Restoration
Quarterly Home

Archives

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000s

Issues
in Stock

Articles
Online

Comments

Current
Contents

Submission

erratum

Subscribe

Search
Restoration Quarterly:

Vol. 2 No. 4 (1958): 154-63

The Jewish Background of the Church

Jack P. Lewis

The Jewish background of the church will be considered in
this paper firstly from lexical contributions; secondly from the
contributions of selected doctrinal concepts; and thirdly from the
contributions of institutions.

I. The Lexical Background of Ekklesia:1

Already prior to the choice of the word ekklesia, or its
equivalent in Aramaic, by Jesus to designate his people (Mt. 16:18;
18:17),2 the word which to the Greek connoted an assembly regardless
of its purpose,3 had a religious history. The LXX translators
had chosen ekklesia primarily to render qahal in about one
hundred cases. The choice is probably due to the tendency of the
translators to choose a Greek word with a like sound and etymology to the
Hebrew word.4 Neither qahal nor ekklesia occur in
the plural in the O. T. except for Ps. 25[26]12 and 67[68]26 where
ekklesia is plural. Only in four instances does ekklesia
render another word than qahal: 1 Sam. 19: 20; Neh. 5: 7; Ps. 26:
12; 68: 27; but in the latter three of these it renders a word from the
same root as qahal.

However the LXX translators did not feel the need of absolute
uniformity in the rendering of a word, therefore qahal is at times
also rendered sunagogue. This is particularly observable in the
first four books of Moses where ekklesia was not used by them at
all. In sixteen instances in the later books of the Bible sunagogue
renders qahal.

Sunagogue was also used by the LXX to render 'edah which
means an assembly regardless of its nature. However, there are some
instances in which it seems clearly to designate a religious
community.5

For all practical purposes, no clear distinction is to be made for the
early period between qahal and 'edah or ekklesia and
sunagogue. The people of the Old Testament may be known by either term
(cf. Acts 7 :38) . The Christian people may use either of the Gk. terms as
a self-designation.6 About the middle of the first century
A.D., both qahal and 'edah ceased to be used and Kenneset
takes their place. This term, which does not occur in the O.T., also means
a congregation.7 In due time the Greek Jews came to prefer
snnagogue and ekklesia came to be used less frequently. Burton
suggests that ekklesia was rejected by Jews because of a desire to
distinguish Jewish from secular assemblies. Then in turn Christians,
wishing to distinguish themselves from Jewish assemblies, came to reject
sunagogue.8 This may have happened, but evidence to establish
or disprove is lacking.

[154] Looking more closely, we learn that qnhal used by itself in the
O.T. means an actual assembly or meeting of some kind, which need by no
means be a religious assembly.9 Qahal is, however at
times, used in connection with a religious assembly. The clearest
instances are Deut. 4:10; 9:10; 10:4; and 18:16.

Further defined in a genitive construction, a qahal may be of
the sons of Israel (Num. 14:5); of Israel (Lev. 16:17; Deut. 31:30; Josh.
8:35; 1 Kings 8:14,55; 8:22; 12:3; 1 Chron. 13:2; 2 Chron. 6: 3, 12, 13);
of people (Gen. 28:3; 48.4; Jer. 26:17; Ezek. 23:24; 32: 3; Ps. i07.32);
of nations (Jer. 50:9; Gen. 35:11); of evil doers {Ps. 26:5); of Judah (2
Chron. 30:25; 2 Chron. 20:5); of people of God (Judges 20:2); a holy
congregation (Ps. 89:6); an assembly of faithful (Ps. 149:1); of the dead
(Prov. 21:16); of exiles (Ezra 10:8). Or it may be an assembly of the
congregation of Israel, in which case 'edah and qahal are
both used (Ex. 12:6; Num. 14:5). There are also other uses with personal
pronouns, not religious in character.

