The Word of God: Answering The Historiographic Challenge

While (briefly) attending graduate school for historical studies at the California State University, I learned there that historians as a group, when faced with "the historiographic challenge," for the many difficulties faced in answering the question, "What IS history," retreated into the muted reply, "History is what historians do." That's it. For all their considerable academic clout and critical mojo, the best they could come up with to describe their own specialized domain is an unimpressive tautology of sorts. This inability to cash checks their pens keep writing -- and writing extremely well in some cases -- stems from a more basic, ethical and philosophical problem encountered by everyone who does what they do in ignoring their Bibles.

History is, most decidedly, NOT what historians presently do, since presently historians continue ignoring their Bibles. History has a NORMATIVE definition, not merely one that describes how historians tend to behave when plying their trade.

The Bible has the answer, and is not slow in meeting the otherwise daunting task of managing the historiographic problem. Below, I have constructed an answer composed of details taken from the Word of God, and from what is warranted by it only, in formulating a biblical answer to the historiographic challenge.

Now I have given a good deal of thought to this topic before, but I synthesized this response in the ordinary time frame it takes to eat an ordinary sandwich and drink an extraordinary root beer (it was A & W), on account of the Bible's incredibly comprehensive and wise revelation, and because of its great efficacy in resolving the most difficult of questions. The Bible -- really, truly and historically, is the Word of God. Nothing is too hard for the Lord.

So, here is the biblical answer in short form (which could be, of course, be construed more precisely and comprehensively -- and, God willing, it shall be), for homeschoolers and others who want to teach their children something other than vacuous tautologies left over from the "Enlightenment." Bon Apetit.

History is the art of reconstructing the past from earlier written records, with the reconstructed account itself penned in the form of clear and accurate stories aimed at contemporary readers. It’s authors convey a past consisting of former nations, societies, and of the lives of historical actors, in the light of God’s providential and covenantal governing of nations, and of their changing events and phenomena, together with the causes and outcomes of their behaviors.

Historians do this by cross-examining earlier writings and artifacts to piece together the larger picture of God’s dealings with men, and they one with another, to learn which actions God prospers or rebuffs (blesses or curses), and how we, the present generation, relate to our forebearers so studied, for the benefit of their contemporary audience, that they may behave according to the blessings and not the curses, of the implied (or else stated) national covenant with Christ, Lord of every nation, by the will and sovereign decree of God.

This historical record will then show forth the details of the historical plan of God acting to redeem and establish His people on the earth, removing the wicked progressively from it, in the unfolding of his eternal plan in time, which He has foreordained before the world began.

Presuppositional Humor and The Rise of the Risible Theological Dictionary

Presuppositionalism – a form of apologetics often resulting in extended, atheistic vacations, which systematically undermines all unbiblical propositions within a fifteen foot radius of any such speaker.

Evidentialism – A form of Christian apologetics for which there is no persuasive empirical evidence, which emphasizes the importance of vindicating Christian faith-commitments in light of empirical evidence.

Dispensationalism – A form of theological reasoning that divides the history of salvation into several consecutive epochs. In the last of these, the New Testament era, everything else got Left Behind. Books added to make up for the missing 39 (from prior eras) include the Frank Peretti series, and works by Tim La Haye and Hal Lindsey. Apocalyptic interpretations common among such groups show strong influence from the L.A. Times. Early proponents included Marcion and Montanus.

Theonomy - A form of theological, ethical and juridical wisdom for nations and governments who have absolutely no idea what they’re doing. Theonomists have discerned from a careful study of the Bible that this, at present, includes all of them.

Calvinism - a systematic form of theological reasoning adhered to by people who could not have done otherwise once God made the choice.

Arminianism - a freely-chosen form of theological reasoning which helps keep presuppositionalists employed, whose adherents often affirm simultaneously that future events like the Rapture are foreordained, while holding to a view of God, man, and salvation which would render this suggestion entirely impossible. The most famous early proponent of this view was Pelagius.

Postmillenialism - The only remaining form of Christian teaching about the future by the year 2030. Its central tenet affirms that the strange and foreign concept of "losing" remains a Bultmannian myth (called "Lindseygeschichte"), which developed over time by legendary growth, yielding countless Premillenial redactions.

Amillenialism: A form of Christian teaching about the future, for disillusioned people who equate our present mess with "the Millenium," a thousand year period lasting about 2,000 years so far. They’ve given up on math too.

Premillenialism: A form of theological reasoning about the future scheduled to flee earth in the twinkling of an eye, leaving postmillenialists in charge.

Watchtower Theology: A form of theological reasoning for people who cannot multiply 1x1x1


Framework hypothesis: A form of exegetical interpretation and theological reasoning regarding the literary structure of Genesis for people who loathe watches, preferring instead to take life one eon at a time.

Evolution, Theory of: The biological theory that humanity descended from less complex life forms by natural selection, adaptation, and mutation, over millions of years. The gradual evolutionary process occurs so slowly that it doesn’t actually happen, so it isn’t observable.

Moreover, this important theory bears the ethical implicate, that since humans are merely animals, they have zero ethical obligations, including the alleged academic obligation to believe in biological theories that don’t actually happen.

Ockham’s Razor: A philosophical and theoretical principle which teaches that, in the marketplace of competition for ideas, the simpler people are actually smarter than the other guys.

Russell, Bertrand: A twentieth-century, British philosopher and logician responsible for major advancements in the logical mechanics of set theory, occasioned by his posing mysterious dillemmas to his Spanish barber.

Godel, Kurt: A twentieth- century, American philosopher and mathematician responsible for the now-famous "incompleteness theorem," which proposes that no axiomatically closed system can ever justify all its most basic postulates, leaving the system in question theoretically incom

Martin, Michael: A 21st century philosopher, and professor of philosophy at Boston University, and self-described Atheist, responsible for the publication of many books, articles and debates allegedly invalidating "the theistic premiss." He nearly debated the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, and now occupies his time prosecuting that same premiss aggressively with all Christian persons who are not the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen. He aims to show thereby, in allegedly refuting all members of the set naming "persons who are not Greg Bahnsen," that he could have (or has) refuted all the members of the complementary set, "persons who are Greg Bahnsen." According to this new logic, by the year 2040, he will have refuted everyone by actually refuting no one.

Jones, Douglas M.: Notorious Idahoan Satirist and Presuppositionalist responsible for the invention of the phrase, "Body-piercing community" and other unreasonably funny jabs.

Socrates: A 5th century Greek philosopher and teacher of Plato, responsible for promoting a dialectical form of teaching, challenging the epistemological adequacy of the Greek mythology then popular, advocating educational access across economic classes, and testing (and finding) the ideological tolerance limits of Athenian democracy. Athenians pronounce, " ideological tolerance limits" as "hemlock."

Paedocommunion: A theological conviction and doctrine regarding Christian communion, in the form of bread and wine, which teaches that small people, whether or not they have the slightest notion what they do, should be allowed freely to engage in an exercise demonstrably at times more dangerous than skydiving. Still others are considering lowering the driving age to six.

Jesus Seminar, the: A small group of what is now some 200 scholars of ancient history and "Historical Jesus" studies, founded in Berkeley, California in the 1980's. Having published many books and articles that aim to discern the "historical core" of the sayings of Jesus from the canonical Gospels, this group strategically employs the flimsiest set of "historical criteria" known to mankind, casting votes as "multi-colored beads" – to affirm or deny what 100 million Evangelicals in their country already know – that the Gospel sayings of Jesus are authentic and historical (ipsissima vox).

Kant, Immanuel - A German philosopher of the 18th century and contemporary of philosopher, David Hume (who liked backgammon), who sought to "rescue science" from the acid criticisms of Mr. Hume, when he was, "awakened from his dogmatic slumbers." Famous also for his maxim, "These two things amaze me, the starry skies above [i.e. science] and the moral law within [i.e. ethics]" Kant sought a new way to view human perception, so as to preserve objective knowledge by affirming that we know things according to perceptual categories that come prepackaged – like spam.

He called these 4 basic categories, "quantities, qualities, modalities and relations." He learned about these from his senses - which means his senses told him all about his senses. Very sensible. Then he also postulated an unknowable "noumenal" part of the world, which he told us all about in writing, so we would know all about things we can’t know anything about.

This was supposed to rescue science from Hume, who admittedly couldn’t answer his own charges, leaving each to admire the other’s failed philosophy, and with a great deal of backgammon to play, and timely walks to take. People kept on at the sciences anyway since they can do fun things and give us outrageous toys. Quite a few not-so-clever people who read Kant felt he had resolved Hume’s problems, while later philosophers balked at this idea.

This crisis in philosophy was supposed to teach them that the sciences are for taking dominion as God commanded, and that it makes no difference if any theory is supposedly "true" or false since both kinds help us take dominion as commanded. False theories - the vast majority of all theories - can do really cool things too. So they missed the point with surprising finesse, the way Arminians "understand" Calvinism, because this was the "Enlightenment," and the ministry of truth had not approved theoretical instrumentalism of this kind since the Bible – revelation from God which is not theoretical in nature – actually teaches it.

This means that Kant’s whole project was worthless in the first place because science didn’t need any rescuing. Only if you understand it as a truth-acquiring substitute for the Bible does its theories need to be true. Since it is not that, but a dominion-taking enterprise for better controlling our environment, and elevating our standard of living to the glory of God – more tithing too (let’s be practical) – it needed no rescuing, and it continued on without Kant’s help for quite some time. Most scientists are not very philosophically inclined anyway, but tend to be specialists in their choice of empirical domain and inquiry. All that time and effort, and he could have been reading more Ecclesiastes.

Pope, the. This term refers to the extra- and post-biblical "papal office" manufactured by Rome, which dates from around the 5th or 6th centuries A.D. Though a counterfeit office from the get-go, adherents reportedly find it "great fun". This "Bishop of Rome," gets elected by others ( holding a second phoney office) called "cardinals." This term actually refers to a mediocre baseball team from St. Louis, and this practice in our country would be analogous to a group of people belonging to the Lions Club getting together to appoint their favorite guy "king of America" by popular vote. The "pope" wears a big, pointy, white hat, and travels in a bulletproof "popemobile."

In 1543, at the Council of Trent, the "church," headed by this man, officially cursed in the Name of the Lord anyone teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (which is the truth, of course). Ironically, the current "pope" named himself, "Benedict," or blessing. Later popes said Protestants were but "straying brethren," while yet affirming the infallibility of that "church." What they will say next week is anyone’s guess.

The Proverbs of Kings: A Royal Catechism Of Nature's Light and Wisdom For The Ages

What are the Proverbs?

The canonical Book of Proverbs presents a catechism of wisdom for royal persons, for kings and queens to teach their children to think and behave after the manner and custom of Solomon the wise, son of David, king of Israel. As that Solomon were "wiser than all men," according to the Word, he remained uniquely a type of the Lord Jesus Christ, Son of David, King of Israel. Thus, this makes all children so catechised (and those parents so catechising them) just like those who went up to hear Solomon's wisdom, and just like those being taught afterward by their royal fathers and mothers "when they were tender and in their in youth." For just so Solomon did learn much of them from his parents, and kings Agur and Lemuel also. Thus are all this book's devout students properly called "Lemu-el," or, "Corban," meaning in both cases, "devoted to God."

The wisdom specified in this book is that wisdom "by which the Lord laid the foundations of the earth," "In the beginning," as the Proverbs plainly tell. This is called in our day, "natural revelation, or else "general revelation." It is wisdom from above, called "the Word who was with God in the beginning" by John the apostle, and is written down in the form of proverbs, for future kings, who will reign on earth as priests and kings -- both Jew and Gentile - after the order of Melchizedek, in the resurrection.

This means it is for Christians generally, and those raised up to life in power more particularly, as they are more particularly suited to wisdom. This gives the Proverbs the unique trait that they specify both special and general revelation's content simultaneously, for both Jew and Gentile kings alike. And thus, this proves that the word of God in both forms sweetly comport one with another, though by itself, natural revelation remains competent only to condemn men, and not to save. As the Bible remains like a seamless garment, with the mutual consent of all its parts, this doctrine must be viewed for its proper understanding and balance, in light of that doctrine also, which is called the priesthood and kingship of every believer in Jesus.

Revelation 1 (vv. 5-6) says it thus:

"And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

1 Peter 2:9 adds, "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light ... "

Yet do the light and wisdom of nature most clearly teach the sinfulness of all men, condemned under the law, without excuse or any merit whatsoever, or any cause for any boast before God whatsoever, and thus also the consequent need of a Savior, who saves from the wrath of God revealed by nature's testimony against us, against all the ungodliness and lawlessness of men, as the apostle Pauls plainly teaches in Romans 1.

Who Wrote the Proverbs?

First they are the product of the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit of Wisdom, then also came they by the hand of certain prophets, who were also kings. Each prophet-king having written down his oracle, penned Holy Scripture, as each was "carried along by the Holy Spirit." We know these were kings because the Proverbs tell us so in two cases, and imply it in the third (that of king Agur). These three kings of the oriental world, are here named Solomon, Agur and Lemuel, the last two in the list being Gentile kings, and most likely among those who had gone up to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all over the world (the "Queen of the South" being among such persons), as First Kings 4: 26-34 delineates. It reads:

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. And those officers provided victual for king Solomon, and for all that came unto king Solomon's table, every man in his month: they lacked nothing. Barley also and straw for the horses and dromedaries brought they unto the place where the officers were, every man according to his charge.


And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.


And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the cedar tree that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.

What do the Proverbs of Kings principally teach?

The proverbs of Solomon, Agur and Lemuel principally teach that all kings everywhere, Jew and Gentile alike, must do as Solomon did, teaching and warning every man, that he must by God's command seek wisdom with the whole heart, not turning from it to the right or to the left, nor from all mercy, justice, and humility according to the law and Gospel presented in all that holy Scripture available to them, all that wisdom of the light of nature revealed to all men, and according to all those virtues presented in the proverbs themselves.

For it is written, "He hath shown thee, O Adam, what is good and what the Lord require of thee; to do mercy and justice, and to walk humbly with thy God."

How do the Proverbs, presenting the content of general revelation, preach and teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Lord?

The proverbs, being that Eternal wisdom and Word which was with God, before the foundation of the earth, just as Genesis describes all things of the creation week, are uniquely suited to serve not only as an exposition of the natural order's incipient wisdom generally to given to men, but also as special revelation, written down and included by God's Spirit as part of the entire canon of Scripture, which books together with One Voice, tell all the goodness, wisdom and honor of the Christ, that he must first suffer and then enter his Glory as the "light of men," "The Word which was in the beginning with God," and Wisdom incarnate forever.

Moreover, the human authors of the Proverbs, each himself a prophet, shows forth by types and pictures, the glory of Christ and his Church, and declare there also the malice, cunning, shame and punishment of His and our enemies, by way of using the content of nature's light for its portrayals thereof.

The book's final chapter shows forth the hope of the gospel in the resurrection, that of the saints corporately, which body is called also the international Church of Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. This is that Woman of virtue, modeled after a human woman of that time then, namely the mother of king Lemu-el, Queen of the southern empire of Ethiopia, also called "Candace" by title in that ancient empire, or else "Queen of the South" in the Word itself. Thus is proverbs 31 both poetic biography regarding the Queen of the South, and ecclesiastical prophecy regarding Christ and His Church.

And although the many godly women of old, and those the good women among the saints of the Newer Testament, do alike share in those virtues of this woman, to greater or lesser degree, yet does no one of them fulfill all these perfectly, such that Eve, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Miriam sister of Moses, Deborah, Rahab, Jael, Abigail, Bathsheba, Ruth, Esther, Hannah, nor Mary of Nazareth, Elizabeth, or Lydia, nor any other like mortal saint of God, can possibly fulfill all the godly traits of this virtuous woman, save only in the resurrection, according to the hope of the holy Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory.

How Did Solomon and the Other Kings Make the Proverbs?

The kings of the Proverbs took great care in observing their societies and those of others, of searching out for study godly and ungodly behaviors and habits among those around them, and in noting the ethical qualities of each, and in noting also the spiritual, social and economic effects which ensue upon those behaviors and habits. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they then put these into writing, in the form of maxims, exhortations, personal accounts, and brief moral lessons, construed poetically with all those comparisons and contrasts best suited to the didactic purpose of the book, to the rest of the canon of holy Scripture, and to the glory and unsearchable wisdom of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, King of Israel.

Did these human authors borrow some of their sources from other cultures for use in the making of the Proverbs of Kings as some allege?

It is evident from history that many ancient cultures, and notably Egypt, produced like manner of maxims and writings in the ancient world, some closely matching even the wordings of the particular sayings in the Proverbs of Kings. This occurred for several reasons, namely, that the light of nature by the common kindness of God shines upon all men, showing forth to them the wisdom of the lower creation -- of the insect and animal kingdoms, of the astonishing glory of gemstones and beauty of precious metals, and of all that goodness of those other elements which the Lord hath wrought, the wind, trees, rivers and the like -- so that they might live wisely and well.

Second, it is well to note that the proverbs of Amenhotep II of Egypt, often compared to those of King Solomon, were written at a time that fell within a few generations following the presence of Joseph the Jewish prophet in Egypt, second to pharaoh in his time, according to the Word. And his reign, if Manetho be any trustworthy guide, straddles the biblically-stated time of the Exodus, according to first Kings, which was 480 years from the fourth year of the beginning of the reign of king Solomon, making the Exodus an event transpiring in 1445/6 B.C. This is also the traditional, or conservative dating for it. This means that the question of just who borrowed source material from whom remains open-ended. It is possible that Solomon borrowed proverbs from Amenhotep, which he got from Joseph, or from the later Hebrews, who he got them from God.

Third, even if Solomon had borrowed source material for use in the Proverbs of Kings from other nations, since the light of nature therein described accurately (else Solomon would not have used it) comes from God alone, the man from whom Solomon received this source material himself obtained it from none other but the living God, as all men are duty bound to do. Though hypothetical -- since no such borrowing has been proven conclusively -- even if true, this would no way impinge upon the biblical doctrines of general revelation or special, nor upon the doctrine of the inspiration or inscripturation of the holy Scripture as it has been understood by the Church of Jesus Christ for ages. Only the final written product of the apostles and prophets, not their sources, rough drafts, pens (styluses), paper (papyrus or vellum), or dictation secretaries (amanuensises) are therein said to be inspired of God according to biblical doctrine.

In The Beginning Was the Word, And Now You Can Sing It

Not everyone knows it but Christians have been singing the entire Psalter for a very long time. Before them the people of God of old sang them, those faithful among the Jewish nation whom God called out and set apart for his glory. The psalms thus uniquely bind the saints of both testmaments together, putting on an outward display of unity between us and our fathers, and between the saints living today who sing them faithfully according to the Word and wisdom.

This "binding tie" called unity or catholicity, forms one of the reasons why God commands Christians to sing them. He intends to show the world the unity of the Christian faith in the Church. Understood properly, "psalms, hymns and spiritual (pneumatikoi) songs" triadically refers to the Psalter. The adjective "spiritual" in fact refers to all three items listed. It is not as though Paul wants you singing some songs which are spiritual and others that are fleshly.

This contrast - spirit versus flesh - does not show up in this immediate context. Spirit-produced emphasizes the heavenly origin of what is pondered as over against that which is produced by the traditions of men (see Col. 2, almost the whole chapter). The term "pneumatikos" Paul uses most frequently to describe what we might call "charismatic." The Corinthians are possessed of "spiritual gifts," for instance.

The immediate sense conveyed is that the Spirit performs the operation of what is produced. Paul thus calls that Psalter most common in his day, that of the Septuagint or "Alexandrian" Old Testament, by the names which appear above the Psalms as titles (i.e. "superscripts"). These typically read, "A Psalm of David, a hymn," or else "A Psalm of David, A Song." A reading of the psalmic superscripts clearly shows the reason for Paul's titular summary of the Psalms as "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." Paul simply had done what Jews often did - as when Jesus told his disciple to "Ask, seek and knock" (meaning pray) -- he used a triad or three-part expression, one covering a large and representative sample of canonical psalms, to signify the whole Psalter.

In any case, here for the assistance of those most likely to make good use of it, Psalm-singers and those inclined to investigate the controversial issue (when has the Gospel not been controversial, refresh my memory), I have reduced many years of study to a catechism-like format for easy reading and even memorization for the stout-hearted. I have made every effort to keep my answers within the bounds of both Biblical and confessional integrity. The Reformed reader will at times probably recognize fragments and phrases from the presbyterian confessional standards familiar to us. This is no accidental coincidence.

One can benefit from knowing the answers were constructed by comparison with first what the psalms teach about the Psalms, for the songs are highly self-reflective, and then what the rest of the Word teaches of them, and then how the implicates of these teachings affect the major doctrines of the rest of the Bible in terms of strict logic.

For instance, since the psalms call themselves the 'songs of Zion,' this has an immediate logical impact on biblical ecclesiology, teaching that an "ordinary church" from the biblical standpoint is one that only sings psalms. This further follows from the facts that, since nothing else in the Bible bears this unique title, and nothing outside the Bible is worthy of God, only the Psalms are specially the songs of the Church. The biblical logic here is short and sweet as we say.

Doubtless, had Paul the apostle come across a church singing anything else, he would have proceeded to set it back in the apostolic pattern, as he did with the Corithian church on "out-of-order" practices ranging from the abuse of tongues to women and head-coverings. the failure to sing psalms would not render a church "unchurched" but would occasion apostolic reproof, for stunting the growth of the saints and deviating from the dominical model. Hebrews 2 has Christ uttering, "In the presence of the assembly I will sing your praises."

Question is, what did Jesus sing to praise God? Answer: same thing everyone else did, Psalms, and the same thing he taught his disciples to sing (Psalms). In the same context of Hebrews, it says, "he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, except that he was without sin." So what did his brothers sing when they weren't sinning? Same thing they sing now when they aren't sinning. Psalms. If you are beginning to see a pattern here, you do well.

Some take offense at this, the idea that unless you sing psalms you sin. But any deviation from the apostolic pattern is sin. How could it be otherwise? What is sin? Sin is ANY -- there's that word again -- want of conformity unto the law of God, or transgression of it. And remember that the glory of God - worship is central to this notion - forms the heart of Christian ethics. "Whatsover you do, ... do all to the glory of God." So sin in worship is transgression in what is holy, which is far worse than trangression in matters common. If Ananias and Sapphira had lied to their butler, but not to the apostles, they might have lived a much longer life. Likewise, few people went up in smoke like Nadab and Abihu. They transgressed severely in holy matters. Hence the extreme and just punishment. So if the law teaches exclusive psalmody, then any deviation from it is properly -- did I mention -- "necessarily" sin.

The same would be true if those arguing against exclusive psalmody proved correct. If it is not true, then those promoting it claim that God requires what he does not. This would mean that those teaching exlusive psalmody would be commanding more strictly than God, adding to the word of the Lord. This is forbidden.

This shows that neutrality is not possible in this debate (I would add undesirable) and indeed someone is sinning on this or that side of the debate. This is always the case in questions of Christian ethics, however, and should surprise no one. Instead being offended by biblically-based claims the appropriate response is first, careful scrutiny and evaluation (making up your mind in advance of biblical particulars is sin no matter which position you opt for), then refutation of the associated false claims. Often the offense is the first response of a party unwilling to perform due diligence in such matters. Getting offended is easy. Look how many do it. Doing sound theology and logic is not. See how few are doing it.

So we need not waste time asking whether someone is sinning in this matter, we only need know what the Bible teaches, and we know from there who it is that needs reforming at this point. But don't worry, if you don't need reformation here, you still need it in a hundred other places. So don't feel cheated by the opportunity to repent. It hasn't passed you by. Now here is the question and answer format for the psalms I have developed so far.

What are the Psalms?

The Psalms form the divinely-inspired and appointed catechism of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the Lord Jesus Christ in song. As such, they uniquely comprise a catalogue of the songs of the Church, called "the songs of Zion" in the Psalter itself. As the word of God, they are also a means of grace. These 150 canonical Psalms God has been pleased to ordain most specially, and these only, for the worshiping of God, and offering of praise in His Church and in the home. Thus are they also called in the Word, "The songs of the Lord." The "Lord's songs" notably go together with the "Lord's Day" (Sunday), the Lord's people, and the "Lord's Supper."

What Do the Psalms Principally Teach?

The Psalms teach wisdom. They uniquely teach every major, and most every lesser, doctrine of all the holy Word, with the Lord Jesus as its focal point. The Bible calls this the "faith of Jesus." For all the law, psalms and prophets speak of Him. But the Psalms specially form "a Bible within the Bible," in order for the saints to learn the whole of the Bible representatively, by learning -- memorizing in song -- only a small part of it. These spiritual psalms, hymns, and songs have a special didactic purpose, namely, to teach the faith of Jesus to the saints of God, that the wisdom of God may dwell richly in the our heart, and bind together the redeemed through One and the same Spirit of Christ.

This "little Bible" feature makes them "federal," or covenantally representative, of the whole Bible, which is the word of God. These are thus properly the songs of the Covenant, called the covenant of grace in the Bible. This follows also from the fact that these are the songs of Zion, the commumity of the redeemed. As such, they principally teach the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory.

Specifically, this means that they teach that the Lord Jesus Christ must preach and minister on behalf of the Kingdom of God, doing many mighty miracles from His Father, that he first be delivered into the hands of men, to suffer unto death on behalf of his people, and then enter his glory on their behalf, rising, ascending on high, sitting down in victory at the right hand of the Father, to be crowned by the Father Himself -- and decreed in the sight of all heaven -- King over all the nations, with all authority in heaven and on earth. He must reign over them from there with a "rod of iron," blessing or else cursing them, in strict and just accord with all the law of the Lord as he pleases. This will he do until he come again -- with power and great glory -- to be marveled and wondered at in the sight of all nations (saying, "Who is this King of Glory?"), and to judge the living and the dead. And his kingdom will have no end.

This is the Psalter, the divine wisdom, and is called in the Word itself, the faith and Gospel of Jesus, the word of Christ. Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever.

The Psalms thus form a federal framework for learning, and for rightly handling the Word of Truth, which holy, ethical and intellectual framework today we commonly call the "Christian" or "biblical" worldview. This is that system of theology taught in all the Bible (in a more detailed manner), against which in debate there can be no sound answer. For there is no insight, no wisdom, no plan which can succeed against the Lord.

This appointed catechism in song thus rightly sets and attenuates the hearts and minds of the saints to the task of handling well the larger Word of Christ, the canonical Bible, enabling them to understand it where others cannot. Just as it says, "The secret of the Lord is with the righteous." For this reason, Paul the apostle calls the Psalter itself, "the Word of Christ." For it presents the clearest, most insightful, and most comprehensive picture of Christ of any single book in the Older Testament.

This is also why the apostles quote from it more frequently than any other single book in their recorded sermons found in the book of Acts. This pattern they learned from the Lord Himself, who opened to them the Scriptures, showing them all things concerning himself written in all the Law, psalms, and prophets. The apostles self-consciously, and by the power of the Holy Spirit of Jesus, mimicked the Lord Jesus, remaining altogther faithful to all his teaching -- in all their teaching -- all their lives. For God cannot fail, and victory belongs to the Lord. Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever.

What other special features do the Psalms bear?

The Psalms not only enlighten and empower God's people (as no other putative liturgical songs can), but by the special work of the Spirit in their hearts, they show forth visibly that outward and inward catholicity belonging to Christ's Church -- as no other putative liturgical songs can.
The ordained singing of the Psalms by God's people, because it by divine command continues unabated from the days of King David forward as the Church's songs (the songs of Zion) uniquely bind together all God's people of both Testaments and from all manner of places into one VISIBLY and organically unified body of Christ. The Psalms also have precursors, or ancestral texts incorporated into them by King David, which date from the time of Moses, the man of God. This means some of the psalms were sung by God's people earlier than the time of David. Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever.

How are the Psalms a means of grace to God's people?

The Psalms, being the word of Christ, and His holy Gospel, were both immediately inspired by God's most Holy Spirit, and commanded by Him to be sung in His Church. Thus, the Spirit who is the Lord, is most intimately connected with them, represented by them, and is specially with them at all times. For the Lord has exalted His Word above His own Name.

This makes them altogther fit for singing, studying, meditating upon, for rightly framing our prayers to God that we may be heard of God, for holy discussion among the saints, and for teaching and warning every man not only to flee the wrath to come, but also to enlighten their minds in the knowledge of Christ, to call and draw men into the Kingdom of the Son, to impute and impart wisdom to the foolish, to promote the Gospel, glorify Jesus, and vindicate Christ in the sight of all, and also to strenghten the saints in the inner man, for the edifying of the whole body of Christ together as one people, nation, priesthood and family, and to promote the growth and sanctification of the saints unto the final glory and victory which God has foreordained for his people. Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever.

How is the Psalter Sufficient For God's Acceptable Praise in the Lord's Assembly?

The sufficiency of the Psalter for praising God acceptably flows from its several attributes.

First, being the Word of God itself, it carries with it the incommunicable attributes of God, one of which is sufficiency. Just as it is written, "The Law of the Lord is perfect."

Second, the Psalter, being uniquely appointed to this task and called "the Songs of Zion," necessarily then has those attributes adequate to fulfill its task, lest God fail in his unique and exclusive use of it in his work of redeeming and sanctifying his people in this particular, appointed fashion. It is both ludicrous to suppose, and impossible that it might come to pass, that God should fail at anything. He who has begun a good work in us will complete it until the Day of Christ Jesus. Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever.

Third, it (on account of it's special didactic function) being particularly comprehensive and clear to present the gospel of Christ in its entirety to the saints, so much so that Paul calls it the very "word of Christ," and the apostles, making majority use of it in their preaching of the same, it does appear that the Psalter is well able to do all that to which God has appointed it.

Fourth, the special titles and attributes named to the Psalms by the Psalms themselves, from holiness to authority, power and the like, show them uniquely fit and able well to give all that glory to God and grace to His people which their unique appointment suggests and requires.

Fifth, the regulative principle of authority - of the worship and government of the Church of Jesus more particularly -- requires that those songs to be sung in His Church must appear to us in His Word. Given the regulative principle of worship taught throughout the Word, the absence of any holy, extra-psalmic alternative (song), with its text provided to us (as with the Psalms), is therefore adequate reason to regard the Psalter as sufficient by itself for the saints to praise God in His sanctuary acceptably. God commands the saints to sing the psalms, and He commands them to sing nothing else. If he had, that song text would have been provided too. We know this from the Psalter itself.

Sixth, the sufficiency of the Word of God more generally requires this. God commands men to worship Him, and well deserves what he has commanded, for everything good comes only from Him. This means that justice requires that He must in his Word provide all things necessary to acomplish what he requires. For men are not able to add to his Word without incurring a penalty. Therefore, some book or books in the Word sufficiently enable(s) him so to do. The contrary assumption assaults the justice of God, and sufficiency of His Word.

And since the Psalter is the only book which claims to be the songs of Zion, this must be that sufficient catalogue of appointed songs. It is not a question of what we can sing, but what we must. Singing God's praise is not optional, nor is its specified means.

Seventh, the singular Headship of Jesus Christ as High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek and head of His Church requires this. Christ in His Word has set no other song apart for use in His Church, but He specifically names the Psalter the "Songs of Zion." Unless, He personally approve the song, it is not permissable in His House. No other song has so been approved. Therefore those approved, in the Psalter, are enough to succeed in their appointed task. The Lord gives us all that we need, but adds nothing superfluous, since His Word is holy and much that was left out (see John 21) would have been of much benefit to the saints. This shows that, if (or rather since) no other songs are appointed, then these must suffice.

Eighth, God has made it manifest from the holy Scripture that the binding character of the example both of the Lord Christ and his apostles -- that they sang only those songs appointed by God in his assembly from the canonical Word of God -- implies the Sufficiency of the Psalter. For were the Psalter not sufficient it were incumbent on Christ and his followers to show and present clearly to us what else we must sing. And, as we have seen above - these lines of reasoning from Scripture form part of a whole system -- whatever Christ and his apostles show us to sing, either they or some other prophet, must have provided the complete text for it -- else we cannot sing what they did to praise God. For the Lord Jesus said (both in Psalm 22:22 and Hebrews 2) "In the presence of the assembly will I sing your [God's] praises."

Now this is mentioned in Psalm 22. So what ought we to anticipate the Psalmist expects us to believe that Christ sang? Let me put it another way, do you suppose the Lord Jesus ever sang Psalm 22? And when he sang it did he sing, "In the presence of the assembly I will sing your praises?" And when Christ sang this in the presence of the assembly, what was he singing? Psalm 22. So we know that Christ sang psalms in the presence of the assembly. And we do not know whether he sang anything else. And ONLY his KNOWN example is binding (I allow this for the sake of argument as a minimal claim, but regard it as refuted above thoroughly with more proofs easily added). We know what Christ sang, only psalms. That explains one more good reason for Paul to call them, "the word of Christ." The Lord Jesus actually sang and said every one of them verbatim. He was raised on them, singing, "Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever."

This forms an integral part of the salvation of God, for it is Christ's righteousness -- all his righteous acts and sayings -- which God imputes to his people in salvation. Thus, it was necessary that Christ sing the entire psalter, not mere to fulfill his duty before God to behave righteously at all times, but also to do OUR DUTY to behave righteously at all times. What God applies to a man in salvation -- the benefits of redemption purchased by Christ -- come from the life he lived as much as the life he gave up for His people at the cross. And this included exclusive psalm-singing -- the singing of the word of Christ.

So in Hebrews 2 what was Christ singing? Psalms. This teaches us that when the Bible says Jesus and the apostles sang, but doesn't specify what they sang, we are to assume that they sang Psalms. Their preaching shows what can only be called "heavy favoritism" to the Psalms as well. You preach what you know, and you know what you have memorized from singing over and over again.

Nevertheless, the "known" exclusive psalmody of Christ and his apostles (for they followed his example) follows from his example by the force of strict biblical logic from Hebrews 2. Let's all say it together: the Word of Christ is utterly amazing in its unity, clarity, and profundity. You can even sing this: its called Psalm 119, but it may take a while. More can be said in favor of the sufficency of the Psalter for the acceptable praise of the Living God in his Holy habitation. But I regard this as a fair start.

What is the major theme of the Psalms?

The Psalter presents as its central theme the progressive dominion of heaven over the kings of the earth through conflict. Heaven, in the Persons of the Lord Jesus and his saints with Him, overcome the kings of the earth by the preaching of the Gospel and Law of the Lord, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the means of grace He has appointed, including the singing of the Psalms themselves. This makes at least some of them "war songs," some of which are called "imprecatory psalms." Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever.

Because God has enemies, and because it is His nature to win (called sovereignty), he must necessarily overcome them, and his saints with Him -- for He is both by nature and divine decree "King of kings, and Lord of lords," just as the Psalms declare. For "the Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand til I make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet." Christ, the Blessed Man of Psalm 1, engages the nations in battle (as described in Psalm 2), which battle continues throughout history until the resurrection. Psalm 150, the final psalm, recounts how God and his people eventually gain the victory. Just as it says, "The meek shall inherit the earth."

In the Psalms, where does this battle between good and evil originate?

The battle between heaven and earth begins with heaven ever since the Fall of man, and originates in the sanctuary of God. In the Bible, Heaven comes down to earth most particularly in a special place where God dwells, called at first Eden, then the Ark of Noah, then the tabernacle, then the Ark of the covenant, then the Temple, and finally, in Christ and the Church. Each of these can properly been seen at some point in redemptive history as "the sanctuary," or holy place, of the Lord. This should offer a good head start on understanding the final psalm.

Because the author of any book aims at a particular goal -- the goal for which he is writing - from the moment he sets his pen down he has the end (final chapter) already in mind. Thus, as I have argued from the Word itself elsewhere, one properly begins his study of any book of the Bible by reading backwards. You start at the end to know where chapter one is headed. This is why you use maps, so you know where you're going and won't get lost. But to use a map you first need a destination. So let's start properly, at the end, shall we? For this is where the author of chapters 1 through 149 was going all along. Here is the text with brief commentary [in brackets like this].

1: Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.

2: Praise him for his mighty acts: praise him according to his excellent greatness.

[The combination of the terms Lord and God together signify the absolute sovereignty of God and harkens back to Genesis, where the Bible often calls him the Lord God. This form of reduplicating the word "praise" emphasizes the term and the author here writes with great enthusiasm for what he invites all God's people -- the whole assembly of Zion -- to do with him also. He is not fulfilling a requirement slavishly, but would probably do it even if it were illegal. The term "firmament" harkens back to the creation account, confirming that this author thinks in terms of Genesis, and we need to be on the look for any other term likely to originate there.

The sanctuary on earth is identified with the abode of the heavens (firmament). Paul, you will recall, refered to the Philippians as "stars." This is consistent all the way through the Bible, as the God of heaven comes down to gain more folllowers, converting them from the domain of the wicked one, whose citizenship is then transfered from earth to heaven. As Paul said to the Philipians, "But our citizenship is in heaven." And that is, of course, where you find the stars. This corporate praise of the Lord God brings power and glory with it, for God dwells in the habitation of the acceptable praise of His people. What star has no glory?

Next [verse two], the Psalmist begins to describe the nature of this praise. God's mighty acts refers unabashedly to His miracle or wonder-working power, which show Him so much greater than his foes that everyone knows they do not stand a chance against Him, as with the Egyptian army which drown in the Sea. Here, excellent means "exceeding" or "extraordinary" with the accent falling on "way beyond anything you've ever seen before." It was a first for the Egyptians too. Since God's mighty acts exceed merely mortal categories, so also must his praise. It must come "accordingly" from heaven, not originating merely with men, else it cannot hope to do justice to what God has done. The mismatch would be like old wineskins and new wine.

3: Praise him with the sound of the trumpet: praise him with the psaltery and harp.

The harp and psalm book go together as a pair throughout the Bible and the elders of revelation have harps and sing. The harp leads the singing of psalms - like as a minister who leads the saints in the singing of the psalms. The trumpet signifies powerful preaching with great effect. The Targum of the psalms -- an ancient aramaic translation of the Hebrew psalms -- refers here to the "harp and lyre" suggesting an instrument pair, which commonly obtained in the ancient land of Israel. Given the context, of the biblical canon, however, I yet maintain the former and not the latter.

4: Praise him with the timbrel and dance: praise him with stringed instruments and organs.

Verses 3-4 begin to describe HOW to do what was previously commanded in the Psalmist's rejoicing. The trumpet very specially signifies the preaching of the gospel outside the church. Solomon had an array of 120 silver trumpets made for use in the temple worship, which seem to coincide with the number who in Acts spoke in tongues and declared the gospel of Jesus in the streets of Jerusalem with each man from a different locale hearing - these are Lukes words (note verse 1 above) "God's mighty acts" in his own language.

This solves the old question how many there were present preaching on Pentecost - 12 or 120 in favor of the larger number. Remember, the fiery temple presence had just fallen on these disciples, showing that the glory-transfer was now complete; the Church was now the sanctuary of God, the New Temple and New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. This does not provide a counterinstance to the phrase in verse 1 "in the sanctuary" just because the sanctuary went outside to preach.

Recall that Paul compared the Corinthians to trumpets, clanging cymbals and the like by way of correction. When they spoke out of turn and abusively they were like the cymbals mentioned.
This shows that all the instruments in the older testament complex signify by their diversity, those redeemed in Christ under the Newer Covenant from every tribe, tongue and nation, and that such instruments were precisely part of the Aaronic-Levitical (and later Davidic - for David's son built the Temple and set the priesthood in order) priestly order done away with as types and shadows mentioned in Hebrews.

The command to use all these could never be obeyed on a practical level anyway since we are today short on zithers. All such instruments commanded were played together in the Temple and were not permitted but commanded. They are likewise not permitted today, because they never were permitted, but only commanded. So if permitted today then they are commanded of all churches everywhere. You can see the large number of them used corporately by Nebuchadnezar (had his own version going) when they clearly stood for all the different people groups under his authority as the text of Daniel goes out of its way to make plain.

The timbrel and dancing form an interesting part of the victory parade common in Israel when the mighty men returned from war. Then the daughters of Jerusalem took up what instruments might fit their hands -- as Miriam did when she sang her now famous inscripturated song -- and went out singing of what God had done -- again God'smighty acts -- to give the soldiers a heroes welcome and celebrate the goodness and power of God. This forms the back drop also to the tragedy of Jephtah's daughter, who vowed rashly before the Lord.

Today this corresponds to the victory psalms where the dancing is SUNG ABOUT not the actual doing of any sort of liturgical dancing; this is why the above verse follows timbrels and dancing with "stringed instruments." We have already seen the "Christians as holy instruments" comparison implied in Daniel and taught by Paul. The Christians ARE the instruments of the assembly, such that calling them "stringed" simply entails the use of one' vocal chords in singing what is commanded. But the emphasis on timbrels and dancing means VICTORY in war. As we have seen, many (one could argue all) the Psalms aim at this overarching theme of the Psalter.]

5: Praise him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
6: Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD. Praise ye the LORD.

[This phrase is reiterative, emphasizing the LOUDNESS of victorious praise and joy that attends it. These instruments specialized in "attention-getting" as they provided a kind of loud jolt in character with the rest of the song at interval. The Targum psalm reading confirms this, but emphasizes that in the first instance the cymbal sounds alone (the loud cymbals are not accompanied by any other instrument when sounded, while the high-sounding cymbals are. so the second sounding is louder yet than the first.)

This symbolizes what we call fame or honor; again this would suggest ministers who proclaim the gospel in public, vindicating the author of the Gospel. This is not - also once more - out of alignment with the "in the sanctary" phrase in the opening verse.

Verse 6 spills all the beans. The instruments were never the point. They stood for people. We know this from the obvious point that only people, not instruments, actually have breath. And if one challenge that the use of "breath" is only a metaphor, not to be taken literally, but that this still refers to instruments, we counter by challenging just the reverse.

Why not assume the instruments are but a non-literal picture (analogy) for the church - since this psalms open with "in the sanctuary" and "praise." People do not need instruments to praise God. But instruments DO need people so to do. So the more necessary ought to be assumed the point. For this is how biblcal typology always proceeds. The Temple -- The Temple, The Temple! -- is not the people (obviously, since after A.D. 70 the Temple went on "vacation," and yet the Church remains); but the people are the Temple. Wherever, the Lord's people are - two or three gathered in his name -- there He is in their midst. That's what made the Temple special in the first place, God in the midst of it.

Especially is this the case in light of the fact that Daniel and Paul virtually come out and say it, "The folk are the instruments." And Paul says plainly to the Corinthians, "YOU are the temple of the Holy Spirit." If the Christians are the entire kit and kabootle, why not just the instruments themselves also - which were clearly part of the Temple complex. If the greater, then surely the lesser. This is a biblical form of argumentation, and seems unlikely to be refuted in this case in light of Paul's actual and repeated comparison of the Corinthians to instruments shortly thereafter, since local context is king.].

Here are some other relevant features of this psalm which I call, notable characteristics:

1. It has precisely 7 commands to praise the Lord, which signifies universal or catholic, perfect or heavenly praise. The opening chapters (1-3) of the book of Revelation repeatedly use the number 7 this same way. This praise occurs in the entire church, not just a few here and there, and it comes with power, and is attended by mighty acts of God. This would presumably refer primarily to regeneration and conversion because the author clearly has in mind the book of Genesis or new beginnings. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creation, behold the old has passed away and the new has come."

2. The final summary, let "everything that hath breath," repeats the idea of "people as multiple kinds of instruments" included in this new creation: the redeemed from every tribe, tongue and nation. The instruments are the people. And all of them sing the psalms in the assembly, just as did Jesus and the apostles.

3. The text groups together precisely 7 instrument classes or kinds of musical things -- representing again the whole church from every nation. And the power of this praise leads to God's mighty acts and victory for the saints of God. This psalm, the final one, shows that the saints praise God perfectly when they are perfected at the END of human history as we now know it to be. It fits the rest of biblical eschatology as occuring at the beginning -- as the cause of - what we call the Millenium, a time of peace and prosperity on earth with many nations saved, and God clearly showing his power in answering the prayers of the saints -- including the manipulation of weather patterns either bringing or withholding rain as a special providence (this is not accounted miraculous in the later prophetic literature, as it was with Elijah, but is generally considered ordinary as a rule).

The New Testament ascribes the ability to do this to elders in the epistle of James. Apparently this is one aspect of the prophectic ministry now belonging to the Church as a whole which continues, but in a non-miraculous fashion, under the Newer covenant. One can easily witness that today the idoltrous nations of Africa already exhibit this pattern to some extent. It isn't a matter of miracle or no miracle so much from the biblical standpoint, but of national obedience or infidelity, and the predictable results that follow: covenantal blessing or curse.

Surely the prayers of righteous men can still prevail upon the Lord of nations. But let no one think it a greater miracle that a parched nation receive the blessing of heaven in watery form than that men from that nation convert to the Gospel of Christ. Judge for yourselves which is the more parched, the people or the land.

4. verses 1-2 describe God in his sanctuary in terms of power, mighty acts and exceeding greatness. This befits those times when the glory appears and fills the Temple, when God is present and doing miracles among his people, as in the apostolic generation of the early Christian church, but might also refer instead to the miracle of conversion and regeneration on a grand scale. This is consistent with the eschatological views of Johnathan Edwards well rooted in Biblical teaching, as well the clear -- yes I said clear -- central message of the book of Revelation.

This psalm appears to teach the powerful and victorious preaching and psalm-singing of the "trumpets of God" -- most likely the trumpeting martyrs of the book of Revelation raised to life at the book's end -- when God visits his sanctuary with great "power and might" at the *end* of what we now call history. Other psalms, like Psalm 21 describe their going forth in power as well. This power of God visiting his people brings perfected praise in all the church which - as a result of the ministry of these 'trumpets' -- consists of people (saints) from every nation, which greatly glorifies God (brings him honor among the nations). Vindication completed by powerful and victorious preaching of trumpets when God pours out his spirit on his people.

Others might see this as being fulfilled in the apostolic era, which in many ways fits just what we see in the text. This position is quite tenable, but the remainder of the psalms better fit a postmillenial eschatological time of dynamic and extraordinary success of the Gospel of Chris. As with most prophecies of the Bible, it is safer to say for sure only when all the passages have actually been fulfilled.

Finally, this psalm mimicks the Revelation literature in one other respect. It reaches both far into the distant past (Genesis) and into the future. This is typical of literature in the Bible spanning or pointing to a transitional era, when the old order is on the way out, and the new approaches the horizon. Remember too that this fits the actual situation of the Psalmist, as David's reign was followed by Solomon's. The new is cause for celebration and the psalms Targum, reads simply at the end, "Hallelujah!".

Praise the Lord, for he is good, his mercy endures forever.

Let The Reader Understand: Hard Sayings of Paul Expounded

Rarely does one author of an epistle or book of the canonical Bible comment on the writings of another, but it does happen now and again. When it does, the reader ought to pay more strict attention than usual to what he (the inspired commentator) says. For the Lord, knowing that not all passages present themselves with equal degree of clarity, nor are they alike equally clear to each reader -- has provided this help for us to enlighten our understanding.

If we didn't need it, it wouldn't be there. It is there, so we need to listen up. It's the right thing to do.

Todays passage for consideration is Colossians 1: 24. It reads (in context),

" ... I Paul am made a minister; 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: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God ... "

I am fully persuaded that this sort of passage recalls just the sort of thing the apostle Peter had in mind when he said (2 Pet. 3:15-16),

" ... even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Here we learn some very helpful information for tackling the difficult passage we aim to explain today for the benefit of the saints (Col. 1:24 above). First, it is very interesting to note that Peter has read ALL of Paul's mail, which he sent to the saints and was read among them. Peter says, as also in ALL his epistles .... Recall that Paul had occasion to rebuke Peter publicly for siding with the circumcision group, saying you must be circumcised of Moses or you cannot be saved. Paul had to shake loose from Peter some old habits which do not dissipate easily.

Apparently, this impressed Peter as the proverb says that a rebuke to a listening ear is the ear of a wise man. And this Peter was. He took it to heart and we see the fruit of it in his epistles. Peter calls Paul "beloved apostle," a man rebuked who is wise, Solomon says, will love you for it. Solomon also was called "beloved" of the Lord ("Jedidah"). But that is another story for another time. Now Peter read and (obviously) studied all Paul's letters to learn wisdom -- which Peter knew Paul had from God. Every good and perfect gift cometh down from the Father of heavenly lights. And such is wisdom.

Second, Peter plainly admits even he -- an apostle -- finds it difficult at times to grasp the sense of Paul's wisdom. Note that Peter under the inspiration of the Spirit calls it 'wisdom,' and yet admits that it cannot always be easily understood. This should encourage the brethren. But note Peter did NOT say that some of Paul's writings prove IMPOSSIBLE to understand, as though God cannot speak through a man and make the sense objectively clear. The passage -- wisdom from God -- is NOT the problem here. Our lack of diligence in study is.

The remedy is found in James. 'If any lack wisdom [which is what you need to understand wisdom] let him ask God who giveth freely without finding fault .....' Now the Bible self-interprets objectively, and we may always know its sense when properly understood in light of other passages, for this is what it means, "The law of the Lord is PERFECT, restoring [i.e. converting] the soul (Pslam 19:7).

To understand the Bible you must attune your own mind to its sensibilities, thinking God's thoughts after Him. Much more is this the case with some things hard to understand, but not impossible to understand. With God all things are possible. Let the reader also notice that the UNLEARNED have a problem. They aren't properly catechized. They haven't learned the prerequisite knowledge -- the things easier to understand -- before pursuing the harder ones. This makes them hermeneutically unsure, and they vaciliate in their understanding, now holding this interpretation and that one. And they cannot tell which for they lack the required reading prior to their attempts to tackle the harder sayings.

So they "wrest" (distort) these by insufficiently regarding their context -- either local or remote -- seeing in them what they wish (according to the traditions of men), according to their own first principles, rather than those most relevant found in the word of Christ.

This is not a victimless crime. It brings destruction both to him who "wrests" (wrestles the texts from their proper context, informing them by first principles other than those of the word), and those who continue in false teaching. Held consistently - insofar as this is possible (eventually it is not), this will lead one away from the biblical worldview altogether. Heresy in its infancy is mere heterodoxy. Heterodoxy plus consistency and time leads to heresy -- which generates a host of dialectical tensions -- and even oddball beliefs which everyone (even the pagans at times) recognize as folly.

Now to the passage in question (Colossians 1:24). This has perplexed both scholar and layman alike over many centuries and has remained one of the more difficult passages of which Peter surely had in mind. Here is the "offending" portion of what Paul has to say here:

"and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake." This phrase presents a problem because it seems to imply (especially in other translations, i.e. the NIV) that Christ's sufferings for His people leave something undone, which the apostle must take care of himself. In other words, it seems -- at first blush - to weigh in against what Christians know from other passages which clearly say that Christ accomplished redemption "to the uttermost" for His people, leaving nothing whatever undone or incomplete in this regard.

Now unlearned and unstable persons surely seize upon this passage - for many have -- to make the case that "It is finished" means "It is not quite finished." For the Lord said of redemption on the cross and John tells us -- his final words -- or word in Greek, "Tetelestai!" It is complete. This has its root in the Greek verb teleo, to finish or complete. The sense is clear enough in the Johannine passage: Jesus left nothing undone needful for the redemption of his people.

Luke plainly affirmed, "You shall call his Name "Jesus," for He [not He and a large group of disciples] shall save His people from their sin." This satisfactorily, I believe highlights the problem then generated by unlearned and unstable persons, who seize upon this passage to say otherwise.

One of the first rules in hermeneutics is this: local context is king. One must to understand any passage properly FIRST overturn the nearby stones, looking for clues (i.e. look for similar passages elsewhere in Paul's epistles to help before you run off to Leviticus or Revelation for the kind of "help" you don' t really want. The only exception to this rule comes with -- and when --someone else authoritatively QUOTES the passage under consideration. This is not the case with our passage for consideration. You cannot find it quoted anywhere in the NT.

Can we find a similar passage written by Paul to help us read Paul well and according to wisdom? Yes we can. Here it is (2 Cor. 1:3-7):

"Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ. And whether we be afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effectual in the enduring of the same sufferings which we also suffer: or whether we be comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. And our hope of you is stedfast, knowing, that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so shall ye be also of the consolation."

Let the reader notice that several times, Paul uses here the same sort of puzzling -- but less puzzling here since -- here is the main point -- he elaborates on the sense of what we wish to know at much greater length. In technical hermeneutics this is called, "hitting the jackpot." Paul views his own sufferings as resulting in his ability to more greatly help the saints. In other words, the Bible views salvation much more like the view held by the Puritans than by most Evangelicals today, who see justification as its sole goal (Grk. "soteria" also means "deliverance" in some contexts).

This is the beginning of salvation in the Bible, not the end. The Word of Christ adopts a much more "wholistic" view of salvation, not merely "deliverance from," but deliverance TO something -- which something is called the "Kingdom of God" or alternately the Kingdom of Christ the Son [of God], God's appointed and anointed vicergent or "acting Agent" on His behalf.

Paul emphasizes not that his sufferings and those of the apostles contribute in any way to the JUSTIFICATION of the saints -- once for all finished by Christ at golgotha and in leaving his tomb -- but in functioning as a tool for their further growth in Christ -- sanctification. Put only a little differently for John Murray fans, Paul has in mind redemption applied -- not redemption accomplished -- to which he and the apostles contribute.

How do they contribute? In their sufferings, God enables them better to sympathize with like sufferings of others -- the poor, those who go to bed hungry at night, who lack sleep , who are persecuted by others for well-doing and the like. IN the case of the apostles the list is extensive so far as suffering goes -- to the point of including lashes and shipwrecks (not your run of the mill kinda personal catastrophes).

Sympathy is the basis of mercy, the most fundamental rule of Christian faith for relating to others. The better part of charity -- the greatest of virtues -- is mercy. And mercy begins with sympathy. Sympathy moves one to console and remove the source of injury to the one shown mercy. Paul often mentions "consolation" in this context. Note the phrase,

"the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ."

Paul means that the sufferings Christ brings upon the apostles during the course of their ministry -- and they were many -- brought sanctification to the apostles and enabled them to bear the burdens of the saints more faithfully, helping the weaker along in their salvation as they worked it out in "fear and trembling." The passage above best reveals the sense of Colossians 1:24. The afflictions of Christ do not refer to his suffering on the cross, but to those inflicted upon the apostles as discipline from the Lord. For Paul prayed three times to the Lord, asking him to remove such a source of discipline -- called a thorn in HIS flesh (not Christ's flesh) -- and the Lord refused him -- saying (paraphrastically), "No, but this is for your own good. This thorn you must bear and keep." Paul recognized that God was by this enabling him better to minister to the saints, "filling up" -- note the progressive sense of ongoing affliction -- in his flesh (thorn in HIS FLESH) -- what was "still lacking" (as one translation has it) "of the afflictions of Christ" in my flesh for his body's sake.

The proper translation reads, Christ is not done bringing affliction to the apostles (in their flesh) for the body's (the Church of Christ) sake. Because by their continuing afflictions from Christ (who would not remove them) they were better enabled to tend the sheep -- spurring them on by consolation in their own afflictions -- to grow in Him rooted and established in the faith, not led away by the several traditions of men, which are not according to Christ, but according to he basic principles of the world.

Though I will not argue for it here, the best argument I have seen to date for determining just what Paul's thorn in the flesh was, came by a New Testament professor who thorougly impressed me -- David Alan Black. I believe he continues to teach the more difficult Greek exegesis courses at Talbot Theological seminary (but am not sure of this). I can recommend almost anything written by him.

He argued that Paul refered here to a fairly large group of Judaizing persecutors (whom he bitterly castigates in Philippians 3 calling them "dogs" etc.) who followed him from town to town, stirring up the populace against both himself and the gospel. It is clear that Paul had a kind of righteous hatred for these murderers and steadfast haters of Christ and the gospel. And it was mutual.

Paul was experiencing Lex Talionis -- just what he had done to the church and her ministers also God brought upon Paul. Remember from the very first (Paul says) that Jesus said to one Ananias that Paul must learn "how much he must suffer for my name's sake." These sufferings were both foreordained by Christ specially for Paul and well suited to the needs of the saints for whom Paul had to bring consolation.

Paul's way of describing this was that Christ was "filling up in Paul's flesh" just what the church needed Paul to suffer, in order for Paul to be able to enhance their sanctification (i.e. salvation in the wholistic sense). Paul's ministry required extreme suffering on his part and Christ had prophesied this from the outset of it.

This suffering was no way gratuitous or some mere punishment upon Paul for his former deeds. It enabled him specially to carry out with great patience all that the Body of Christ needed -- together with those sufferings of the other apostles to the same end. They were not redemptive in the sense of justification. They were "ministerially necessary" and "ecclesiastically beneficial," for the building up of the body of Christ.

So in an ironic sense, Paul's sufferings were for the salvation (edification) of the church. The more Paul suffered, the more they were consoled. Not that they in any way took joy in his sufferings. Quite the contrary. Nevertheless, the result turned out that the more beatings Paul took for the gospel, the more the Church grew. The same was true of the other apostles (and an occasional deacon like Stephen) as one can see in the book of Acts.

Let not the unlearned and unstable wrest from any man the clear sense -- from many passages which might be multiplied at length (Don't tempt me) - which teach -- from Jesus and the several apostles (and not a few Psalms) -- the full and final sufficiency of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ the Lord both, on the cross and in his resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. Redemption is, as we say, a package deal. It does not come in several sections, but consists in all the words and works of the Lord Jesus as taught in all the Word (tota scriptura), not merely in the Gospels.

Salvation comes both accomplished in Jesus, and applied by His Spirit through his appointed means (called means of grace ordinarily). It is more than justification and calls men to run a long and patient race, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author (justification) and perfecter (sanctification unto glory) of our faith.

And God used the afflictions of special ministers called apostles and prophets (Evangelists were also prophets) to carry out the building and growth of his Church in a special - foundational -- manner not to be repeated in following generations. So the foundation had to be very solid. One does not lay a foundation twice. It was therefore especially needful for the apostles to suffer in order to console the saints with great consolation and mercy.

By the way, as a final note I have already implied, one would do well to notice that Paul (by way of Colossians 1:24) has answered the question (I know I wondered, so I can only imagine that you have) "Why did God say no to poor Paul when he pleaded with the Lord earnestly, "Please take this thorn away from me three times -- as Christ similarly prayed three times, "Father if it be possible take this cup from me."

The parallel is striking. In the first case (that regarding Christ's prayer), it was not possible, for that the saints needed redemption to be fully accomplished. And in the second case, they needed redemption applied to them in sanctification, with the help of the apostolic apointees to lead and guide them in their faith as "the pillar and ground of truth."

In both cases, salvation is of the Lord. Praise the Lord for he is good. His mercy endures forever.

Chocolatey Goodness And the Either Or Fallacy

Today I wish to consider for your perusal a fallacy which characteristically operates under one of two assumed names. The more common appellation remains the "either-or" fallacy; less commonly spock-types might name it the "false disjunction." And I think it best to illustrate this little pest by the use of a chocolatey learning device. This tends to keep the attention of most Americans, and not a few Europeans.

God bless the Dutch, they have provided the chocolate (historically) for this illustration (they discovered the cacao bean while exploring in Brazil in the early 1500's; some genius -- we know not just who -- decided to mix the crushed bean powder with butter and sugar, giving us today's illustration.). Later the swiss added milk to the brew to give us - you guessed it -- milk chocolate.

Suppose one were to affirm the following indirect form of this fallacy -- most conversations do not package the fallacies for you ever-so-neatly; you must hunt them down:

(1) We all need energy in order to survive. (2) Chocolate is a form of caloric energy. (3) Therefore, we all need chocolate to survive.

This is an implied form of the either-or fallacy, which pretends only two logically possible options in situations (logical situations) where more than two options actually obtain. The first premiss we will consider non-controversial, since people observably do eventually shrivel up if they do not eat. But the above syllogism assumes that no other forms of edible food exist. What about locusts and honey, or broiled fish and honeycomb?

In other words, the conclusion assumes that either you eat chocolate or else you starve. While line 2 merely stipulates that chocolate is but one way to obtain the energy one needs to survive, the conclusion pretends that it reads "chocolate is the ONLY form of energy by which one might survive. But other food options do of course exist -- like gummy worms, pizza and McDonald's french fries. You could -- I am told -- even survive for a short stint on some kinds of tree bark, but I don't think it tops anyone's favorite snacks list. And I can only assume that it makes for difficult flossing.

But here the syllogism might simply cross one's lips in an ordinary conversation, so you have to develop a sharp ear, and run through your mind the possibilities of just where the problem may actually lie when you hear it. One of the most important attributes a good apologist must develop is the refined ear -- excellent listening skills. A good memory really helps too, since this will enable you to recall the earlier statements a debate opponent has made, that you might cross reference them with his or her more recent affirmations.

In this case, the conclusion simply does not follow (the Latin "non-sequitur" describes this problem) from the premisses. It assumes a total expansion of proposition 2 to cover the entire range of the category "food energy options," when in fact it is a very lowly subset of that extensive category. The list could be enlarged greatly. Hence the term "either-or" to describe this error.

Finally, we must carefully avoid judging too swiftly in some cases where a disjunct (either this is true or else that must be) may describe accurately the logical situation in question. Sometimes there are only two real options. Consider the following claims: birds are either mammals or else they are not mammals. This volcano is either active or else it is inactive. Dolphins are either fish or else they are cetaceans (this assumes we do not mean a Miami football team).

HOMEWORK. Yes I typed the "H" word.

As a project that would greatly enhance your skills in identifying this error, you might try constructing with your students five examples of legitimate disjunctions -- if they are younger use animal categories so they can learn a little biology or zoology (this way you get the 2 birds, one scone effect -- no, I meant "scone" -- some scones are stale enough to do the job easily). And then compile a list of five disjunctive statements that have other real options, affirmations which illustrate today's noted fallacy.

Now would be a good time to pour yourself a cup of hot chocolate so you can live to study another day. And don't forget the scone. I recommend blueberry.

Euclidean or Non-Euclidean: THAT is the Question

A well-known person once chimed that universities everywhere hire entire departments full of mathematicians. He added "They owe their careers not so much to math as to economics. This is because they are hired for the singular reason that it is much cheaper to employ them than to have them institutionalized." Not everyone shares this apprehension of the math department, but let's face it, the discipline can be a little frustrating at times.

Euclid of Alexandria (b. ca. 323 B.C., the same year Alexander of Macedon died after conquering the known world -- Aristotle died the next year -- as times were tough on smart people) is something like the father of basic geometry.He was born during the reign of the next guy who ruled after Alexander, Ptolemy I (called "Soter"), one of Alexander's generals. Many of the smartest people in the ancient world found employment in Alexandria (Egypt), because the rulers favored education to a great extent and spent a good deal of time and money on cultural achievements.

They even built an enormous library there. It was well-known in the ancient world, until someone very controversial burnt it to the ground many centuries later. Libraries were something like fire-magnets in the ancient world. This library experienced several of them over the centuries.The dividing of the Macedonian Greek kingdom into four parts happened, if you recall the book of Daniel, just as God had prophesied by Daniel the prophet, and so the kingdom divided -- one part for each of Alexander's generals.

The Ptolemies -- you say the family name first in the middle and far eastern cultures in most cases -- ruled all the way down to Cleopatra (c.a. 30 B.C.). Then the Romans took over, as the Romans were wont to do. Euclid came up with a set of axioms -- basic rules -- from which he ably derived a system of geometry -- explaining the relationships of all the different parts of familiar shapes like triangles and squares, even parallelograms. He even came up with a way to justify the answers he gave.

Later this "Euclidean geometry" proved very useful for a number of great engineering feats and different kinds of inventions. His original work, Elements, has turned out to be the most influential "mathematical bestseller" in the history of math. Additionally, Euclid's logical rigor, reasoning carefully from a set of first principles by deduction to render his conclusions ended up informing the way most mathematicians still do their work -- even if their math is much more complex today.

A new development, the use of computers and programs to do sophisticated (or simpler) math at high speeds has given rise to other kinds of geometry called "Non-Euclidean," because the categories of Euclids writings don't help much in these newer fields. One such field, which only came about after the invention of computers -- very recently -- is called "Fractal geometry."

Here comes your latin word for the day -- "Fractus" (sounds like cactus) which means "broken" or fractured. This refers to the way the generated images appear, with endless branches, extending now this way and now that, in a somewhat jagged fashion.A man named Benoit Mandelbrot (Ben - NOIT Man-dul-BRAHT) came up with a startling object he created (most say discovered) one day using a very simple formula. But he had his computer run through this formula in a recursive fashion many times and then plot the numbered points (called "coordinates") on a graph.

The picture it yielded had some very fascinating characteristics, one of which was that -- no matter how far you "zomed in" on the image, it kept reproducing smaller copies of itself. It seemed almost infinitely complex, even though it was generated by a very simple formula involving only a few numbers (using Z, then a small z, and a c as variables) and two functions -- addition and multiplication. Filtering a set of numbers through a formula -- over and over -- using the output of the previous run-through as the input for the next one represents a kind of feedback loop which in math they call the process of "iteration."

The Mandelbrot image is an iteration-generated image. The iteration process forms the heart of "fractal" geometry -- it employs the iterative process (or sometimes more than one at the same time) to generate images who characteristics are then studied for comparison with real-life objects -- tree leaves, mountain range tops, cloud formations, oceanic wave characteristics, and anything formed involving processes that seem somewhat random to us. They also study such images to find out how to put them to good use as a tool to develop really cool technology. If you visit wikipedia, you can see the now famous "Mandelbrot image."

It has taken on something of a mythical (maybe even mystical) reputation among some mathematicians. Personally, I thought it had the appearance of a somewhat unimpressive -- but very curious -- mosaic. Reasons for this zeal vary, but the shape resembles in certain ways -- in part usually -- objects with which we are already familiar - from tree leaves to insects. The biggest part of it looks like a heart-shaped something ("cardioid").

Every Christian should know a little something about fractal geometry, especially homeschoolers. There are several really good reasons for this.

1. It has in its very short life span already produced amazing results in several areas of technology and promises to bring about the next technical revolution in science. This post is a heads-up, aiming to put homeschooled Christians in the driver's seat of the next wave of technological innovation.

2. Because of the extreme success it is likely to have, the pagan world will likely grow in its mystical (or at very least mythical) marvel of the work of their own hands. Mathematicians already refer to the Mandelbrot image as -- I am quoting them -- "THE fingerprint of GOD." The greater the success, the greater the idolatry is sure to become in this regard. This post - like all my posts - is about apologetics (even if accidentally).

Here, Christians can avoid the mathematical idolatry associated with mystical views, while also learning something of a great and powerful application of mathematics, greatly suited to fulfilling the dominion mandate.

3. This field of math has extraordinary potential for use in the medical sciences to alleviate some of the many diseases and conditions whose cure or repair we now regard as impossible or even absurd. This is possible because fractal geometry has already shown it is well able to mimic the biological and crystalline structures that produce the objects around us. For instance, fractal geometry can produce on a computer screen "Growing trees," which show remarkably similar features -- including the diversity of tree features -- to actual trees. You have to see some of the computer-generated images to understand this well.

It can also enable satellites to "see" what the cannot see directly -- filling in image gaps using images generated from the known section of what is viewed, and then by extrapolating the missing section. It can also do incredible things with image and resolution enhancement. This is just the very beginning of the sciences destined to arise from this non-Euclidean geometry.

4. No matter which professional field a Christian goes into, law, medicine, teaching, whatever -- you will need to know something about this field of study because it will likely impact your work in ways you now cannot imagine (just like you could not imagine all the stuff you'd be doing on your cell phone 20 years ago).

5. Mathematicians and scientists working in this area speak just like creationists -- to a man and woman. The extreme complexity they find in simple instruction sets neatly mimics just what DNA does in growing "us" from a very limited supply of four basic proteins. In other words, they have stumbled upon a great analogue (methodological way of mimicking) not only how things replicate -- we know a good deal about how DNA copies itself -- but also how they grow as the replicated instruction sets (originally created by God) -- at least partially responsible for life on this planet -- execute their biological programs.

My inference is this: if you can mimic what the life code does analogically, you could (in principle anyway, applications always introduce unexpected hurdles) teach cells to grow new limbs, cure debilitating disease etc. This means -- from the standpoint of scientists -- this is something of a quantitative and pictorial analogy (i.e. derived, not original) to the biblical concept of creation -- and the more it succeeds, the more silly Neo-Darwinism is going to appear.

Scientists instinctively recognize that they are creating images using iteration -- simple processes repeated many times -- to produce extremely complex and very life-like pictures of real objects. So it appears to them that these real-life objects were ALSO CREATED by a very wise Intelligence using some form of reasoning, at least in some ways analogical to fractal geometry. And this methodology manages what seems an infinitely complex product, and yet remains very simple in terms of the basic elements used. Of course God created originally (ex nihilo), and scientists only create in a secondary fashion.

This is the nature of imagination. And remember, no theory must be true in order to work well. Knowably false ones often yield remarkable results in the history of the sciences. My point is that fractal geometry can imitate real-life quite well, so it has the potential of yielding great real world results or powerful technology. This does not imply that any theoretical notion associated with it is actually true. But most scientists do not realize this. They tend to assume that if it works well, the theory is likely true (the fallacy of affirming the consequent).

Apologetics punchline: Darwin's ideological days are numbered. Given the ordinary assumptions with which scientists operate, Mandelbrot has effectively killed Darwin. Christians need to know this. Every time they say "Darwin," you say "Mandelbrot." This shows that any one field of science -- because the sciences presently are not rooted in the Bible -- may yield results incompatible with the assumptions or conclusions of another science. This also happens with some regularity in the history of the sciences.

6. It is not known what the limits -- every science has them -- of this new science will be. A little history goes a long way. Let me tell you what will happen -- first stage of new scientific revolution -- extreme enthusiasm -- the new science will fix everything.

Second stage: the new science yields extraordinary results in a few key areas with wide-ranging implications, inlcuding economic ones, bringing a higher standard of living for many.

Third stage -- Mandelbrot is an Einstein -- the new superman (this is how the story always goes) -- and he discovered what they call "Gods fingerprint." You can find similar use of overly zealous language in the early 1920's regarding Einsteins theories of general and special relativity (The truth is that humans -- we -- are God's image, bearing his "fingerprint" on our consciences -- so don't buy the baggage but enjoy the results of technological advances).

Stage four -- the science begins more obviously now to encounter its real-world limits and the money poured into it has reached the point of diminishing returns. Still, a few new applications encourage the brethren and the mytho-speak stays alive in certain circles, but the science is now considered more commonplace and the "wow" factor gives way to the "already knew that" factor.

Stage five -- a new science arises with all the promise of what this one was thought to carry, and THAT new field or theory becomes the bearer of the ring (also called by scientists "My precious").

7. This one however does have a few unique features -- it actually looks like a great way to imitate (in a derivative fashion --not actually creative but skillfully manipulative of) God's handiwork -- which job it is of all men to think God's thoughts after Him -- and so this may actually produce not only its own great results, but could create a kind of synergy -- enhancing mulitple sciences already in existence -- greatly accelerating the rate of new discoveries in many different -- even apparently unrelated -- arts (i.e. architecture and the graphic arts) and sciences simultaneously -- or nearly simultaneously.

Questions to ask: 1. Who is Euclid of Alexandria?

A. Euclid was the father of modern geometry, whose work, Elements had a profound and lasting impact on the way math is done and the way mathematicians prove their answers are right.

2. What is "fractal geometry?"

Fractal geometry is a field of mathematics which uses the iterative process to make, and also to study, highly complex images useful for new discoveries not only in math, but in many scientific fields, including the biological sciences.

3. Describe the process of "iteration." Give a simple example.

A. The process of iteration begins with a number (or set of numbers) and runs them through a formula which changes the numbers as directed -- adding, mulitiplying, subtracting or dividing (there are other functions too) them -- to produce a new number (or set) to be used as the next field of input on the same formula.

Example. Start with the number "3." Add to it half of its total each time you run the loop. First it yields "4.5" then it adds 4.5 + 2.25 -- yielding 7.75, and so on. The numbers increase only a little at first and then sharply. When these points are plotted on a graph, they produce a slope. if you do this with multiple series at the same time -- you get an image or picture -- made up of overlapping slopes. Don't worry. Start small. It ain't rocket science or brain surgery -- at least not yet.

4. Why was Alexandria important in the ancient world? Alexandria for many centuries both before and after the birth of Jesus became the education hub of the mediterranean world. Hero of Alexandria, for instance invented the first steam engine there in the first century A.D.

5. Who is Benoit Mandelbrot? This names the man who came up with the startling image - computer-generated -- which shows what appear to be either extremely or infinitely complex features -- one of which is self-replication at progressively lower (smaller) levels (or higher levels of magnification). Scientists continue to study this image to determine its nature, structure and attributes for application in several sciences (including image compression in the computer sciences and resolution enhancement in the optical sciences and photograhic arts, to name but a few).

6. Why should Christians know a little something (at the very least) about fractal geometry? This promises to be the mathematical basis for the next scientific revolution and Christians are supposed to be culturally aware, as well as cultural leaders in fields such as math and science. It also provides an excellent analogy to the view of creation Christians hold to be true and seems to refute the most basic concept inherent in all popular forms of evolutionary theory -- that randomness produces high orders of structural and functional complexity.

In fractal geometry, extremely complex structures instead develop over time (seemingly on their own) by following a simple set of instructions from intelligent persons. This provides an analogy for just what Chrstians claim happened "in the beginning."

Moreover, Christians recognize that the Bible itself comes in the form of very simple languages -- a fairly rudimentary form of Hebrew, and Koine Greek -- from ancient cultures -- and yet contains the extremely complex wisdom of the Lord of Wisdom and Knowledge. Simple sets of instructions do not entail a "primitive" message or product -- but may instead prove fascinatingly (or even infinitely) complex. Neither numbers, nor time, appear to have a limit at the upper "end." You can always add a one to the highest number derived.

The same may be true of other aspects of human experience. The Bible says that "God has put eternity [i.e. temporal infinity] in the hearts of men." Presumably this means that the human imagination could invent endlessly. If "of the making of many books there is no end," why not of technological advancements also? Books comprise the source of education and technology is the application of it. If it can be true of math -- a man-made set of axioms developed into a system -- how much more the Word of the Living God.

It is simple in appearance because God condescends to our weaknesses. So it's language is often very plain. But the Bible contains the most poweful message you will ever see, Mandelbrot's "fingerprint" claims notwithstanding.

7. If Euclid and other mathematicians were so smart, and fractal geometry relatively simple, why didn't someone invent it before 1980? Answer: fractal geometry, though based on simpler sets of instructions carried out to an extraordiary extent, could not have been invented until the advent of computers. This shows how one field of technology or science can facilitate others. This is called "intellectual synergy." The team is more than just the sum of its individual parts.

Want to know more? http://www.wikipedia.org/ Learning happens.