Writing of Writing and Thinking of Thinking: Beat The System

False theories and knowledge just go together. This sentiment is bound to surprise many, especially coming from the e-pen of a Christian, since people know them to be on about "objective truth" more often than not.

A simple distinction or two can help a great deal here. There is a very important difference between the way you go about learning something (let us call it some truth "X") and how one might go about justifying the alleged truth of X.

I have suggested (and maintain incorrigibly) that one might learn the truth of X from several different possible methods. A few scientists even came up with some of their more interesting theories from dreams they had, some quite frightening. James Clerk Maxwell did this. Ernst Mach pulled some fairly interesting stunts to come up with theories too. He was a scientific anti-realist and didn't care. But Christians acknowledge only one way in which a person may ultimately justify the truth of any claim, including our pet view called "X."

So the claim "I learned the truth of X by doing Y" is not at all interchangeable with the claim that " I justify X on the basis of Y." This has great importance for questions of how we learn what our Bible teach, and how we justify what we learn by whatever means we so learn.

For example, one might learn the Bible truth that "There is but one God, and one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus" by being taught this in a catechism class by ones parents, or he might simply stumble across 1 Timothy's passage cited above, or he might hear a minister quote it during a sermon, and proceed to expound upon its meaning.

These ways of learning differ greatly. But once learned, the means for proving the truth of this claim (ultimately) will look identical. And a person almost always learns any truth X, before he learns the proper justification pattern for proving the claim. I knew that "2 + 2 = 4" long before I could PROVE it in terms of base ten math. Thus, learning and justifying represent (in most cases) different kinds of actions.

Second, people today often think of knowledge in terms of "true theories" or "proven theories." This overlooks the basic Christian claim that not all knowledge is theoretical in nature. Divine revelation for instance cannot be erroneous or mistaken. Theoretical claims can. And even when they turn out to be true theories, they could have been mistaken (but weren't). Theories never have an infallible source because God does not theorize. And he alone is infallible. Scientists will be the first to tell you they make mistakes. Trial and error is part of the job description, in fact.

God is not like this. He does not learn. He simply knows all things -- possible and actual eternally (not just at this particular moment). Thus, when He speaks and transmits information, He cannot err. It is not the case simply that he DOES NOT, but cannot err. "He cannot deny Himself," meaning that His perfect attributes set borders around his abilities, since He cannot degrade his own perfect character. God, for instance, cannot violate his own law (sin), nor can He alter his character in any fundamental way. Since one (by definition) cannot improve upon perfect, any substantial change in any one attribute would require a demotion of sorts (so to speak).

Thus, the Word of God ascribes to itself the incommunicable attributes of deity. It is eternal, incorrigible, invincible, sovereign (frames human history), irrefragable (cannot be divided or degraded), and the like. No theory of man is like this, whether true, false or indeterminate.

Men do not reveal (original information), nor can they (save the God-Man Himself), for they are not deity. Thus, the word of God is not like true theories, even though both are true. They possess mutually exclusive basic attributes, and belong (logicians say) to complementery classes. True theories are contingently (not necessarily) true. The converse is true of divine revelation since it forms the foundations (the meta-transcendental) for knowledge.

So what is the point here? The point is this. Since one can (and may) learn revealed truths by many different methods or secondary sources, false theories (and theories of unknown truth value) can be skillfully used to determine the true meaning of some passage of the revelation of God. The Bible teaches that "to him who is clean are all things clean."

False theories are in the right hands, an extra set of tools one might use as lenses for looking at some data set from fresh perspectives not available without such "lenses." In other words, false theories can be (and I have used them successfully to this end many times) excellent ways of learning some truth of the Word or of the world - which is justified (I find out later) from this or that passage combination from the Word of God.

But I -- presumably -- would never have learned this from the Word (unless I had by Gods grace stumbled upon it by some other means) had I not borrowed the false-theory "glasses" and used them to look at the Bible this way just "for the sake of argument."

There is nothing so far as I know which, either in the Word or in the teachings of men like Cornelius Van Til, which suggests that this is improper. But much the contrary. This is precisely the perspective a Christian apologist IS to take of a worldview he does not share for the sake of conducting an analysis where he snoops about for dialectical tensions.

I have simply adapted the VanTillian "hypothetical snooping" method to views outside apologetics and pressed them into the service of research. Adapt, improvise, and overcome. Its the postmillenial thing to do.

So let me make my recommendation for the good of all research animals everywhere. First, I believe in doing research only biblically. Not every philosophy of research is acceptable to God, but only the theonomic one. This is the one I am recommending. Those who have read my book on theoretical instrumentalism as the biblical philosophy of science will recognize at once that what I have done there by exegesis to show instrumentalism sound in the faith of Jesus, I have here extended into the philosophy of research.

What is THE biblical philosophy of research? Answer: theoretical construction used as heuristic devices to look at data from unique perspectives to gain insights, which if true, can then later be justified by the Word. And if not, we simply discard them as "nothing more than tools for learning" what the Bible alone would have justifed if true.

But the usefulness of theories -- false or true (or indeterminant) for gaining real insights into the word of God -- or into sources warranted by the word of God (as with extrabibical historical sources confirmed by the consistent testimonies of two or three eyewitnesses) -- enables us to learn things about the Word in a highly efficient manner which do not necessarily come FROM the Word. Yet to justify them ultimately, we must needs lean to the Word of God alone.

Therefore, given these very important qualifications, I am maintaining here (for the first time) that the biblical philosophy of research necessarily includes -- but is not limited to -- the use of theoretical constructions known to be false, or at least NOT KNOWN to be true (in many cases), which I may therefore properly call "research theory-instrumentalism." Surely, I will be able to come up with a better name for this approach later.

Here, the bottom line is this: do not fear to construct theories freely -- even ones a bit absurd if they serve the purpose of aiding information management (analysis, sorting, classifying, etc) -- in the research process. Use them, even more than one at once if you like, to compare and contrast competing notions of cause, source analysis, and the like.

Have confidence that bad theories will be ganged up on by harsh and unruly facts soon enough, and will take the beating they have coming to them. This will require new formulations of the old one, or else a new idea altogether, perhaps equally bad. Well done. At least now you have a REAL false theory, one which manly explains things, and perhaps even makes predictions about future likely findings -- to be confirmed or else used to revile the false prophet in your notes.

You can stone them with many hard facts later. But they may well serve many excellent didactic services by the time their usefulness has expired.

So, given the biblical doctrine of theory construction (instrumentalism) applied to research -- more efficient research, I will also proceed to misquote Friedrich Nietzsche, but just barely, to shock the Christian intellectuals just a bit more --

The falsity of a theory is no objection to it.

[It's a theory. Men made it up. We already knew it was false, or at least rightly suspected it]. Hang that man-made tradition, and then give it a fair trial. (Are we not Presbyterians?) But first, let's see what we might learn from it.

Besides, the history of the sciences are filled with false theories that were very fruitful in the development of technology, and some of them are so helpful, they continue teaching them in the public schools even though they have long known about their "veridically-questionable" status (i.e. they might be dead wrong). Newtonian mechanics provides just such an example. Newton postulated that time was invariant, and space absolute. Einstein said space is curved, and time dilates when you approach C (the speed of light).

Most scientists opt for Einstein, implying (but never saying) that Newton was out to lunch. They can't have it both ways. One of those intellectual behemoths was wrong wrong -- say it with me -- WRONG. And yet both theory sets provide a fair basis for judging the physical behaviors of a wide variety of objects at different speeds and magnitudes. They are even mathematically, well nigh interchangeable.

But they specify contradictory characteristics for the world -- mutually exclusive metaphysical views (about the nature of space, time, speed, matter and energy to name a few
such elements).

Okay then, once more. "The falsity of a theory is no objection to it."
And Christian researchers will do well to remember this principle in evaluating historical sources, so long as they also recall that the Bible contains revelation -- which is not theoretical. It never says anywhere, "In the beginning was the hypothetical formula."

And sometimes, it's okay to say, "Amen" in the library. And now for 7 final words: "Outside the box," and "sake of argument."

How The Dominical and Apostolic Form of Sound Words Came About and Why They Are Important

This brief post explains just why I have taken such a great interest in the apostolic catechism, and what it means, and does not mean, for defending the faith of Jesus once for all delivered to the saints. Below, we have an example of just how it is that ideas and sayings from Jesus' earthly ministry came to be seen by the apostles as worthy of special attention for teaching purposes. This is step one to inclusion in the apostolic catechism. We must remember that the apostles were very intelligent, extremely gifted, and directly taught by God. But they had very practical concerns right in front of them, problems that needed solving.

One of these was, "What do we do with all the Gentiles that repent and believe the Gospel? what is their status compared to a saved Jew who believes? Can they eat together at the same table, or is one clean and the other unclean somehow? In other words, how do we [the Jews were "we" to the apostles] live differently now under the New Covenant? Answers to these questions were already anticipated by Jesus in his earthly ministry. He had told them all the answers. But they had not yet learned them experientially until they had to DEAL with it.

And the Lord was with them to help them. He reminded them of his earlier teachings, which, when seen in light of their new problems and the divine solutions to them, made them think, "Oh, so THAT's what he meant by saying "Such and so." Now I remember that. At other points, they understood fully right from the first after 1. Jesus taught them for forty days, likely repeating himself often (for he did so in his earthly ministry for their benefit) 2. After the Spirit fell upon them in Acts 2, as Christ first ascended to the right hand of the Father (Psalm 110) and then from there poured out his Spirit (just as Joel 2 says it must come to pass) from heaven upon men.

Here, we have a close up look at how Peter learned about one such important issue confronting the Church, how Peter shared it with the other apostles, and thus how the form of sound words was influenced by the post-resurrection teaching (and doing) ministry of Christ to the apostles. Here is our text.

Acts 11: 16

"Then remembered I [Peter, that is, Cephas] the word of the Lord [Jesus], how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost."

Comments: Here, we see that the phrase "the word of the Lord" refers not to the whole Bible, as is often the case, but to a particular saying of the Lord Jesus. This is how the term "word" is used to describe the apostolic catechism of the early Church, the form of sound words.

We see in the outworking of the didactic experiences of the apostles (here, Peter), how the Lord Jesus -- continued "to do AND TO TEACH" (as from the beginning of the Gospel of Luke). Jesus teaches Peter by a vision, and then shows him in the salvation of the Gentiles, its meaning. Peter thereby recalls the saying, or dominical word, which Jesus had earlier spoken, but at which time they did not understand.