The phrase qehal adonai or its equivalent occurs in seven
passages in the O.T. in contexts which designate the religious community
of Israel (Num. 16:3; 20:4; 1 Chron. 28:8; Deut. 23:1-9 (6 cases); Neh.
13:1; Lam. 1:10; Micah 2:5). A problem immediately presents itself whether
qahal thus qualified retains its ordinary meaning of an assembly in
which case only a service of worship would be spoken of, or whether it
designates the people of God as a whole whether assembled or not. Does
qahal ever mean a community even though not assembled as we have
seen is true of 'edah? If not, then these passages may antecede
such an idea as that of 1 Cor. 11:18 where "church" seems to refer to a
worship service; however they would not explain other aspects of the N.T.
idea, for no one would contend that the ekklesia goes out of
existence when the meeting breaks up.10

One is tempted to find in the phrase qehal adonai the antecedent
of the phrase ekklesia Kuriou (cf. Acts 20:28; however note that
LXX has sunagogue in the relevant O.T. passage, Ps. 73[74].2) or
the phrase ekklesia Theou which occurs nine times in the N.T. But
when he turns to the LXX, he discovers that two of the O.T. passages (Num.
16:3; 20:4) are rendered sunagogue Kuriou. It is not likely that
they would have suggested the phrase to the N.T. writers. While it is true
that ekklesia is used in the other passages, one is still faced
with the question: Do they mean a community, or do they merely mean an
assembly?

We are not helped a great deal in this problem by a study of Jewish
materials around the N.T. period. The Qumran community used qahal
very sparingly in the non-Biblical materials that have thus far been
published. An examination of the relevant passages reveals that they
classify themselves into the familiar groups of O.T. usage, [156] showing
that for this community the word had not assumed a distinctive technical
meaning:

1. There are the non-religious usages: The military opposition to the
wars of the children of Light is so designated that the congregation of
the human is contrasted with the divine (I Q. M. 1:10). There is the
throng of Gog (I Q. M. 11:16); the hosts of opposition (I Q. M. 15:10);
the hordes of heathen gathered for extermination (I Q. M. 14:5; cf. use in
Ezekiel for enemy armies); and the hordes of the wicked (I Q. Thanksgiving
Song 2: 12): 2. A religious gathering for worship seems indicated in the
passage "where men foregather, I will call thee blessed." (I Q. Thanks
giving Song 2 :30). 3. There is a doubtful case in the Manual of
Discipline (7:20) where qahal is stricken out and msqh is
written above the line. 4. This leaves only two cases demanding more
careful consideration: "Assembly of God (Qehal el)" is the name on
the sixth banner along with names "armies of God" and the "called of God"
on the other banners (I Q. M. 4: 10) . The unclean man may not enter the
"congregation of El" (I Q. Sam. 2:4); we assume elh is an error for
el). Closely related to these are cases previously known from the
Cairo Damascus Covenant: "When the trumpets of the congregation sound"
(CDC. 11:22); and a man who profanes the Sabbath shall not come into the
congregation for seven years (CDC. 12:6; cf. 15:17; and perhaps 14:18
where the text is defective). In these materials one is still faced with
the problem of whether these are worship assemblies or standing
designations for the general community. Is there any ground for thinking
that an Israel within Israel is intended?

The Greek Jewish writers do not reflect that it had become customary in
pre-Christian times to speak dogmatically of the "Church of Israel." Such
usage is not to be found in either Philo or Josephus.11 One
reads of a Jewish group, "The assembly," in Jerusalem (I Macc. 14:19), but
in other books in the Apocrypha ekklesia is clearly used for
gatherings other than for worship. Ben Sira used the word twelve times. A
few times it is for a group of worshippers (50:13, 20); but elsewhere it
is for other gatherings (e.g. 26:5; 38:33). It is possible, but not
certain that the congregation which declares alms (31:11) may refer to
more than to one particular meeting. Of more interest, however, is the
phrase "in the congregation" (21:17; 38:33); "in the congregation of the
Most High" (24:2) which might well describe a worship meeting to be
compared to "in the church" (1 Cor. 11:18).12

We conclude then, that ekklesia in Judaism may well refer to
assemblies for worship and other purposes, but as a designation for a
standing community the evidence is not forthcoming. This concept is a
contribution of Christianity.

[157] II. Religious Concepts Forming the Jewish Background of the
Church:

The church arose from the bosom of first century Judaism. Its earliest
members were Jews. In common with that Judaism the church retained a
belief in the one God (cf. Rom. 9:1-6; 3:29); in the O.T. Scriptures (I
Cor. 9:10; 10:1ff; 15:3; Rom. 15:4); and in the Messiah. But these and
many well known items as well as details of typology we pass over for the
present to note only a few important concepts that lie back of the
doctrine of the church.

A. The People of God (Cf. Judg. 5:11).13

The doctrine of election in the O.T. serves to explain the paradox that
the God and creator of the universe can have a chosen people (Deut.l0:14).
Out of all the peoples of the earth, God has chosen (bahar) Israel as his
own. Two stages are observable in the choice. First he chose Abraham (Neh.
9:7; Ps. 105:5-10,43); but he has also chosen Israel out of Egypt (Deut.
4:20; Ez. 20:5; Hos. 11:1) to be a special people (Deut. 7:6; 14:2).

The fact of the choice is continuously affirmed, especially. in those
sections of the Bible dealing with the exile when despair threatened as
the people wailed: "We are clean cut off"; or in sections where others
said they had been cut, off (Isa. 41:8; 44:1, 2; 49:7; Jer. 33 :24; cf.
Deut. 7:6). The election is set forth in such figures as marriage (Hos.
1-3; Jer. 2:1-7; Ez. 16; 23; Isa. 50:1; 54:5); and in the Father and son
relationship (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1). Israel had become God's portion, the
apple of His eye (Deut. 32:8ff).

The basis upon which the choice had been made gave the O.T. writers
more difficulty. It is denied that Israel was chosen because of her
numbers or greatness (Deut. 7:7, 8). Nor was it because of her goodness or
merit (Deut. 9 :4, 5). The most clear answer is that God chose Israel
because God loved the fathers (Deut. 10:15; 4:37); or to keep His promise
made to the fathers (Deut. 7:8; 9:5). Elsewhere God chose them for His own
sake or the sake of His name (Ps. 106:8); or that he loved Israel with no
reason given (Deut. 7 :7). God did not choose Israel because he needed
her. He was free to reject her (Num. 14:12; Ex. 32:14).

Despite the fact that the choice was not conditioned on past merit,
there were conditions for Israel to meet if she were to continue in God's
choice. She must choose God (Joshua 24:14-24); she must love God (Deut.
6:5); and she must obey and keep the covenant (Ex. 19:4-6; Deut. 8:6-11),
The O.T. does not know the idea of the Apocrypha that the world was
created for Israel (Ass. Mos. 1:12; cf. Hermas, Vis. 2:4:1). Hers
was a place of responsibility. She only had been known of God; and for
this reason, in her unfaithfulness, her sin must be visited upon her (Amos
3:2).

The writers of the N.T. adopt the idea of a chosen people from the
G.T., but deny that this position is dependent on the flesh. "The [158]
kingdom is taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth fruits
thereof (Matt. 21 :43)." Israel after the flesh is contrasted with the
Israel of God (1 Cor. 10:18; Gal. 6:16). Natural branches were broken off
(Rom. 11:17ff). There are those who say they are Jews, but are not (Rev.
2:9; 3:9).

All that Israel had from God, the church has through Christ. They are
the sojourners of the dispersion (1 Pet. 1:1) ; the twelve tribes of the
dispersion (Jas. 1:1). The titles of privilege are theirs: a chosen race
(1 Pet. 2:9: Isa. 43:20, 21: d. II Bar. 48.20; IV Ezra 5:23); a royal
priesthood (Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9: Rev. 1:6; a holy nation (Deut.7:6). For
this reason its members are called "saints": Rom. 1:7; 12:13; 1 Cor. 1:2:
2 Cor. 9:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:12; Phile. 5; 1 Thess. 3:13; 2 Thess. 1:10:
c. Eph. 2:19; 5:26f; Acts 20:32. The root of the idea is from Ex. 19:6;
Deut. 7:6; Ps. 89:7; 106:16; Dan. 7:18; Ps. Sol. 17:18); God's own people
(Ex. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 1 Pet. 2:9); the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2); the
household of God (1 Pet. 4:17); People of God (Rom. 9:25f); children of
God (Rom. 8:16f, 21; 9:7); Sons of God (Gal. 4:6; 2 Cor. 6:18; Rom. 8:14;
19, 29; 9:26). The church is the new Israel, the legitimate heir of the
promises of the O.T. (Gal. 6:15-17).14

B. Covenant:15

The word berith occurs in the O.T. both for relationships
between men and men and for those between God and man. God made covenants
in the time of Noah (Gen. 9:8-17) and Abraham (Gen. 17:114; Gal. 3: 15) .
But the major covenant is that one made with His chosen at Sinai (cf. Rom.
9:4; Eph. 2:12; Deut. 4:23; 1 Kings 8: 21). A berith is an
agreement made between two parties in which each are mutually bound. The
fact that the LXX chose diatheke (which may also designate a
disposition of property by a will) in 257 times, rather than
suntheke, should not hide the role of the two parties. A covenant
is validated by a ceremony (Gen. 15; J er. 34: 10f). That at Sinai is
validated by sprinkling blood on the people and the book (Ex. 24:7). The
people agree and respond to the covenant (Deut. 7:7-10). Reduced to its
simplest terms, the covenant said, "You shall be to me a people, and I
will be God to you" (Ex. 6:7: Lev. 26:12: Deut. 29:12: Jer. 7:23). This
gives the world the concept of a people bound together by a common
religion rather than by national solidarities or government.16

The prophets indict the people for having broken the covenant. In such
cases God was no longer bound. The covenant not only had its promises, but
also its threats (Jer. 11:6-10). In a sense, in the exile, God renounced
the covenant (cf. CDC. 1:1-2:2).

But just at this dark hour, Jeremiah introduced into the picture the
idea of a new covenant to be made (Jer. 31:31; Isa. 61:8; Ez. 16:60-63).
The Qumran sect, just prior to the Christian period, thought of themselves
as the heirs of this new covenant (I Q. S. 1:8, 16, etc.). They were
rebuilding the fallen tabernacle of David [159] (CDC. 7:16ff; cf. 20:13).
In reality, however, their new covenant was merely a reaffirmation and
reestablishment of the former covenant made at Sinai. It is at precisely
this point that they were different from the early church.17

The N.T. writers envisioned the church as the heir of the new covenant
promise. The cup is the New Covenant in Christ's blood (1 Cor.

11:25: Matt. 26:28). By this blood it is ratified (Heb.9). Apostles are
ministers of a new covenant-a dispensation of the spirit in contrast to
that one stone (2 Cor. 3 :3ff). The Epistle to the Hebrews twice quotes
Jer. 31:31 as fulfilled in Christ. (Heb. 8 :8-11; 10 :16, 17). The church
had not broken faith with God. It was the true heir of the covenant. The
new is essentially different from the old in that it is written on the
heart; men possess knowledge of divine things j and God is merciful toward
sins.

C. The Remnant.18

The idea that only a small portion of the nation may be faithful to
God, already to be seen in the Elijah story, is further developed in the
prophets. This remnant may be that small portion that escapes the
chastisements God sends on the nation as a whole — the legs and piece of
an ear saved from the lion (Amos 3:12); or the brand plucked from burning
(Amos 4: 11) . It is this group that is implied in the often used phrase:
"the saved remnant"; for it is left over after the calamity (Isa. 6:13:
1:9: Micah 2:12ff; 5:7ff; Ez. 9:8). It may be no more than the few
comparable to a few berries in the uppermost bough (Isa. 17:6).

It is particularly in Isaiah that the doctrine is elaborated (Is. 1:9;
4:3; 7:3: 8:18; 10:20ff; 17.4ff; 28.5: 37:31f). Isaiah named his son, "A
Remnant Shall Return" (Isa. 7 :3). It would seem that Isaiah and his
disciples formed that remnant in his day (Isa. 8: 1617). The remnant would
repent, return to God, and survive the coming calamity (Is. 10 :20-24). It
forms the seed of the new community (Isa. 8:16-18). It may be looked upon
as a purified and holy group (Isa.4:3-5).

The remnant idea may also take the frm of a "saving remnant" — the one
man who would save Jerusalem (Jer. 5:1); or the ten who could save Sodom
(Gen. 18 :32). Considered in the light of O.T. events, the remnant is to
be gathered out of exile (Jer.32:3f). Jeremiah had already identified the
exiles with the good figs — the hope of the nation — in his parable (Jer.
24:1) . When this group has been brought out of their graves (the exile),
then they will know that God has spoken (Ez. 37:12-14); thus they carry a
knowledge of God's will to a coming generation (cf. Isa. 8: 16f). The term
remnant is applied to the post exilic community by Haggai and Ezra (Hag.
1:12; 2:2; Ezra 9:8, 15).

[160] The tendency in later writings is to make the survivors a
righteous group. The wicked of the nation have been destroyed (Mal. 3:16,
17; 4:1-2). This idea is particularly carried forward in apocryphal
literature (Ps. Sol. 17:23ff; I Enoch 62:7-8; 14-16). The Damascus sect
felt themselves to be that remnant (CDC. 1:5; 3:13).19

The remnant idea makes it possible in the N.T. to distinguish between
Israel and the righteous portion of it (Rom. 9:6). To establish this
doctrine, Paul appeals to Isa. 10:22 (cf. Rom. 9:27) and to Isa. 1:9 (cf.
Rom. 9:29). In these passages from Paul the remnant is made up of those
few Jews who believe (Rom. 11:4ff). Does Paul identify the church,
irrespective of nationality, with the remnant? Justin Martyr clearly made
this identification (Dial. 32; 120), and called the church "Israel" (Dial.
135). Paul's phrase, "He is a Jew who is one inwardly" (Rom. 2:28) ; and
"born according to the spirit" (Gal. 4:29); and "the Israel of God" (Gal.
6:16) would seem to make such an identification.20 Thus the
church is continuous with True Israel, but different from disobedient
Israel. It is the faithful community to whom the promise has been given.

D. The Mission of Israel.21

Israel was chosen to be the vehicle through which all nations might be
.blessed in Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Her choice was
an election to service, especially to love and worship God (Ex. 4:22;
Deut. 7:9-16).

In the later books of the O.T. the ideal is held forth that God should
be king over all the earth (Zech. 14:9); and that his worship should be
over all the earth (Mal. 1: 11). But it is in Isaiah that we see the
mission of Israel most clearly. She is to be a "light to the nations"
(Isa. 42:6; 49:6). She is a witness to the accomplishment of the
prophecies of God; whereas idols have no witnesses that they can do either
good or evil (Isa. 44:8). Through Israel nations come to know God (Isa.
45:6). Israel was to set forth God's praise (Isa. 44:1, 2; 49:6-7). She
makes God's salvation known to the ends of the earth (Is. 49 :3-9; 42
:6-7).

These ideas of universalism are carried forward in the non-canonical
literature. God's name will be great in every place of Israel and among
the Gentiles (T. Dan. 6:7; cf. T. Levi 2:11; T. Sim. 6:5; T. Naph. 4:5).
The Son of Man is to be a light to the Gentiles (I Enoch 10:21; 48:4).

We are not surprised then, when Paul lists as first of the advantages
of the Jews that they wen' entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2);
on the other hand, it is just this work of missionary endeavour that is
assigned to the church in the N.T. God's manifold wisdom is to be made
known through the church (Eph. 3:10). She is a light to the world (Matt.
5:14). The church has considered itself bound to go into all the world
(Matt. 28:1820).

[161] III. Institutions:

A. The Temple.22

The temple and its predecessor the tabernacle furnish the church with
imagery to explain the sacrifice of Jesus and the spiritual service to be
offered God by Christians. However, it is in imagery rather than in
specific details of organization or worship that the temple stands in the
background of the church. The temple was the place where God caused his
name to dwell (Deut. 12:11; Ezra 6:12). It was the symbol of God in the
midst of his people. In its courts the early meetings of the church were
held (Acts 2:46; 3:1, 11; 5:12). The church as a spiritual house,
possessing the spirit, is a temple where God is glorified and truly
served. It has its foundation; it is built of living stones; it is a
habitation of God in the spirit (Eph. 2:19-22; cf. 1 Cor. 3:16, 17; 2 Cor.
6:16). The service of the Christian is a spiritual sacrifice (1 Pet. 2: 5;
Heb. 13: 15f).

B. Synagogue.23

Side by side with the temple in the first century stood the synagogue
with its religious instruction and its worship without sacrifice. Every
sizeable Jewish village had its synagogue where men met to read the Bible,
pray, and listen to a sermon. In these gatherings the Apostles found a
hearing for their preaching, especially outside of Palestine (Acts 13:14;
14:1; 17:1; 18:4). Early Christian worship shows more similarities to
synagogue 'worship than to temple worship.

The synagogue had its organization with apostles, servants, and elders.
Some analogy may be seen between these and the organization of early
churches. However, those who would entirely derive the organization of the
early church from the synagogue are faced with the need of explaining why
the church dropped the other officials known to the synagogue.

Conclusions:

To note the background of the church is not at an to affirm that the
disciples aimed at being only a sect within Judaism; nor is it to affirm
that there were no vital differences between the early church and the
synagogue. Judaism is not the foundation of the church. The rock of the
church is Christ (1 Cor. 10: 4). The Jew is the son of the covenant and it
is to be hoped he will recognize it (Acts 3:24-26; 2:39), for despite the
Lord's threat (Matt. 21:43), there is still an opportunity to be a
partaker of the promises. Only later is there a turning to the Gentiles.

From the beginning the church differed from Judaism in that it believed
the prophecies were fulfilled. The new age had dawned. The Messiah had
come, and that Messiah was Jesus. A man to be on the inside must confess
Jesus as Lord and be baptized. But despite its independence, it is the
O.T. promises in their various [162] implications and ramifications that
furnish the thought patterns in which the church is presented to us.

