 |  |
chastisement upon evil, and in the Hiphil* is translated "to bring evil", "to afflict" and
"to punish" (Jer. 25: 29; 31: 28; Zech. 8: 14). On the other hand the Hithpolel is
translated "must show himself friendly" (Prov. 18: 24), so that the affliction, though it
seem evil, is for good. The word translated "ruler" in Micah 5: 2 is the Hebrew mashal,
which not only means to rule, to govern, or to have dominion, but "to speak or to use,
parables or proverbs" (Ezek. 17: 2; 24: 3) and so suggests the ruling of a people by
wisdom and warning. It may be that Peter knew this double meaning, and the association
of rule or dominion with the idea of a shepherd, and to save the overseers from a false
assumption of power, he said:
"Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by
constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords
over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock" (I Pet. 5: 2, 3).
[NOTE: * - These terms and others used in concordances, etc., are indications concerning
the "voice", "mood" and "tense" of Hebrew verbs. While the reader need not burden himself
with these terms, he should on the other hand avoid acceptance of dogmatic assertions based
merely upon a list of words. For instance, the comparison of Hiphel (causative) with say the
Niphal (or middle voice) would lead to erroneous deductions.]
With these facts in mind, we can the better appreciate the meaning of the Apostle in
his exhortation to the elders of Ephesus. The R.V. has the marginal note against the
words "church of God": "Many ancient authorities read, the Lord."
From one angle, it makes very little difference to us whether the Apostle called the
church, "the church of God" or "the church of the Lord", but it is of importance to us to
see to it that we do not allow the displacement of one single word of inspired Scripture
and especially in a passage that has to do with the Person of the Saviour. If the word
kuriou, "Lord", had occurred in the original it is difficult to understand why anyone
should alter it to read Theou, "God", for the statement, "which He hath purchased by His
Own blood". In the early church there were also many who held Arian and Socinian
views who would have exposed the alteration in one of their writings or controversies. If
Theou, "God", was the original word, Alford says:
"But one reason can be given why it should have been altered to Kuriou, and that one
was sure to be operated. It would stand as a bulwark against Arianism*, an assertion
which no skill could evade, which must therefore be modified. If Theou stood in the text
originally, it was sure to be altered to Kuriou."
[NOTE: * - Named after Arius, of the ivth century, who
taught that the Son was created by the Father.]
Further, there is no other instance in the writings of Paul, where he speaks of the
"church of the Lord", whereas the title the "church of God" is frequently used. We have
already demonstrated that Paul's speech recorded in Acts 20: abounds in Pauline
expressions, and this fact has some weight with us now. It is unsettling for the English
reader to be told in the margin of the R.V. about "many ancient authorities". It might
mean much or little, but inasmuch as the Revisers themselves failed to find sufficient
evidence to make an alteration, the marginal note seems to us a disturbing intrusion. We