But Peter remembered the dominical saying, and proceeds to quote it to the others, explaining its importance in light of his recent learning experience. The glorified Lord Jesus not only continues his teaching (and doing) ministry, but his teaching now comes with such force, power and insight, that even Peter cannot fail to get the point. Peter was intelligent; but he was just very suspicious of the Gentiles, until the Lord fixed his opinion by orienting it toward ethics and the covenant of grace (not defunct ceremonial law). Sin, not food, makes a man unclean. Got it. Anyone forgiven by Jesus is now clean. Bring on the sweet and sour pork.

The Lord continues pouring out his Holy Spirit from heaven at God's right hand as we first saw in Acts 2 -- first to the Jew, and now to the Gentiles. Thus, we have in Acts 11, set immediately before our eyes an example of how the sayings of the Lord -- the form of sound words -- developed.

Where did they come from? Jesus. When? From his earthly ministry. How did they become crystalized into a poetic form? They became seen as terribly important in light of this or that experience, and in light of the continued teaching of the ministry of Jesus (from heaven) in the book of Acts. Thus, the apostles put them in an easily memorizable format, which mimics for their format the poetic literature of the Older Testament, specifically, the Psalms. They recognized that the Psalms had the form they did because it made these sayings of the wise more easily memorized. Psalm 1 tells us this. "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked .... but his delight is in the law of the Lord, and on his law he meditates day and night."

The only way an Old Testament saint could do this -- since he could not carry around a scroll with him everywhere -- would be to memorize it first, so that he could later meditate on it. This is why Psalm 119 comes in an acrostic form. The Psalms were to be memorized by singing them. The Psalms are a Christological (Messianic) catechism. Thus, when the apostles created the form of sound words, they developed its christology from the Psalms -- you can see this in their sermons in Acts 1-12, and from comparing their quotations of the Psalms in those sermons, to the form of sound words itself.

Why do the sound words convert easily back into Aramaic? They were formed very early to help solve very early ecclesiastical problems -- like what do we teach new Christians that are pouring in by the thousands, and how do we train out ministers to give them sufficient knowledge to deal with the theological and practical problems they will encounter?

These problems were what the form of sound words aimed at resolving, but in each case, the reason for its answers stem from who Jesus is, and what He did and said. If its a unity problem, that unity must be restored since Christ is the head of the Church, his one body (Col. and Eph.).

We know what these problems were because Acts and the epistles tell us: circumcision, Gentiles, dietary laws, Jewish feast days ("Sabbaths" in Colossians), Helping saved Jew and Gentile "all just get along" (diaconal office created to help solve this problem), understanding just why Jesus was crucified (in light of the OT prophesies), what his resurrection means, where he went after that, and what he is doing now, the nature of the apostolic office and Paul's late inclusion in it, and various ecclesiastical problems (including ministers who won't minister, or just run off; Gnostics and false teachers, other gospels, other people not-ordained by the Church preaching the right gospel, sometimes with right motives (Apollos) or else not (Paul rejoices anyway and disregards the motive to get him in trouble).

A few more questions are in order. When did this "new phase" of the teaching ministry of Jesus to the apostles begin? During the forty day, post-resurrection teaching marathon recording in Luke's Gospel. This was part one. Part two of this "second dominical teaching" ministry phase had to wait until the Holy Spirit fell upon the apostles in Jerusalem. The Holy Spirit would do three things:

1. He would confirm the Gospel they preached with signs and wonders, including wonders which protected the apostles -- earthquakes, jail breaks and the like. There is nothing like a divinely-inspired jailbreak to comfort an imprisoned apostle.

2. He would remind them of the dominical sayings of Christ during his earthly ministry and post-resurrection, forty-day didactic sermon series, which were needed for the occasion at hand.

3. He would do apologetics for them, put the very words to speak in their mouths when called before rulers to give an account for why they behaved and taught as they did. Jesus Himself would defend the Gospel. And man can He preach. We see this with Stephen, also, though he was a deacon only, but a man "full of wisdom and of the Holy Spirit." His face lit up like an angel's face when He preached with power. The Spirit of Jesus did the preaching and defending, and it says, "they could not stand up to the Spirit by which he spoke."

This is a polite way of saying that Stephen, or rather the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, bowled them down like so many pins lined up -- one for each commandment. It was a clean strike. They were cut to the quick. And you know the rest about their subsequent protest.

When they first learned from the Lord Jesus, the Holy Spirit was with them to help them, but He had not yet been "poured out" by Christ, for Christ had not yet ascended to the right hand of the Father, from which place -- according to the Holy Scriptures of the OT -- he was scheduled so to do.

He could not pour out His Spirit needful for the mighty ministry of the apostles (to which they were appointed) until He had first ascended. But he COULD teach them all things concerning Himself and the Kingdom. Then as the Spirit worked out their salvation in them (and their apostolic office), they learned the meanings of what Jesus had much earlier said to them.

The dominical sayings -- together with many prophecies about Jesus -- were all "in their hearts," but many remained, we might say "unmined" -- until the Spirit unpacked their importance in light of the new things God was teaching them. Then they taught each other, by recounting what God had done among them, and what He had told them to do.

This happened at the Jerusalem Councils also. As iron sharpeneth iron, so one apostle sharpens another. So too the evangelists and prophets, like Philip, Luke, Agabus and others. We KNOW Luke went around telling everyone what God was doing because we have it in writing. And that is the JOB-description of evangelists, for the most part. Each apostle explained to the others what God was doing -- what Christ continued to do and to teach them -- so that each enabled the understanding of the others. Those were, to put it very mildly, exciting times.

Then they "crystallized" some of the more important (obviously not all) of the dominical sayings by creating a list of them to teach new Christians and ministers in training. Some of these dominical sayings were sayings of Jesus AFTER the resurrection, or even from above (as with the conversations that Peter and Paul had with Him).

Finally, the apostles were powerfully and unusally "spirit-filled." This should be terribly obvious from the fact that Peter walks about described by Luke in terms of the ark of the covenant, and anyone on whom his shadow falls is healed instantly. The Holy Spirit was totally in control of Peter, under such conditions, and the things he did and said were directly from God the Spirit. Especially in regard to their teaching ministries did the Spirit powerfully constrain them, so that His words and their own were one and the same.

To lie to the apostles under such conditions was the same as lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-5).

The sound words were thus formed under highly unusual and apostolically-interactive conditions where God taught men rather directly. So also the rest of Scripture was immediately inspired by God, but that does not form the focus of our present study, since we can't study everything at once. And Paul's letters were not formed the way (historically) that the apostolic catechism came about.

The point of the sound-word study is not their superiority to the rest of the Bible, but their primary importance in the development of a uniquely "Christian" (biblical) historiography of the New Testament, to provide the biblically-sanctioned alternative to Bultmania. It functions by itself to provide a greater understanding on the part of Christians as to how -- the mechanics - the New Testament canon actually came about, and came to appear as it does at present.

This biblical historiography is not intended as a justification for its several parts divorced from the rest of the canon. Biblical historiography is not an evidentialist enterprise, since we justify that historiography as only one (though important) part or aspect of the whole system of theology taught in the Holy Scripture.

The whole biblical worldview -- the canon -- presents its own best defense from the logical impossibility of the contrary. But Christian apologists must be prepared to specify just what that historiography is, and to set it over against its would-be competitors to show the strength of the biblical worldview at just those places attacked, while undermining the necessary preconditions for logic, historical investigation, and analysis using (for the sake of argument) the three layers of presuppositions in the worldviews which so set them up against the knowledge of Christ.

Those three layers of their oh-so-tangled web are (listen up apologetes):

1. Philosophical presuppositions native to individual writers [i.e. Crossan is something of a deconstructionist, while Marcus Borg is either a Pantheist (or Panentheist)]

2. Methodological presuppositions -- these consist in the propositions native to the pre-understanding of the canon which allegedly influenced its development (i.e. the doctrines of legendary growth, apostlic inter-relations, conditions of the early church [i.e. literacy v. illiteracy] and the like.

3. Criterological presuppositions - these detail just why this or that literary unit may or may not count as reliable, authentic or historical. I have, er, "demythologized" these at length in previous posts.

Why three layers? I don't know, that's just how they come packaged. I noticed this in my undergraduate years at CSU Hayward. If you want a total critique -- and you Vantillians know that you do -- you have to treat all three layers.

By laying out these presuppositions in three classes, and then comparing them intra-class first (how does the criterion of "this" compare to the others; how does it self-refer?) and then by noting the logical consequences of their inter-class relations (Does the criterion of X undermine methodological skepticism as a principle? Does it get along with the doctrines of Borg's metaphysics? Does it tolerate the doctrine of the legendary growth of the pre-canonical "pericopes, " which Bultmaniacs propose?), we can isolate many dialectical tensions -- I know I can (like buttuh), so surely you could too -- sufficient to show the impossibility of the contrary to the biblical historiography in each case.

But we must first know what the biblical trajectory of the development of the New Testament was, and the Bible tell us this. The Bible has the answers.

The dominical and apostolic "form of sound words" (I argue) played a central role in the development of the New Testament canon. Thus, it merits special attention for its unique role in canonical development, not for any special "authority" it has apart from the rest of the canon of the Holy Scripture. ALL Scripture is God-breathed, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. But not all of it functions the same way to teach us about this or that part of the canon, or its proper application to this or that field of study.

Thus far, we have a basic core of teachings justified from the Word.

1. The apostles had an early catechism, put together in discreet oral and literary units, and these are identified in the Word itself as a single body, a form of sound dominical and apostolic sayings.

2. Old Testament Christology, primarily, but not exclusively, from the Psalms and the Book of Daniel informs the central orientation of the perspective of the sound words. Jesus is the Son of Man, the lofty, powerful and glorious person who ascends the hill of the Lord to sit down at the right hand of power, after His vindicating resurrection from the dead, and miraculous ministry. In Jesus, God was manifest in the flesh, as the royal seed of King David (or Solomon the Greater). He died, was buried and rose three days later. The Apostles saw this first hand. Note that in Acts' early chapters, the apostles preach this Jesus from Solomon's porch.

The greatness of Jesus is the reason for the specific teaching in each particular sound word. Even in the case of Paul's apostleship, the Lord converted Paul and the Spirit of Jesus set him apart for the ministry to the Gentiles.

3. This catechism has Aramaic-based roots which are in many cases traceable by the linguistic features common to early Aramaic speaking and writing, like Daniel chapters 2 - 7, and like the special linguistic features of our Lord Jesus in prayer and dialogue, as recorded by the Gospels, whose writers saw Him as the Danielic Son of Man, the Psalmic Son (or else Lord) of David (But if David calls Him "Lord," how then can He be David's Son?), the deuteronomic prophet like unto Moses, and priest after the order of that Melchizedek who put into effect God's covenant with Abraham by a blessing, and by bread and wine.

4. This catechism and its early apostolic use -- as it comes to expression in the Gospels, selcted parts of the epistles, and Semitic thought-forms behind the sermons of Acts 1-12 -- the form of sound words almost certainly provided the framework for the canonical Gospels since Luke calls them "set forth in order" according to the eyewitness testimony "pattern" of the apostles. Set in order means "they follow the authorized [divine] pattern." This is a liturgical Semitism (Hebrew idiom) found in the Older and Newer Testaments. It is always used the same way.

In other words, this apostolic written testimony may be the closest thing we will ever get to "Q," the hypothetical document or oral tradition standing behind the body of sayings Matthew and Luke have in common, which is not found in Mark. Instead of "Q," however, I prefer to call it "A" for "apodosis." What student wants to get a "Q" on his biblical homework project?

5. The Christology of A most likely provides the key to understanding the Christology of the book of Revelation, which is certainly its hermeneutical centerpiece -- but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

6. "A" was used to teach new Christians the fundamentals of the faith once (for all saints) delivered; it was used to train ministers -- deacons and elders too -- that they may be "thoroughly equipped for every good work," according to their respective offices.

7. "A" contains the central teachings of the Christian faith, which is called "the Gospel of Jesus Christ," which Gospel the canonical "Gospels" themselves elaborate upon. Even their nomenclature (Apostolically-authorized titles) suggests this. This catechetical pattern set the form (liturgy and preaching) of the earliest churches, which no Christian or teacher was expected to deviate from by any "acknowledged exceptions," unless one wished to be an acknowledged heretic.

If anyone preached any other Gospel than this, he was to be damned by apostolic pronouncement. The apostles were not religious pluralists, but strident and zealous Christological monotheists with a postmillenial attitude. They did not invite compromise; they invited conversion to faith in Jesus. Paul described other religions in the least glowing terms possible, even calling his own former Judaism -- by the Holy Spirit -- "skubala" compared to knowing Jesus Christ. I cannot translate that word directly for the potential readership of children. So Paul was as popular among the Jews as Stephen.

8. This means that the form of sound words was enforced by apostolic sanctions. It was canonical, once put in writing, which was almost from the very first, alongside the oral tradition of the apostles. We know this because Luke and others would have needed copies of it to compare with the works they sought to compose. This is HOW they "set forth in order" their accounts to ensure their compliance with apostolic limits.

Luke traveled and interviewed others to fill in the details, not to come up with a brand new set of ideas about Jesus. People like Theophilus could then have their curiosity satisfied, be edified in the Christian faith, grow in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus, and "know the certainty of "the things surely believed" [sound words] among us."

And now for the obligatory summation.

By way of terribly unscientific postscript, I should wish to note that I have included this post to fill out some of the detailsof just what I am arguing (and not arguing for), and to clarify some of the possible misgivings that the Vantillians might have about my doing what would seem to be "evidential" apologetics. As you can see well now, I have not a Montgomerian bone in my body. I am of Cornelius, and from the tribes of the North, the Bahnsen and the Rushmeister.

Death before individuated facticity. My favorite teachers put it directly in terms of biblical attributes: "The consent of all the parts." I like to add the word "mutual" to that description - the mutual consent of all the parts -- because it feels -- SO -- Johannine. And Paul spoke this way of the Church and its many members -- the gifts are for the mutual edification of the one body.

In any case, this mutual consent assures me that further study in this vein can only serve to strengthen the faith of other believers in Jesus, utterly overthrow the alleged competition (whose car and smoking radiator I passed up on the side of the road some 40 miles back), highlight the full, final sufficiency of the whole Word of God, and do all kinds of assorted damage to Satan's kingdom.

A few from the "other side" of the Christological and historiographic fence might even catch on and decide to mutiny. People sometimes do not realize that, since we are born into the world under the dominion of the wrong side, Christianity is primarily about repentance unto godly defection, and sanctified treachery. Mutiny well mates. There is great treasure to be had (Proverbs 3:3-12). Now bring me that horizon.

Alexandrite: Gemstones From the Bible

Alexandrite comes out of the Bible under a different name, but is ranked in value today with the "top four" in the highest quality of these stones. The big four: diamond (diamonds are a jeweler's best friend); ruby; sapphire; and emerald -- also have this expensive comrade, most of which better ones today come from Russia.

The Bible knows it as "chrysoberyl," and it is found in Revelation 21 [KJV has "chrysoprase"], for use in describing the glorified New Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven to earth. This is the resurrection of all the saints, describing collectively their unveiled (the meaning of the Book's title) glory in the resurrection. This stone is perfect for describing the resurrection glory of the saints since like them, it changes color in refractive "flickers" as one changes the angle from which it is viewed -- like a mobile rainbow.

This is the meaning of Joseph's "coat of many colors," and the rainbow of mercy in Noah's day. These are the "priestly [and, er, "kingly"] robes" of righteousness in the Book of Revelation at the beginning.

Here is a brief post from the Mineral Zone on this "chameleon stone," a portable rainbow in your hand:

"This is a variety of chrysoberyl, like cat's eye, distinguished by a play. of colours which has earned it the name of "chameleon stone". Its natural colour ranges from dark to pale green, but in the light may appear anything from red to yellow, to orange, to mauve even, depending on how the rays strike it. It is a very attractive stone, but rare and therefore very costly, and only the top quality is worth buying.

It is, however, an excellent investment because it is much prized by jewelers and collectors. Pure alexandrite is always faceted, or cut en cabochon if flaws are present (in this case be careful not to confuse it with other "chameleon" chrysoberyls or labradorite).

Its value is on a par with the four precious stones and when well set is a match for even the finest diamond. The best specimens come from Russia, but it is also found in Ceylon, Burma, Brazil, Madagascar and the USA."

Read more on gems and see cool pics? http://www.mineralszone.com/

Profiles in Ancient History: Ahkenaten and Nefertiti, Who Were They?

Much controversy surrounds the fourteenth-century couple named in the above caption, and for several reasons. First, Ahkenaton (also Iknaton or Amen-hotep) decisively broke with longstanding polytheistic tradition in Egypt in favor of the Aten, which shows up as a brilliant disk-like figurine in Hieroglyphic representations. Was he a monotheist? Some suggest instead that he practiced "henotheism," your new vocabulary word for the day.

Henotheism differs from Monotheism in that the latter is defined as "belief in AND the worship of, but one God," and the former (henotheism) as "belief in one chief deity, not to the exclusion of others altogether, but only in terms of personal worship choices." In other words, the Henotheist might worship only Zeus, "chief of the [alleged] Greek gods," while acknowledging the existence of the entire Greek pantheon of putative deities.

Debate still rages among historians over just which of these two words best describes Akhenaten and his wife. Second, Akhenaten married a woman well known to history because of her beauty as captured in something of an historical portrait of the kind forbidden under the second commandment (and plainly ignored by the Egyptians). Nefertiti is interesting to historians for a few reasons, but most relate directly to her controversial husband.

Third, Akhenaten's chronological situation places him in Egypt shortly after the biblical exodus. The wikipedia article on Pharaoh Ahkenaten reads thus:

"Amenhotep IV succeeded his father after Amenhotep III's death at the end of his 38-year reign, possibly after a coregency lasting between either 1 to 2 or 12 years. Suggested dates for Akhenaten's reign (subject to the debates surrounding Egyptian chronology) are from 1353 BC-1336 BC or 1351 BC–1334 BC."

In either case, this puts Akhenaten about 100 years after Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and one cannot help but wonder if this provides the best reason for Akhenaten to have turned away from the "unworkable and well-conquered" old polytheism. There's nothing that can change a pharaoh's theology for the better (if only a little) like a good old-fashioned butt-kicking from on high.

It appears that Akhenaten underwent something of an attitude adjustment after hearing what happened to the last guy who waxed ultra-polytheistic in God's presence. Those who do not share my historical interpretation (technically called the "divine butt-kicking" interpretation) -- surprise, most radical ancient historians do not -- are at a complete loss to explain this sudden alteration in Egyptian attitudes toward the old-regime polytheism.

Do you hear laughter Rameses? (I always loved that line from Cecil B DeMil's movie). Anyway, he who laughs last is probably not the one who got attacked, totally overrun, and utterly humiliated in the sight of all nations by ten divine plagues, and a general demotion called a "mass drowning." If you must "walk like an Egyptian," whatever you do, don't swim like one.

Lesson for the day? Polytheism and safety don't mix. Even Ahkenaten figured that one out. It is written, "You shall worship the Lord your God [The God of the Bible, not a sun-disk], and serve Him only." There is no divine, golden frisbee. We are not simply supposed to worship but one God, we are supposed to worship the One that actually exists.

And now for a word about true monotheism.

When you pray, if you are unsure of this, just say,

"God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner, for Jesus' sake."

Whatever you do, do not go forward at an altar call. Don't go around "making decisions for Christ" 500 times. Repent, believe the Gospel, and get on with it already. Repent every day, and pray the above prayer. Do not go confess your sins to Padre Jack in the Box at a cathedral. Never trust "churches" that do what fast food chains do.

Do not go to any church that does not acknowledge that the Bible alone - meaning you do not need other writings (not that you do not need teachers or elders to help you learn the Bible) -- is sufficient for the faith and practice of the saints. Do not ask, "What would Akhenaten do (WWAD)?"

If you are Evangelical and want to know what Jesus would do, I can tell you. He would sing the Psalms. I know this because 1. That's what He did, and 2. That's what the whole Christian Church did for the first three centuries, and 3. The phrase quoted of Jesus in the book of Hebrews from the Psalms, has Him singing God's praises. When Jesus sang this Psalm, the part quoted in Hebrews, "in the presence of the congregation, I will sing your [God's] praises," He was doing the thing that He was singing. In other words, when Jesus fulfilled this prophesy, we know what "praises of God" he was singing -- the ones in the Psalms.

This means the Bible thinks of "God's praise" in terms of "the Psalms." So when you see commands like "Praise the Lord, for he is good," it means, "sing Psalms." Thats' what Jesus would do. That is the stuff of true monotheism.

Sing psalms, and you will advance so far ahead of the achieved understanding of most Christians today, as the internet is ahead of the telegraph (they are still stuck in 19th-cenury man-made songs that are not a means of grace like the Word of Christ). Buy a Psalter, and sing that. This will teach you outstanding theology, that is 150 times better than the competition's.

And read your Bible. If you find the AV (King James of 1611) too difficult, start with the New King James Version, and work your way up. The NIV is something like the eleventh plague. Avoid it.

To get a superb understanding of the worldview of the Bible, read and study the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), and its two attendant catechisms. This will speed up your understanding of the Bible considerably. The people who constructed this confession understood with excellence what they read in the Bible. These helps came from the True, International Church of Jesus Christ, so you know they are trustworthy, and worthy of full acceptance.

They all have Bible references to show you where they got this or that idea. It's all good. If anyone tells you something other than this, you can learn to show them where and why they are wrong (and they are). But that comes later. First, you have to know which are the verities you are supposed to be defending.

If you sing the Psalms long enough, you will begin to realize that all the truths you are singing show up in that confession somewhere or other. Coincidence? Nope. The Psalm-singers wrote the confession. This means people whose minds were saturated in the Word of Christ wrote a confession which looks and sounds like the Psalms in many places. If the Psalms could write a confession themselves, this is what it would look like.

Think of the Psalms as the songs of true monotheism, which Ahkenaten never had - sun-disk not included.

Reach For The Sky: Pursuing the Apostolic Gospel of Christ in the New Testament

The Gospel of the Lord Jesus comes down out of heaven to men, by way of prophets and apostles. It existed first in oral traditional form, but was given to the apostles in a form easily conveyed in writing, as they were themselves appointed as apostolic scribes to this task. The writing began almost immediately.

Now this little adventure represents two forms of biblical tradition. The first is creedal or confessional, and consists in "digging out" of the canonical text a set of like "sound words" for mutual comparison. The second biblical tradition enjoined by this post consists in doing what we now call "Systematic theology." Here, I will attempt using certain appointed portions of Scripture (we know these from their subtle details) to reconstruct the earliest possible picture of the Catechism used by the Lord Jesus to build His Church, according to all the law of the Lord (still properly canonical, even though surgically removed from their canonical context).

The method involves then two steps: isolating all those places where the apostles teaching in soundbytes which show the classic symptoms of early Christologies consistent with the Psalms, Daniel, and which have unique Aramaic, Semitic, and/ or decisively poetic features and structures. And then interpolating the various parts of the disparate units into a kind of "synoptic harmony" of the theology therein. I was going to call this the "Diatessaron," but I found out the name has already been taken. Some guy named Tatian beat me to it.

Unfortunately, given the exegetical and language-based nature of this effort, it may entangle us briefly in studies in Greek, Hebrew or even Aramaic. I apologize for this in advance. I shall try to make English the native tongue of this enterprise (So far, so good).

The following cut and paste exercise begins the "literary unit library" to be used in this reconstructive effort, which will consist in the disparate "sound words," found throughout the NT, all Scriptures from the OT quoted or alluded to by the sound words (of those I am able to discern) and all those sermons taught from Acts chapters 1-12 which easily revert to Aramaic, and have poetic qualities similar to the form of sound words, and then (once again) any OT references -- direct or indirect -- from those "semitic-thought" framed sermons.

Also any precursor of any of these groups found in the NT itself -- intertextual NT references may be used: aphorisms or wisdom sayings of the Lord Jesus, which turn up in the form of sound words, etc.

Introducing the Sound "Faith of Jesus," Which the servants and saints of God believe


Here are a few direct references to the pattern of sound words [with my explanations in brackets like these] used to train catechumens (novices) and ministers. Bear in mind that the Bible has several parallel teachings regarding a mind framed by these sound words, sound doctrine, which leads to a sound mind; soundness provides a central point of concern in the Bible. The apostles got their perfect doctrine from Jesus, and passed it on unchanged to their children in the faith.

2 Tim. 1:7 reads: "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." Sound doctrine leads to sound minds. This calls for the form of sound words -- the earliest version of the New Testament around which the Gospels were constructed -- as a teacher for Christians.

Paul even told Titus concerning some elders (of which normally he says, "do not rebuke and elder sharply") "rebuke THEM sharply, that they may be SOUND in the faith. These were "special" ministers on the island of Crete who decided to take a nap -- a very long nap -- on the job. Paul was furious with them if his language is any key. They were in fact "Cretans." Apparently, he had tried many times to motivate these and found it very frustrating to try. I think their most oft spoken word was "Manana" (tomorrow).

2 Tim. 1:13-14 --

"Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of [learned from] me [by training and catechising], in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. That good thing [standard of the Christian faith] which was committed unto thee [as a deputized apostle, or evangelist] keep by the [power of the] Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us [apostolic types].

1 Tim. 4:6 --

"If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things [sound teachings], thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in "the words of [the Christian] faith" and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained [i.e. which you have mastered]."

Comments: Timothy had mastered the Larger Catechism (so to speak). Ministers had to be catechised to have a "good understanding of the faith."

1 Tim. 6:3 --

"If any man teach otherwise [than our common pattern of sound teaching], and consent not to wholesome [i.e. sound] words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to [the mystery of] godliness [1 Tim 3:16]; He is proud, knowing nothing ..."

Comments: This text shows that the sayings memorized and written for the training both of novices and teaching elders were from the Lord Jesus; they originated not with the apostles, but first with the Lord Jesus, from his forty-day teaching inculcation. The [mortal and post-mortal] teaching ministry of Christ itself presents one of the elements of the form of sound words as we will see.

2 Thess. 2: 15 has Paul urge: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

The sound words comprising the dominical and apostolic "traditions" (Gk. apodoses) were taught both in lecture (or sermonic) format, and also within letters written by apostles, as we have just seen above. We, of course, do not know all of them, but a sufficient sample exists within the NT to get a really good idea of what this catechism

Paul uses the same language to introduce quotes from the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians 11 (v. 2) where he says,"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [traditions], as I delivered them to you." The rabbinic "received ...delivered ... remembered" verb triad attends them as we might expect.


1 Cor. 11:23-26 bears this same verb triad, wherein Paul proceeds to quote the dominical citation,

"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, "Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, "this cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [declare, proclaim] the Lord's death till he come."

From his letters, we learn that Paul knows of an extensive array of "sound words" covering a variety of topics of importance to the church, and regarding received tradition from the Jerusalem Church on controversial topics such as the deity of Christ, salvation to the Gentiles apart from circumcision, eyewitness proof of the resurrection of Jesus, his death, burial, vindication, ascension, and heavenly exaltation and session according to the Psalms (Scriptures).

Philippians 4:8-9 urges us to think on these things, that the mind of Christ might be our own. Paul says of them:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. <--Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, [Paul practices what these sayings command] do: and the God of peace shall be with you."

The apostolic traditions were both oral and written down from the very first. Only those which made it into the present canon were ever "canonical" though all of them functioned to train others in the early first century. A representative sample of them exists in the biblical record for our edification, and needful understanding of the Gospel. This means that the same standard -- though now in miniature -- operates within the canon to define what counts as orthodoxy by no other standard than that which they used in the first century.

This should hardly surprise us since we do not possess (the real) First Corinthians, or the book of the prophet Iddo. Nor do we know of "many other wonderful things Jesus said and did" in John's day (John 21) which he chose not to record for his disciples since the pragmatics of "the making of many books" demanded an end somewhere. Rest assured, had the Lord provided ALL the many excellent and authorized Gospel accounts of Luke's day, since all were constructed around the same "form of sound words" under apostolic control, this would have left them with significant overlap.

This means even with dozens of them, the liberal scholars would say where the Gospel accounts differ, they lack independent confirmation; and where they are similar, Luke copied from Matthew or Mark, or from Chester the maytag repair man. It doesn't really matter who, so long as the NT turn out to be unreliable, and Bultmania remains academically respectable. If evidence really mattered, would these people be writing about Q like we had online photos of it in high resolution?

Now we shall go on -- if the Lord wills -- to harmonize and systematize the apostolic traditions as best one might reconstruct them from the New Testament. This purports to portray a synoptic view of the apodosis from the form of sounds words.

I will also highlight along the way what we might learn of WHY the apodosis came to be as it rests in the canon (for the canon itself may tell us some of this), and the implications of the early creedal formulations for understanding the other books of the Bible. Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore, get wisdom. In all your getting, get understanding.

The Gospel is worth the effort.

Justifying Justification? What Next?

Word has it that some parts of the world of Reformed Christianity have got all up in arms about something called "covenantal nomism," and the way in which some people wish to use the word "justification" in connection with this awkward label. Before banning it altogether from my blog (finally! I am king over something even if tis but a small fiefdom), I shall offer a few brief comments upon it.

Although I think VanTillian types have well earned the right to say - but only once in a long while - "covenantal epistemology," no one should ever be caught saying "covenantal nomism." Is this contagious? It sounds far too Leibnizian, and might easily lead people to think you are in love with Latin. Take a medical degree if you must, but please find a less awkward way to speak. Surely, the array of terms found on the Reformed soteriology menu can already manage what you wish to say in more familiar language. Do we really need a new flavor for every dessert?

The truth is that "justification," a forensic (legal or juridical) act of God, in which He, acting as Judge, formally acquits -- declares innocent, not guilty -- a man for the sake of Jesus, represents an act occuring in history at the moment a person is "born again." Theologians like to call this new birth "regeneration." This way, God renders the man He aquits actually fit for the acquittal, since the new nature (the seed born of God) cannot sin.

And, of course, this means world war 3 is on. And you are caught in the middle.

The flesh battles against the Spirit, and the Spirit strengthens the inner man or new nature, against the flesh. The new nature, empowered by the indwelling Spirit -- who may need to slap you around from time to time to get your attention -- always gains the victory in the end. I know, but you should see the other guy.

This man then, by the means of grace and the providential "hammering" of the Almighty in his life, grows in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus. Remember those seven golden lampstands? Each was made of "hammered" work. Yes, it says in Hebrew roughly "Hit you with big hammer." Churches do not usually advertise this.

This means that when you pray for sanctification, you are asking for a good old-fashioned heavenly whoopin. Christians learn to pray for sanctification so they can learn to pray for mercy. It's a vicious cycle without the vice.

This growth in holiness of life, "sanctification," seldom occurs in a smooth, even way. Job and Peter took sanctification on the chin. Paul was a veritable wound collection, whose resume of beatings for the kingdom could even have impressed Jonah. Jonah, you will recall, was eaten alive and partially digested with seaweed, like an oceanic pizza. Some have argued that he actually died and was raised since the Lord refered to his own resurrection as the "sign of Jonah." One thing is sure, Jonah got bleached very bright white.

Sanctification is the necessary outgrowth (or better, up-growth) of regeneration. The new nature feeds on Christ by faith and the appointed means for so doing, is nurtured, grows and becomes established only fully and finally at death. The man who walks according to the law and Gospel keeps covenant, as the Spirit both enables and sovereignly keeps him in it, until the last day of his life.

When he dies in the Lord, God confirms him forever in the covenant of grace by the same oath Christ entered God's rest. Hebrews mentions two oaths: one against those who fell in the desert -- if they shall enter my rest -- and one to the seed of Abraham (which is Christ and those in Him), "The Lord hath sworn, and will not change His mind: you are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." So much for Arminian views of salvation. If you could choose your way in, you could thereafter choose your way out at any future time. Heaven would never be secure against backsliding (and then fore-sliding) Arminians. Fortunately for you and me, Salvation is of the Lord. So heaven has no yo-yo members, saved on Wednesday, but not on Friday.

This renders the Arminian view of heaven somewhat like Wal-Mart, where with falling prices, you never really know from week to week how much someone has to pay to get the goods. And it turns out you are only renting anyway. You're in, you're out. Back in! Not so much. It was just another purchasing dept. prank. The sliding doors at Wal-mart are very busy.

Some view the priesthood of Melchizedek as only belonging to the Lord Jesus, as though the saints do not inherit along with him all things. Revelation plainly teaches that God has made us "priests and kings to OUR God," after the manner of the Lord Jesus, and for His glory. Levitical priests cannot be kings. Never could, never will be. The priesthood of every believer is that of Christ, who alone sits as High Priest. But there are many priests. Whoever heard of a priesthood with just one priest? That doesn't even work in football.

In any case, the two oaths of Hebrews turn out to be simply the blessings, on the one hand, and curses on the other, of one and the same covenant of grace. All tickets to purgatory have been canceled because biblical covenants have no third option. Covenant theology and Rome's "great ideas" do not mix.

The sticking point in the two-part justification controversy of late seems to be the question: "What do you call that point of entering glory, when a faithful man is confirmed finally in the covenant of grace at his death? Some wish to call this the second part or aspect of "justification."

This amounts to a recommendation for a wholesale revision of the way Reformed types have used theological language for a very long time, and the way the Church of Christ has used it in her confessions. Part of the problem is that we do not have a technical term for the final step in "improving one's baptism," a concept well familiar to the Westminster Assembly. But the final step in so doing, in which God confirms and establishes one's soul forever in the state of grace, this may yet need a name. Traditionally, departing the estate of sin and misery, and entering the final state of grace (glory) -- for the grace of God leads to glory -- has simply been called "glorification."

But the Bible does speak of this in terms of covenantal progress, with respect to oath-keeping, or keeping the covenant of grace. So the covenantal vantage point from which those wishing to name this point of final transition actually has a biblical picture of sanctification in mind. It asks questions worth asking.

If you keep doing this (confirming your baptismal oath of loyalty to Jesus), you will do so eventually one last time, since people die. God does in fact -- by way of Lex Talionis -- make a kind of reciprocal declaration here, which amounts to a vindication, or victory declaration, a final establishing of that man in the covenant of grace forever. But this is not the "second half" of anything, but a kind of reciprocal act of faithfulness on God's part.

Moreover, it could be viewed in a larger context, which keeps going. After this the man is brought by angels into the presence of Christ who acknowledges the saint before God and the angels as Christ promised. Aha! what do we call this! And then there is the heavenly stay, and its point of exit at the resurrection (heaven is not eternal since Jesus is leaving it), where the dead in Christ rise first. "The Lord said to My Lord, "Sit Thou at my right hand UNTIL all your enemies are made a footstool for your feet."

This point of general migration from heaven to earth (what goes up ....) forms the first part of the general resurrection (then those alive in Christ are translated into glory apart from death). So perhaps a theological event-label committee is in order, to hammer out the finer points of just which event happens when -- and just what we should call each -- in personal and corporate soteriological actions of significance to the covenant theology of the Bible.

This final confirming of the man in the covenant of grace does, however, initatiate a two-part (or three if you zoom out) process. First, Hebrews calls this the "spirits of just men made perfect," or "glorified spirits" we commonly say. But the spirit enters glory ahead of the body, which is raised only later, so that Christians inherit together at one and the same time.

But they die, and enter glory, at different times throughout history, when the spirit departs the body. So, while recognizing what the confessional standards have taught all along -- this is not as new as some would have us believe -- that a man who recieves baptism God calls to confirm it repeatedly, repenting and confessing his sins and seeking after newness of life in Christ as a way of life, does in fact at his life's end receive upon entering glory a confirming affirmation from the Lord, which establishes him forever in the covenant of grace. We might consider this as one and the same vindication as that which a man receives before God and the angels in heaven.

What baptism initiates (only once), the Lord's supper is appointed to confirm repeatedly, namely, an oath of allegiance to Jesus (the baptismal formula of old was simply "Jesus is Lord"), which brings him into the community of faith, called the Church. The final point of this covenantal trajectory of fidelity probably needs a name we can all agree on, but I, for one, suggest we make it something other than "justification." This term is already taken, and it's use in this manner only invites extreme confusion.

I prefer vindication, which, some could lobby against on this or that ground, depending on just how we might wish to cut the soteriological cake. Vindication actually comprises a biblical term used for the resurrection of Christ. Resurrection, of course, forms the second "half" of glorification. Thus, I am recommending a use of vindication for three distinct events: 1. entry in glory of the spirit of a just man made perfect (this covenantal confirmation happens at death) 2. Christ's heavenly declaration before God and angels 3. The resurrection of the body unto glory at the end of the millenium. These we could distinguish easily with the prefixes "earthly," "heavenly" and "final."

This would mean that in my proposed vocabulary that earthly vindication forms the point of contention in the present debate. Whatever the prefered label ("final confirmation" is biblically acceptable), I think we would be better off calling it "escaping the I.R.S." than "justification."

And at least the former we can agree hasn't been used yet.

Now kids, stop throwing stones at each other. Taint Christian. Personally, I suspect that anyone who says "covenantal nomism" more than once in a half hour is probably keeping my ears busy while he's reaching for my wallet -- a covenantal no-ism -- under the eighth commandment.

I, the sovereign of this blogspace, do hereby declare that there will be no overusing of terms with too many syllables, and no inventing of new flavors on the Baskin Robins ice cream menu. You have 31 to mix and match already. Try chocolate syrup this time, or something else we already know about without reinventing whipped cream.

Okay, that settles it. I'm hungry.

Studies in Biblical Literature: Mining the Corinthian Aramaic Pericope

The earliest formulaic or creedal expressions of the Christian faith, unsurprisingly to postmoderns, came in soundbytes. These units of rabbinical memorization were fit just for that, so their size was somewhat restricted, although the apostles had a very large number of them. Whether they had a larger and shorter set, I do not know. What I do know -- by way of biblical studies -- is that these remained the special provenance of the apostles. The twelve, from the outset, wielded the copyright to the Name of Christ in the Church.

The road to Gospel publication went through the New Jerusalem, which geographically looked suspiciously like the old one, only the councils were much better, and sweet and sour pork was on the menu (or could have been if they had owned woks).

This faith was confessional and catechetical from the outset, and must have been in order to follow rabbinical traditions, which themselves were framed in light of the requirement for ecclesiastical oversight and "covenantal epistemology." Sacred knowledge was to be transmitted from generation to generation, with the canon growing and building upon previous revelation, and shunning all would-be additions from the traditions of men.

We can see this with the "Ten Words" very early under the supervisorship of Moses. These were to be memorized, "Written on the heart and mind." The proverbs reiterate this sentiment almost endlessly demanding that the law of the Lord be indellibly inscribed by constant use upon the heart of covenantally-minded men (fathers, teachers and kings). The Psalms say no less, and Solomon had clearly learned their lessons (from his father and mother) well. Kings were to read from the law daily, and "blessed is the man who watches daily at the gates" of wisdom.

The apostles, who were prophets and scribes by the command of God, followed the practices of the earlier chronicling prophets. They, following the commands of the wisdom literature to memorize the Word, and following the teachings of our Risen Lord, inscribed the basic elements of the Christian faith upon their hearts, and upon the hearts of their "children," which is precisely how the apostles saw their converts, as newborn babes in Christ. Paul called Timothy his "son in the faith," and John repeatedly calls his rabbinic disciples "little children," which is today "toddlers."

These were thus catechized relentlessly by the apostles, as good parents in the faith. This did this by forming (under the leadership of Jesus Himself) a specific menu of Christological teachings based upon the Law, Psalms and Prophets - particularly the Psalms, since these were sung in Israel from ones youth, and thus the Psalter provided a ready evangelistic platform throughout the synagogues, scattered about the Mediterranean (more heavily in the east at first), sometimes called "Diaspora Judaism."

Paul and the apostles were rabbis. They did the things that good rabbis did. This was their culture and training, founded upon the word of God. These put into practice the commandments of Christ, self-consciously eliminating from the dominical and pre-testamental (i.e. from the first testament) Christ-centered apodosis all the traditions of men, and every thought which set itself up against the knowledge of God. The did this first in the very act of crystallizing a set of truths about Jesus essential to the salvation and nurture of their children in the Lord. When a man first hears the Gospel, there are some truths of the Word more needful for him at that initial stage than others.

These of the dominical and apostolic "form of sound words" are those most essential to such persons -- initiates (novices in the faith). Only those fully catechised might be suited for the ministry of the Gospel. As mentioned before, because these literary units had a special "salvific" or kerygmatic function, they arose in an environment that was heavily Jewish, and their linguistic features, and even their (often chiastic, or symmetrical) structures reflect this fact.

Consequently, not just the wording, but "their packaging," looks specially "Semitic," and "Aramaic." Much of the Aramaic flavor of the later epistles, for instance, owes itself to these facts. Paul characteristically went to the synagogues of any town or city first, where he was often able to convert Jews and "God-fearing" Gentiles alike. These could then help Paul make further evangelistic inroads into the culture in question. Luke, for instance, appears to be a God-fearing Gentile saved by the preaching of Paul in Troas. He was also a doctor, and a prophet by spiritual gifting.

With this background in mind, we can proceed to our next mining expedition in holy writ, from the epistle to the Corinthians we call (somewhat erroneously) "1st Corinthians." Just go with it.

1 Corinthians 15:1-7 below forms the basis for today's investigation, but I have included the following 5 verses after the actual apostolic "sound word," which Paul preaches and calls "the gospel," for the sake of providing important contextual indicators. These, as we shall see, will help us to "get a clue." The mystery is on [for Paul calls the gospel the mystery of God preached among the Gentiles], and so let the sleuthing begin.

Here, I will begin by highlighting in the quotation from the AV some of the more salient features relevant to our study.

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,

how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles."


"And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.


But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?"

First, we find that Paul has preached this message to the Corinthians. We may infer from this, and from the poetic structure of the "sound words" in the apostolic pattern of sound words -- not quite a sing-song quality, but one full of devices like alliteration (where similar sounds repeat [e.g. in English "awesome olives always allure"]) -- that Paul catechizes his congregations using these pre-approved, christological tidbits -- and then expounds upon them in sermons, filling out the details from the larger Gospel accounts known to the Church from its earlier years.

The Gospels of the evangelists, I will eventually argue, take just this same form. They are clearly built up around the approved littany ("form of sound words") filling in the details which catechumens like Theophilus would want to know. Converts presumably were not privy to the whole ministry of Jesus by way of eyewitness, as were the apostles, and some of the Christian prophets. What is more natural than a man desiring after greater knowledge of the one whom he worships? The refrain, "Please tell me more about Jesus the Christ" would surely have occasioned the Gospels.

Second, Paul implies that this literary unit, which I am happy enough to name a "pericope," despite my urgent resistance to all "Bultmanic" doctrines, was in fact part of the apostolic creedal corpus, in saying, "Therefore whether it were I or they, so **we** preach, and so ye believed." Here, the claim "So we [the apostles] preach," indicates that the apostles do what Paul does: lay down the gospel or kerygmatic pattern, and then preach from it to the congregations. The basic gospel message in the pattern is designed to set forth the most basic and essential Christian doctrines regarding the Lord Jesus Christ, and the biographic details about Him most relevant and necessary to the salvation of souls.

"So" means "in just this way." Paul does what the other apostles do in his catechising, and the basic approach to preaching the Gospel. First, he teaches them the pattern handed down unchanged for memorization among the saints. This is indicated by the technical langauge of rabbinic teaching methods, "received .... delivered," which Paul uses again in 1 Corinthians 11, to cite the dominical quotes from and about the Lord Jesus regarding the last supper.

This is how the apostles "set the Church of God in order." By following this meticulously similar pattern of establishing churches, it matters little in terms of WHICH apostle or group of apostles established just which church. Each comes out with an understanding most nearly exactly the same as all the other churches. Only the length of time a church has been established makes a primary difference in their maturity of understanding, and secondarily, the particular philosophical characteristics -- this or that heresy or challenge to the Gospel -- native to the region in which the church lives and grows. Thus, Paul speaks of the Colossians being rooted and established (by the teaching of sound words), and then of them as being "built up" by the elaboration upon those sound words from sermons which fill them out, according to the larger literary Gospels and their own personal (eyewitness-based) knowledge of the Lord Jesus.

This explains the symbolic 7 identical (ecclesiastical) lampstands in terms of the chosen "didactic mechanics" which our Lord so carefully and wisely set forth for the apostles and prophets to follow so as to many doctrinal and liturgical purity in the Church of God.

They are saved "if they keep in memory" those things which they were taught. To "remember" emphasizes covenant-keeping, the treasuring and keeping of that which they received from previous generations of faithful instructors, who received the faith from the prophets, and they from the Lord.

The aspect of covenant-keeping known as "inheritance" requires the memorization and doing -- keeping in memory -- of what is handed-down (received and delivered) without change. This is called "remembering," but conveys the sense of re-enactment, not merely a mental exercise of memorization (though not less than that either). The Word of God the Lord put into writing almost from the beginning, so that His testimony might be public, and all men might know just what He said as a preventative measure against the many corruptions of men and the malice and deceptions of Satan. The biblical concept of covenant-breaking is therefore associated with "forgetting," but forgetting has both individual and community aspects to it. When Hilkiah the priest found the law of Moses written in a book, and gave it to Josiah with a verbal shrug, Josiah realized the entire community -- upon reading it -- had forgotten (as a community) to keep and do the commandments. He tore his robe when he realized the import of that fact. It had everything to do with inheritance or disinheritance. And Josiah knew this.

Third, we may also note that the pattern of sound words aims at the salvation of souls (as mentioned) so that the Lord chose their content "according to the Scriptures," a phrase repeated by the Holy Spirit immediately so that we understand without doubt that the First Testament provides the content which forms the basis of this "pattern of sound words. If the Lord can repeat Himself for such an important point, then I also: This proves that the Older Testament is NOT the word of God emeritus, but the living and acting powerful and infallible Word of the living God. And that those who say, "It is only a set of books for the Jewish people of old" say so at the risk of their own salvation. Salvation here is the point of these sound words, and the First Testament (primarily, though certainly not exclusively, the Psalms I will argue later) remains their basis. The Book of Daniel played a prominent role as well, as noted.

To understand the New Testament aright, one must become thoroughly familiar with the Older. Moreover, the Older has a kind of prima facie greater importance in one respect, that of the fifth commandment. The fifth commandment requires that we give GREATER importance to the First Testament in our studies, and that we never neglect the Newer, for it is the very account of greater detail of the promised Messiah Himself. Now how many people prior to this post have told you that the fifth commandment has hermeneutical implicates? All the commandments do. But that is another 10 posts.

As far as I am concerned, Bibles we peruse in "Christian bookstores" should just as easily be found with "the words of Moses in red." For the Holy Spirit who gave them is one and the same Spirit in all the prophets, and each part of the biblical system of teaching is mutually necessary and supportive of, and with, all others (I do not say "with, in and under" as the Lutherans would urge upon us).

Paul "declares" to the Corinthians the Gospel. This is the same language he used in the initial Roman pericope to explain that the Holy Spirit "declared with power [the Lord Jesus] to be the Son of God" by raising Him from the dead. Paul regards the very act of raising Jesus as an act of preaching the most powerful of all messages: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This proves that although Paul resolves to "preach Christ crucified" in a lonely fashion, never does this preaching exclude the resurrection of Christ, the essence of the Gospel itself. The several christological features, the condescending of Christ to become man, born under the law, and so forth, both leading up to, and following, his crucifixion, Paul would have us to know under the title "Christ crucified. We have seen from the Philippian, Christological "sound word" that the cross of Christ forms the central point of focus, but that the humiliation and exaltation of Christ always provide its context. Paul does not begin, nor end, with the cross, when he preaches "Christ crucified." Nevertheless, the cross remains at the center.

This was an apostolic sound word, not merely a Pauline "trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance." So we can understand that Paul's focus was not unique, only that "the grace of God worked more powerfully" with him than the rest to preach this Christian message. But the apostles were not left at didactic liberty to preach in some whimsical fashion as many have imagined. They followed the same dominical pattern of sound words, rooted in the First Testament (according to the Scriptures, which eventually became the four Gospels). This means the Gospel accounts of the New Testament we will find upon close scrutiny to bear a pattern consistent with the Old Testament teachings of Christ, as the New Testament believers understood them. I suggest, based upon my own studies (and those of others) that the sermons of the book of Acts in chapters 1-12 primarily reveal this substructural Gospel literary pattern.

This forms the basis of a New Testament view of "Gospels-critical" development. In other words, this is the biblical antidote to the rampant Bultmania so popular among New Testament scholars today. And it's actually true too, which gives it a distinct advantage over the competition. Bultmania, as some have unchristened it, is quite ironcially the product of legendary growth -- itself about a fictititous story of legendary growth. This is a literary form of Lex talionis.

Fifth, in preaching the gospel of resurrection to the Corinthians, Paul has simply delivered over t them that which he also received, and which all the apostles teach. The source is Christ Himself, having taught them forty days all things concerning Himself in the Scriptures from the Law, Psalms and Prophets, and concerning the Kingdom of God which He inherited. Paul summarizes the "Law, Psalms and Prophets" with "according to the Scriptures."

Contrary to the assumptions of many today, Paul shows that the Gospel is not only consistent with the Law here, but that it ARISES FROM the law of the Lord, "according to the [prophetic] Scriptures."

Far from being at odds one with another, the biblical notions of law and Gospel are in fact interchangeable, for all the law speaks of Christ in its commandments, as well its rhetorical devices (e.g. alliterations, etc) and linguistic features (e.g. pronouncements, questions, exclamations and the like), down to the least stroke of a stylus (pen). These were the horns and flourishes of Hebrew letters, or small parts of individual letters, about which Jesus said, "It is easier that heaven and earth should pass away than the least stroke of a pen disappear from the law" ). The KJV has it (Luke 16:17), "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." When it comes to Word of the Lord, whether its commandments (law) or promises (Gospel), there will be no failing.

Sixth, we will want to notice the Aramaic features which stand out from this text. These are many. I shall simply list them numerically. 1. Cephas as a name for Simon Peter 2. Peter and James only, mentioned by name. These are the same whom Paul said he saw in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18). 3. The apostles are named simply "the twelve," after the 12 tribes of Israel. This suggests the formula existed prior to Paul's conversion, in say, A.D. 33-ish.

Note: this is intolerably early from all Bultmanic perspectives, and such scholars will have to regard this as nuts. But Paul clearly has to add a non-formulaic qualifier on the early tradition to explain why He is not mentioned in it. Paul's conversion was a trophy to the Church and should have been listed at length. But Paul even says he came late to the redemptive historical office, as one "born out of due time." This is not a pre- but post- mature birth. He acknowledges that he was later than all the other apostles, but emphasizes the point at hand: that it made no difference since this "form of sound words" was apostolic, meaning from the twelve, from a source prior to Paul. The twelve spoke Aramaic, and called Peter "Cephas."

When "the twelve" formed these sayings, and ministered by them, Paul was out christian-hunting.

Now He preaches just what they preach by the appointed catechism from the Twelve. This shows a reversal. Paul now submits to those whom he formerly persecuted, and Paul preaches more aggressively than all of them that to which God had called him. His recounted resume of beatings, stonings, times left for dead, jailings, and shipwrecks is most impressive. Paul had an extraordinary "evangelistic rap sheet," such that he could say, "I bear the marks of Jesus in my body. Let no man trouble me." A missionary medical doctor -- Luke was the original red cross -- was his traveling companion.

We know Paul's "Seen of me also" phrase forms an addition since it switches from the third person to the first person, but mimicks the "seen of" phrase which was part of the original. This forms 4. The divine passive (seen of) 5. "received .... delivered ... remembered" triad is an Aramaism of rabbinic tradition which sometimes appears only in a couplet using but the first two verbs in the phrase. Paul repeats it in chapter 11:1-2.

Here, Paul writes [with my interpretive aid in brackets like these],

"Be ye followers of me [be true disciples of me, Rabbi Paul], even as I also am [a first-generation disciple] of [Jesus] Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things [i.e. you keep my doctrines and liturgy intact], and keep the ordinances, [just] as I delivered them to you [unchanged, from Christ, from whom we apostles received those ordinances to set the Church in order].

Later Paul asks, "shall I praise you in this? I do not..." showing that when he praises them, it indicates an area of submission to the rabbinic apodosis, and when the deviate from the faith once for all delivered to the saints, Paul chastises them instead of praising them. Paul's job, in many ways, was already cut out for him, and required little innovation (in fact, innovation was forbidden most places). Staying alive, on the other hand, required great innovation, the grace of God, and a good doctor.

God praises the man who submits skillfully, applying and doing what God commands without being tempted to take shortcuts or add his own "great ideas." Preservation (study, insight and exposition) of the original masterpiece is what the Great commission requires, while innovation is the stuff of the dominion mandate, not the Great Commission.

6. The very first part of this pericope opens with the triad, "died, was buried, was raised." This forms a more elaborate chiasmus in Philippians 2:6-11, where we see more fully what Paul means by it. Triadic repetition forms a common Aramaism, as in "Ask and it shall be given you; seek and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you; or again, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." These show up in the wisdom literature of the Proverbs of kings (Solomon chiefly), upon the lips of One greater than Solomon, the Lord Jesus Himself, and with the writings of Paul (who presents himself as a New Covenant "Bezalel," from the Greek text of 1 corinthians, with the LXX technical term "Mastercraftsman") on a regular basis.


7. "According to the Scriptures" sums up the way in which Jesus characteristically spoke of Himself as the fulfillment of the Law, Psalms and Prophets. Luke details this. Here, the phrase repeats in a prophetic doublet. This occurs often in prophetic, and especially apocalyptic, literature. The book of Revelation has numerous instances of such reiterative phrases. This highlights a perspective taken from the prophetic vantage point of the OLD TESTAMENT which looks forward to fulfillment in Jesus. Here, "the writings" (the Hebrew term for once section of the Older Testament, as well as the whole of it) looks forward to fulfillment in Christ, the way a Jew who was the target of its evangelistic efforts would see the world.

This way of writing suggests the authors see Jesus as the fulfillment of all things written in the first testament, "upon whom the consummation of the ages has come." Paul writes "teaching and warning every man" when he preaches (Col. 1:26) the gospel. Here, we find one such warning, where Paul uses the perspective of the Old Testament looking forward to warn Christians (New Covenant saints) in 1 Cor. 10:10-12:

"Neither murmur ye, as some of them [in the days of Moses and the beginning of God's covenant with Israel] also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples [as types for us]: and they are written [as Holy Scripture] for our admonition, [we who live at the end of days when Christ comes] upon whom the ends of the [Old Covenant] world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed [take this warning to heart] lest he fall."

This 40 year period of wandering in the days of Moses corresponds to the forty days of teaching that Christ used to instill the pattern of sound words within the apostles, just as God gave the Ten Words to Moses. This forty-day transitional teaching period precipitated the next phase in "all that Jesus began to do and to teach." The ministry of Jesus now passed onto the apostles, wherein Jesus, by the mighty working of another paraclete like Him, would continue. That ministry began in A.D. 27. It continued til about A.D. 66 when the Jewish war began that ended the Judaism of the Second Temple. Thus the ministry of Jesus to the ancient Jews lasted forty years.

Just as it is written: "Forty years they saw my works." Hebrews interestingly applies this to the new covenant generation, when it was said of the generation of Moses, and Hebrews directly compares Jesus to Moses, as a greater prophet. Hebrews sees Jesus then as the prophet "like unto Moses" who would come and teach all God's people. Anyone who did not listen to Him in all that He said would be completely cut off [read "A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalsem"] from among the people. Promised, delivered. The prophecy was written by Moses, and fulfilled by Jesus, One greater than Moses.

For God has in times past spoken to the ancients by the prophets, Says Hebrews, "but in these last days [not those last days still far off, but "these last days" of the Older Covenant represented by Moses], NOW, He has spoken to us by His Son, Jesus. Here is my brief rendition of that text for clarity:

"God ... Hath in these last days [forty years, until the Temple should be destroyed] spoken unto us by his Son [to us New Covenant saints upon whom the end of the [Old] world has come], whom he [The Father] hath appointed heir of all things [promised to Israel], by whom also he made the worlds [Of Genesis, i.e. kingdoms, of things in heaven, on the earth and under the earth]; Who being the [real] brightness of His [Temple] glory, and the express image of his [heavenly] person, and upholding all things [in heaven and on earth created from the beginning] by the word of his power, when he had by [the sacrifice of] himself purged our sins [once for all so that the Temple was now moot], sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [In heaven, for which the Holy of holies stood as but a symbol and type]."

In short, the Lord Jesus overcame all things, crushed the opposition, and sat down in victory after making atonement for the sins of His people. Everything that made the Temple "The Temple" is now seated at God's right hand. God then gave the Jews a forty-year stay of execution because Jesus the great High Priest had prayed "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." The high Priest can cover sins of ignorance by his sacrifices. Here, Jesus pronounced them sinners in ignorance -- they do NOT KNOW what it is they do. This made them fit for atonement, of all who might repent. They did not kill Jesus with a high hand, but in a sin of ignorance. Judas was far worse off.

This was the redemptive-historical situation in which the New Covenant believers found themselves, a transitional 40 year period in which the old covenant order was on its way out, and the new world on its way in. And for forty years, Jesus and the apostles did many mighty works.

The Aramaisms of the Corinthian pericope bear out the fact that when it was formed, Saul was not yet converted to the faith once for all delivered to the apostles (and from them to the saints) in catechetical form. Paul was a latecomer, born "out of due time," meaning after the apostleship -- and its form of sound words -- had already been given by Christ to the rest of the twelve. Paul was not present for the forty-day teaching marathon (the "Sophiathon" in Greek). Some people go on shopping sprees, others on wisdom sprees. This was the latter.

Paul received his teaching from Christ nevertheless, most likely in the Arabian desert where he stayed some 3 years (Galatians 1) without explaining why. We know that Jesus startlingly and directly confronted him on the road to Emmaus. And Paul speaks of a man who knew who went to the third heaven, as did John in the description of Revelation 1. This "man" was in all likelihood, Paul himself who wrote of "inexpressible things." If they were inexpressible, how did Paul know of them unless he was the recipient of such knowledge? A better (and much lengthier case one can muster from various points in Paul's writings but that is not the purpose of today's post.

Finally, we note of the Aramaic-based pericope that God "bestowed" grace upon Paul. This refers directly to the holy Spirit as God's agent of grace to Paul, and speaks of Paul after the fashion of kings. The psalms speak of the crown of kings as "bestowed" upon them, not simply given them. Likewise, John speaks this way of Christians who have "an anointing from the Father." 1 John 3:1-2 uses just this verb, saying:

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
Beloved [That is, "Jedidiahs"], now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him [Jesus, the Beloved Son] for we shall see him as he is."

For the Lord had declared, "This is my Beloved Son, Hear ye Him." One who is beloved of the Lord, like king Solomon -- for Jesus is King Solomon II -- the Lord of wisdom (the uncut version) -- upon such a one is bestowed the spirit of sonship, which makes one loved of the Lord, or rather shows the love of God. Heavenly love comes by the Heavenly Spirit.

Now John calls the saints, "beloved" [of the Lord]. Now this is love, not that we first loved Him, but that He first loved us. The love of the good shepherd compels Him to seek and save that which was lost. He does not wait for them to search him out, but goes after them. The phrase "what manner" comprises an Aramaic idiom meaning "not of earthly categories" (or "from heaven"). When the Lord calms wind and wave, they ask "what manner of man is this?"



Here, heavenly love that transcends earthly categories God "bestows" on his people [crowns them], making them (marking them) as "beloved" kings. For every son of the Most High King is also a king. This is confirmed by "we shall be like Him" -- kings and priests. John interchanges (the careful student will notice) bestow with "anoint." Anointing is a form of crowning. So is baptism. The baptism of the spirit is thus alternately an "anointing" (The Bible refering either to baptism or to that for which baptism stands by the same verb "to anoint"). One anoints prophets, priests, or kings with oil. The Messiah (Christ) is thus supremely the Anointed One, and christians are "anointed ones." This refers to outward public baptism.

It renders them members of the royal priesthood, and holy nation, participants in the Covenant of Grace. Baptism, like a kings crown, is bestowed upon persons "from above." So also the Spirit to whom John refers, who makes One a son of the kingdom. His chief fruit is love (Gal. 5:22-23) and so John refers to the Holy Spirit in the phrase "behold what manner of love" meaning "God has made us sons by bestowing upon us from above a heavenly Spirit of godly love. For this love fulfills the commandments (which are also from above, from the Spirit of love).

The 500 brethren who saw Christ "all at once" renders further proof that the apostolic documents and Gospel accounts carry the deuteronomic eye-witness obligation to its fruition by researching thoroughly that of which they write, and of submitting it -- as it were -- prior to publication by the apostolic editorial review board. The phrase, "500 brethren at once" does not in any way imply that these people were not in the same location. It only implies that they were all in the same one location when Christ appeared to them, and that all saw him.

Paul has to make a case against the doubters in the Corinthian crowd. The Corinthians are inveterate "Greeks," who had heard enough (already!) about resurrections of Isis, and of Hermes, and on AND ON, it went in the ancient world. To them the resurrection story was overdone, and by our standards something of a "B movie" waiting to happen. This text thus shows that resurrection elements of the Gospel accounts were in fact counterproductive features. Even the Greek "believers" didn't really believe in resurrections. They needed extra convincing from Paul, who says to them in effect, 'If you do not believe me, just go ask around downtown Jerusalem, where the better part of 500 people will tell you, "Yep, Seen Him." They are still there, and you can go ask for yourself.

Doubtless, some of them took Paul up on this. I would have, in a heartbeat. Luke did. Recall that the Gospels themselves record that this was the earliest point of counterattack on the Gospel claims by way of rumor, "The disciples came in the night and stole the body." The fact that the Gospels record what it would have been better to leave out -- a somewhat embarrassing "mundane" (and easier to believe) alternative to the extraordinary Gospel claims about dead people getting up and preaching -- shows that the Gospel writers knew very well the intellectual climate of opinion in their day and did not hesitate to say what others claimed against the Gospel. They could have omitted this. This claim shows up in rabbinic literature of later centuries as well, confirming the Gospel accounts.

So here, we have 3 points worth noting. Paul appeals to contemporary eyewitnesses of large numbers, which would have been meaningless -- or worse falsifying -- had they not actually existed. Second, this places a time limit of perhaps a few years on the pericope. It predates Paul's letter, and was adapted to it by citation. But even when the letter was written (say 20 years after the resurrection or so) most of those who saw Jesus were still alive.

The Corinthian resurrection pericope was much earlier. It also appealed to contemporary eyewitnesses, in one instance by a name by which the apostle Peter was no longer called -- the Aramaic "Cephas." No were the apostles called "the twelve" in later New Testament literature, suggesting (like Cephas) an early date by way of internal evidence. It mentions only the Jerusalem apostolic "pillars" -- James and Cephas -- by name, suggesting that at the time of its formulation, this particular urban Church was considered the bulwark of Christendom, as in Acts 15 and 21. This also suggests that it was formed in Jerusalem by "the twelve" within a timeframe consistent with the occurences it names.

In other words, it may have been formed as an adjunct event to the main events transpiring in Jerusalem around which the councils of Acts 15 and 21. Perhaps the rumors with which the Gospel had to contend eventuated their production, or simply (most likely) standard biblical and rabbinic "wisdom practices" would have required the words and deeds of Jesus commemorated both in memorized oral tradition and in writing. The greatest of the prophets, Jesus, had appointed scribes, and gave them "another paraclete" to recall to mind what they were taught by the man they all called "Rabbi."

The writings about Jesus could easily have begun by the scribes Jesus encountered and debated (or others who would have memorized his teachings as any good Rabbinic disciple would do) during Jesus' earthly ministry. After all records Luke, "the people hung on his every word." Surely memorizing or transcribing what fascinates a disciple was not outside the question, and Matthew the tax collector HAD to be able to write (calculate and defend his calculations) to do his job. So did Zacchaeus. People hated the tax collectors and would often accuse them to get them in trouble. The ones who stayed out of jail [They had CEO's in jail back then too, after a fashion] were natural-born apologists with numbers and explanations.

In one of the parables Jesus told of a "crafty steward" we find him writing. The calculators could write because they had to, at times to justify their numbers to their masters. Their world was not that different from ours in some ways, and one of those ways is called "an audit." You could always hire a second accountant to check on the first (or have the government do it for free if you accuse the guy enough times).

Conclusion: this apologetically-adapted pericope predated Paul's own conversion, and he received it from "the twelve" in Jerusalem, where Cephas and James ruled as pillars among equals. The Aramaic qualities of this segment show an Old Testament-oriented perspective, which sees Jesus the Messiah as a long-held future promise just now fulfilled. It seems to follow a chronological order, even in its details, Christ died, was buried rose, was seen, and is preached among men. This formula also fits that of the 1 Timothy primitive Christological pericope, which adds more detail, in the form of a humiliation-exaltation chiasmus.

The ascension and session of Christ to the Father's right hand come only later in this letter in chapter 15, which more openly and extensively treats the resurrection (which turns out to be quite the postmillenial event). Paul's opening salvo engaged by this pericope stops at the resurrection and proof of it one may obtain because of the occasion for which this letter was written. Paul is doing apologetics and the topic is resurrection.

Paul reinforces that what he teaches by this pericope all the apostles teach and preach. This is formal doctrine established by the eyewitness testimony of the twelve, and of the better part of 500 "brethren." The post-resurrection appearance convinced them. So they would be friendly to any Christian inquiry about the matter. They were available for the asking Paul challenged. Paul must have met some of them in Acts 15 or earlier through the Christian prophet "Ananias," who healed him of his post-conversion blindness.

But these were doubtless in Jerusalem, as is everything mentioned in this Corinthian pericope. More can -- and Lord willing shall - be learned by justaposing and overlapping this pericope with the other sound words from the apodosis we have so far briefly investigated.

With certainty, we can say this pericope has a primitive, but high Christology, consistent with that of the other "sound words" of the dominical corpus. It is based on eyewitness testimony, of the apostles and the 500 in Jerusalem (whom doubtless Luke interrogated at length). Perhaps Paul includes the two on the road to Emmaus in this group, not mentioning them separately as Luke does. Luke knows a great deal. And Paul knows Luke well. The apostles read and approved Luke's gospel. They were Rabbis, and (according to the Gospels) such are responsible for the teachings and doings of their disciples. Thus, they said to Jesus, "Rebuke your disciples!" And He said, "If I cause them to cease, the very rocks will cry out" (meaning, "Mind your own business").

The Aramaic and Semitic features of this pericope testify in one voice with its details and chronological indicators. It came from Jerusalem. It came from the twelve. It came when Peter was still known as "Cephas" and when the Jerusalem presbytery -- yes, I said presbytery --was the central authority of the Christian Church. [Apparently, its authority did not reach as far as Asia Minor, where we find Jesus the priest-king walking in the midst of that presbytery, and reproving and praising the churches of said presbytery according to how faithfully the following the dominical and apostolic mandates -- note: the lampstands representing the churches were identical, while the churches themselves were not. Thus, discipline was in order since the churches -- minus two -- were not].

This pericope shows the same basic pattern as the other sound words, focusing on the resurrection and the proof for it over against the skeptical "Jesus Seminar" doubters of the day, who knew something about religiongeschichtliche -- comparative "resurrection" accounts of different religions. Paul's answer -- extended throughout the letter -- shows that Paul's christology includes the ascension and session of Christ (vis a vis Psalm 110:1), which for him is implicit in the pericope cited earlier (as we know from also from Php. 2:6-11, and 1 Tim. 3:16ff, where the same apostolic corpus is cited).

The resurrection proof centers on Jerusalem, and the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. It focuses upon eyewitness testimony showing -- see 2 Cor. 13:1 -- that Paul understands the concept of historical proof in deuteronomic-legal terms. The OT case-law legislation forms the basis of NT historiography. Lukan-Pauline historiography is openly theonomic, and not tied per se to the ten commandments, but to the particular applications of those commandments found in the 616 "spiritual laws."

The doctrine of the bodily resurrection of Christ clearly forms a counterproductive element in term of evangelistic success among Greeks (as with the Sadducees, who said there is no resurrection, nor did any believe in angels), just as the crucifixion of Christ offended among all three major culture groups of Paul's day which formed evangelistic targets. In each case, the apostles met this skepticism with eyewitness testimony. This forms the bulwark of any true "Christian" historiography. There is no "Q." This non-referential term grew out of a set of postmodern legends about the historical trajectory of Gospel development, as Luke's prologues and the apostolic tradition make clear.

The "Q conspiracy" thus represents a myth of the kind postmoderns ascribe to early Christians, calling them "illiterate," when such contemporaries -- who cannot read the internal evidence of the Gospels themselves -- look like the better candidates for literacy-challenged epithets. Let us call them "historically-disadvantaged and apodictically-challenged scholars."

The specific theology of this pericope Paul sees as consistent with, and prophesied by, the Psalms. The early "sermon laden" chapters of the Book of Acts show this to be a common view among all the apostles. The christology therein represented remains part and parcel of the apodosis, and it comes from the Psalms. The apostles all concur that what the Psalms prophesy they have seen with their own eyes, together with some 500 others who converted after seeing Jesus all at the same time in some district of Jerusalem, shortly after the death of Jesus.

Paul here proclaims "the Gospel" from the sound-word tradition, and does not hesitate to put it in a decisively Psalmic context, the context from which the apodosis originated, as it was explained by Jesus over forty days to his disciples. Jesus showed them then all things in the three-fold Bible (according to the Scriptures) of the prophecies concerning Himself, and of the kingdom of God. The rabbinic apostles delivered this corpus to others (converts like Theophilus) just as they had received it -- without alteration.

So perfect was this tradition that upon thorough investigation, Luke found his researches totally consistent with the apodosis. The fruit of Luke's interrogations is worth reviewing just once more. Let's shall [with my bracketed interpolations as usual]:

"Forasmuch as many [Christians like Matthew, Mark and others] have taken in hand [with a pen called a "stylus"] to set forth in order [and in writing] a declaration [this refers to the Gospel, sacred writing requiring the utmost care and accuracy] of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning [Of Jesus' ministry] were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; [apostolic scribes]

[Here, note that we are told that the earlier MANY Gospel accounts which Luke has read all have one thing in common: these declarations of the Gospel all had to be "even as the apostles delivered such teachings to us from Jesus. I added "from Jesus" because Paul makes it clear that this is the source of the sound-word tradition by which the apostle operate when preaching the Gospel. This means Luke's Gospel, like the others, was undertaken with apostolic approval and final consent. THEY were the guarantors of all things published in the name of Christ or the Church.

It seemed good to me also [though not an apostle], [but since I observed them firsthand] having had perfect understanding of all things from the **very** first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, [The form of sound words] wherein thou hast been instructed" [catechised as a new convert who wanted to know more about Jesus like most people, which explains the MANY Gospel accounts written -- besides Matthew, Mark and John - all of which had to pass the apostolic editorial review board before publication."

And now for a positively unscientific postscript that will never make it on public television, where mediocre historiography reigns supreme.

These MANY accounts affirmed by Luke incidentally -- not as some proof or other -- show that:

1. John Dominic Crossan is badly mistaken on his illiteracy thesis. The early Christians burst forth with a veritable renaissance of education and literacy on account of their zeal for Jesus the way the Puritans made everyone literate so they could read what these Christians had earlier written. In case they still haven't noticed, biblicists tend to write alot. Find a minister whose bookshelf is but a few books long and I will show you a planet that does not orbit.

And they didn't have blogs yet.

2. Sacred writing required extraordinary controls, because God does not approve lies in His Name. This is a matter of keeping the third and ninth commandments, not simply a matter of scribbling out mutually-conflicting books to make money on the latest criteriologically-challenged portrait of the alleged "historical Jesus," where historical seems to mean "faddish."

This OT-based understanding of historiography -- historical writing -- precludes any sort of legendary growth in the nature of the case. The apostles deliberately prevented any ideological drift whatever, in the name of presenting and defending the faith of Jesus from error, to which all the NT testifies they gave their full attention.

3. These controls in every case were anchored in Jerusalem and consisted of people having had "a perfect [eyewitness-based] understanding" of what Jesus in fact did and said. They were collectively (not individually) eyewitnesses, and could write and compare notes, one with the others, at their leisure.

4. Everything about the form of sound words suggests they were Psalmic, Danielic, Deuteronomic, and extremely early in terms of their writing. They are highly Semitic compared with the surrounding texts into which they are embedded, and to which the apostles adapt them. Paul and the others plainly affirm that these were carefully guarded as the "Gospel of Christ," and were thoroughly researched repeatedly by "many" who wrote many accounts each which met with apostolic approval.

The evidence is far better than one could reasonably expect. On top of all this evidence, the apostles and prophets repeatedly worked miracles in their communities and transformed them into charitable and (by all accounts) the better citizens in the Empire -- except for those stiff knees and their "Caesar lordship" allergies.

5. Any criteriology used against the Bible's own historiographic traditions (as an arbitrary substitute which cannot justify itself) will self-destruct in the nature of the case, as has been shown repeatedly already. Many of those popular today cannot pass their own suggested implicates, cannot survive other criteria with which they are used, and simply (even if they could) do not manage what they pretend for oversimplifying or simply mistaking the actual historical situation of first-century Judaism(s?) and Christianity.

There is no good reason to reject or simply ignore the clear Lukan-Pauline-apostolic testimony to early Christian historical writing; and the contrary is logically impossible.