1 This paper borrows heavily from the studies: K: L.
Schmidt, "The Church" in Bible Key Words from Gerhard Kittel's
Theologische Woerterbuch zum Neuen Testament, J. R. Coates, tr. 75
pp., 1951; J. Y. Campbell, "The Origin of the Christian use of the Word
'Ekklesia'," JTS., 49 (1948), 130-142.; and George Johnston, The
Church in the New Testament, 1943, 156 pp.

2 While it is agreed that Jesus spoke Aramaic, the word
which he used is uncertain. It may well have been kenishta which is
the Aramaic form of kenneset, meaning "assembly." This Aramaic word
also stands for both qahal and 'edah. For the argument
defending the authenticity of the passage, see R. N. Flew, Jesus and
His Church, 1951.

3 Cf. Acts 18.41; ekklesia is not a standing body,
but each gathering is a different ekklesia.

4 Qahal comes from a root which means to assemble; as
ekklesia comes from ekkaleo which has the related meaning
"to summons out." Qahal does not imply "called out of the world,"
nor has it been established that ekklesia has this meaning in the
N.T. See K. L. Schmidt, op. cit., p. 31; F. J. A. Hort, The
Christian Ecclesia, 1897, p. 5.

5 Nu. 27.17; 31.16; Josh. 22.16-17; See R. H. Charles,
Apoc. and Pseudo II, 802; F. Cross, The Ancient Library At
Qumran, p. 57 for the Cairo Damascus Covenant and the Dead Sea Sect;
and cf. G. Johnston, op. cit., p. 37 notes.

6 Christian gatherings are called sunagogue in Jas. 2.2 (but
cf. 5.14); for the verb form see Heb. 10.25; II Thess. 2.1). Christians of
Transjordan called both their meeting and meeting place sunagogue
(Epiphanius, Haer. 30.18.2). Other Christian examples are found in
Ignatius To Polycarp, 4.2; Hermas, Mand. 11.9; 13.14;
Justin, Dial. 63.5; Dionysius of Alexander (Euseb. H.E.
7.9.2; 11.1ff); and Clement of Alex. Strom. 6.34.3. The earliest
Christian inscription has the phrase "sunaqogue of the
Marcionites," see E. C. Black man, Marcion and His Influence, p. 4.

7 George Johnston, op cit., pp. 37-38.

8 E. De Witt Burton, Galatians (ICC), pp.
417-420.

9 The term is applied to the band of Korah (Num. 16.3); the
com pany that complained against Moses (Nu. 20.4); the company of Simeon
and Levi (Gen. 49.6) ; a company of evil doers (Ps. 26.5); a band of any
sort (but not of Israel) fourteen times in Ezekiel; a military gathering
(I Ch. 13.1).

10 J. Y. Campbell, op. cit., pp. 130-142, insists
that qehal adonai is only a service of worship.

11 See G. Johnston, op. cit., p. 39, as opposed to E.
R. Goodenough, By Light Light, p. 390.

12 J. Y. Campbell, op. cit., pp. 132-142.

13 Studies on this subject are: H. H. Rowley, The
Biblical Doctrine of Election: H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and
Revelation in the O.T., pp. 148-159. G. A. Danell, "The Idea of God's
People in the Bible," in A. Fridrichsen, The Root of the Vine, pp.
23-26; and C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic P.reaching and Its
Developments," 1951, 96pp.

14 The Jewish reply to this claim is surveyed by B. W.
Helfgott, The Doctrine of Election in Tannaitic Literature, 1954,
209 pp.

[163] 15 L. Koehler, O.T. Theology, 1953, pp. 60-74;
E. Jacob, Theology of the O.T., 1958, pp. 209-217.

16 R. L. Hicks, "The Jewish Background of the N.T. Doctrine
of the Church," Anglican Theol. Review, 30 (1948), pp. 107-117.

17 T. H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures, 1956, p. 4.

18 G. A. Dannell, op. cit., pp. 26, 32ff; E. Jacobs, op.
cit., pp. 323-324.

19 T. H. Gaster, op. cit., p. 13.

20 G. Johnston, op. cit., p. 77.

21 E. Jacobs, op. cit., pp. 217-223.

22 R. L. Hicks, op. cit., pp. 107-117.

23 On Synagogue Worship and organization see, W. O. E.
Oesterley and G. H. Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue
and G. F. Moore, Judaism, I, 281ff.

Last Update: August
23,
2006
http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1950s/vol_2_no_4_contents/lewis.html
Questions
to Carolyn Thompson ([email-masked])