, any believing Hebrew, who went all the way with the apostle in this epistle, would find no

barrier that prevented him from taking the step of faith to pass through the broken middle wall and to find himself a

member of the One Body. That however is not visualized here.

To all believers whose pasture is mainly the Gospels, we would say `go on'. The Lord Himself told His

disciples that He had many things to say which could not be imparted unto them until the Holy Spirit was given, and

promised that then He would guide them into `All Truth' (John 16:13), and that moreover, this complete body of

truth would have as its outstanding characteristic the glorifying of the Saviour, and anything new that might be thus

revealed would still be, He said, taking of Mine and showing it to you. What is true of a foundation is true also of a

house. A foundation that is never built upon, or is continually being relaid, taken up and put down is not a

foundation at all. `Whose house are we, IF' which implies continuance and endurance until the end be attained. If

we receive the elementary doctrines of Christ, but never build upon them, these doctrines will never be, so far as we

are concerned, a foundation.

Those familiar with our publications are aware that we translate the Greek of Ephesians 1:4 pro kataboles

kosmou `before the overthrow of the world', and some who endorse this translation would read Hebrews 6:1

similarly `Not overthrowing again a foundation'. The two passages are however not quite comparable. There is no

word for foundation in Ephesians 1:4, but in addition to kataballo, Hebrews 6:1 uses the word themelion, which

does mean a foundation (Eph. 2:20). Bloomfield, commenting on Erhard's rendering `not demolishing', says `Not

demolishing is forbidden by the usus loquendi, for I cannot find a single example of the middle form in the sense "to

demolish", but only in the sense of jacere "to lay down" whether in a literal or figurative sense'. While therefore we

leave the new translation of Ephesians 1:4 unimpaired, for the actual word `foundation' is not used there, we can and

must endorse the translation of the A.V. of Hebrews 6:1 `not laying again'.

Paul was not the founder of this company. Peter, not Paul, is the apostle of the circumcision, and the foundation

had been laid by him and his associates. Paul had however exercised his privilege as a private believer, and a

Hebrew by race, to write to the dispersion, as Peter himself acknowledged in 2 Peter 3:15,16, and as no other such

epistle than Hebrews is known to us, we cannot help but believe that it is to this epistle that Peter refers. Peter uses

the figure of blindness as a consequence upon forgetfulness (2 Pet. 1:9), and urges his reader to make his calling and

election sure. He directs his reader to the `honour and glory' that Christ as `The Beloved Son' received on the

Mount. The dissolution of heaven and earth of 2 Peter 3, finds an echo in the shaking of heaven and earth in

Hebrews 12. The preservation through it all, indicated in 2 Peter 3:13, finds its parallel in the kingdom that cannot

be shaken of Hebrews 12:28. The doctrines that the Hebrew believers were not to lay over again, but leave in order

to go on unto perfection are six in number, and these we must now consider.

We have seen that in order to go on unto perfection or full growth certain fundamentals, called `the word of the

beginning of Christ' must be left, that it is not reasonable to keep on laying again a foundation, but to proceed to the

related building. The sixfold foundation we set out here, as an introduction to their examination: