7 JWO_20_01_HowTheCanonWasFormed_0112

embed edited this page 2023-10-27 23:31:08 +00:00

Table of Contents

• Appendix B: How The Canon Was Formed First Written Canon (64-70 A.D.)
• Marcion's Canon (144 A.D.).
• The Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D. ? 350 A.D. ?)
• Origen s List (240 A.D.)
• A Word About the Hebrew Matthew
• Continuing With Origen's List
• Eusebius ' List (324 A.D.)
• Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.)
• Athanasius ' List (367 A.D.)
• The Syrian Apostolic Canons (380 A.D.)
• Rufinus List (380 A.D.)
• Augustine & Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
• How We Arrived At Our Modern Canon
• The Special Question of Second Peter
• Appendix C: The Easter Error
• Jesus ' Command Of A Passover Remembrance
• The Law of Passover
• How the Timing Was Changed From 14 Nissan
• Jesus ' Intention to Transform the Passover Dinner
• The Orthodox Confront English-speaking 'Easter" Terminology
• Any Imperative To Reform ?
• Appendix D: The Abrahamic Covenant

Parent: JesusWordsOnly

Appendix B: How The Canon Was Formed First Written Canon (64-70 A.D.)

The first written Christian canon was proposed by the Ebionites. They said it was only the book of Matthew in Hebrew. As explained in the main text, the Ebionites knew of Paul, but excluded Paul as a false apostle because he rejected the Law of Moses. 1 There is no indication that they knew of Luke's or Mark's gospels. Nor is there any evidence they heard of John's Gospel or Revelation. Therefore, we can deduce this simple canon list of the Ebionites was developed around 64 A.D. At that point, Paul's writings were in circulation, but neither Mark, Luke, John nor Revelation had yet been written. Since the original Ebionites apparently disappear upon the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., it is safe to say their canon list was no later than 70 A.D.

This is often overlooked because mention is made of another group of Ebionites. However, they existed in the second century and are not necessarily to be linked organically to the first Ebionites. According to Origen writing in about 200 A.D., another group calling themselves Ebionites came along after the earlier Ebionites disappeared. 2 Some historians lack this perspective, and thus do not date the Ebionite canon to the 64-70 A.D. period. However, it is more reasonable to infer that the original Ebionites existed as of 64 A.D. and then disappeared because of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. This would explain why they mention only Paul and the Hebrew Matthew, and fail to mention any other NT writing. Thus, the original Ebionites must date to about 64 A.D. when Paul's writings & the Hebrew Matthew existed but nothing else was yet written for our NT.

Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, it is likely the earliest Ebionites are the Jerusalem Church under James which we see operating in Acts chapter 15. After James died, it dispersed by 70 A.D. when the Romans razed Jerusalem. 3

Marcion's Canon (144 A.D.).

1. See page 306 et seq.

2. "Origen is the first (C. Cels., V, lxi) to mark a distinction between two classes of Ebionites, a distinction which Eusebius also gives (Hist. Eccl., Ill, xxvii)." ("Ebionites," Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm) (last accessed 2005).

3. For an explanation, see Chapter Twelve.

In about 144 A.D., Marcion (85-160 A.D.) publicly declared the only apostle who had the true message of Jesus was Paul. Marcion said the twelve apostles were misled to mix Judaism (the Law) with the gospel of Jesus. Marcion's canon primarily consisted of Paul's epistles. 4 Marcion also added his own Gospel narrative of Jesus' life. In it, the narrative of Jesus' life appears almost identical to Luke's gospel. Marcion, however, omitted portions that detract from Pauline theology such as Jesus' emphasis on Law-keeping. 5

Marcion also rejected the continuing validity of the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e., 'the Old Testament.' Marcion did so claiming reliance upon Paul's chapter 4 of Galatians. Marcion claimed the God who delivered the Hebrew Scriptures was a different God than God, the Father of Jesus. Paul said in Galatians ch. 4 that if we submit to the Law of Moses, we are submitting to those who "are no gods." The Law rather was given by angels. This created a lesser-greater revelation distinction. This fed Marcion's lesser-greater God theory. Marcion also believed the gospel of Grace was so much about love and mercy that it excluded the God of Hebrew Scriptures. Yahweh of the 'Old Testament' was at odds with Grace. He clearly wanted obedience to the Law. Marcion in his work Antitheses tried demonstrating from the Bible how the God of the New (relying on Paul) was different from the God of the Old. The Old would only save the obedient, while the God of the New would save all who believed even if they became disobedient. (Marcion, Antitheses #19 (quoted at 49 supra.))

John Knox (not the reformer) summarizes Marcion:

(1) The Creator of the world, although a real God, must be
distinguished from the higher god.  unknown except as he was
revealed in Christ;

(2) The Creator of the world is a just God, but severje] and
harsh; the God whom Christ revealed is a Father, a God of love-,

(3) judgment is the prerogative of the Creator; redemption is
the/ree gift of the God of love;

(4) the Jewish Scriptures represent a true revelation of the
Creator, but they do not speak of or for the God whom alone
Christians ought to worship and from whom alone salvation from the
present wicked world is to be received ;

(5) the revelation in Christ was intended not merely to supplement
or 'fulfil' Judaism but entirely to displace it - the one had no
connection with the other-,

4. Of note, Marcion's version of Romans is missing chapters 9 through 11 and 15 & 16. (Origen, Commentary on Romans, xvi: 25.) One explanation is that Marcion rejected the grafting in concept in chapters 9-11. Others suggest these four chapters were a later addition fifty years after Paul was dead. I believe the former is true; these ideas are all true to Paul. Marcion is also missing 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. ( http://www.bibleresearcher.com/canon3 .html.)

5. Charles B. Waite, "The Gospel of Marcion and the Gospel of Luke Compared," The History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred (Chicago, C.V. Waite & Co., 1900) at 287-303, reprinted at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3827/wait2.htm. The early heretic hunters of the church accused Marcion of mutilating Luke. However, conservative Christian scholars today generally agree Marcion did not know of Luke's gospel. He simply had received or developed himself what was a source for Luke. Marcion gave no name to the writer of the gospel he put forth. In fact, Tertullian excoriated Marcion for not identifying the human author. (Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4.2) Merely because the early heretic hunters such as Irenaeus saw the evident similarities to Luke does not mean Marcion mutilated Luke. He may or may not have done so. If he did not, then Marcion relied upon what is called the proto-Luke gospel. There is no trouble for the validity of Luke's gospel if Luke relied on the same text. Luke after all does not claim inspiration; he claims perspiration of research. (Luke 1:1 -4.) It appears possible then Marcion either had Luke as his source or Luke added to an old source which scholars call the proto-Luke.

   (6) the Son of the Father did not actually take sinful flesh but only appeared to do so; (7) there is no resurrection of the flesh [i.e., only of the spirit]; and (8) Paul was the only true apostle, to whom Christ committed his gospel [of salvation by faith alone]- the other 'apostles' were false and had misled the church [i.e., by teaching works were also necessary]. 6

Thus, the second canon proposed about 144 A.D. was exclusively Paul and a truncated Gospel narrative that suited Marcion. This narrative is similar to Luke's gospel. The major difference is that the first three chapters of Luke are absent. 7

Marcion's proposition was at odds with the Ebionite view. The Ebionites had insisted the canon was only about Jesus, based exclusively upon the Hebrew version of Matthew. Marcion implicitly rejected this. Accordingly, it was predictable that the next canon lists were compromises between these two diametrically opposed views.

The Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D. ? 350 A.D. ?)

The Muratorian fragment was discovered in the 1700s in a Catholic monastery. The actual document is from the seventh or eighth century. The source from which it comes from has no easy means of identifying its date.

Initially, the Muratorian fragment was estimated to be from 170 A.D. For tradition-sake, it is placed at this juncture in the canon story. However, in 1992, an Oxford scholar put forth what appears to be a better reasoned case which dates it to the Fourth Century. It matches several canons in the East from that period. Geoffey Hahneman thus says the early dating would represent "an extraordinary anomaly on numerous counts." 8 I concur. If you simply read it without knowing the date ascribed, it has the clear scent of later Roman Catholic terminology.

6. John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942) at 7.

7. See Marcion: Gospel of the Lord and Other Writings at http://www.gnosis.org/library/marcionsection.htm (2005). For more original material on Marcion, see Fragments of Marcion at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/marcion.html.

8. Geoffrey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of Canon (Oxford Theological Monographs)(Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1992. at 131. This is critiqued in C.E. Hill, "The Debate Over the Muratorian Fragment and the Development of Canon," Westminster Theological Journal 57:2 (Fall 1995) at 437 ff The only support for an early date is the Muratorian Fragment refers to the Shepherd as writing in "our time." This amorphous language is hardly compelling given the many valid problems that Hahneman raises with the early dating hypothesis.

Regardless of its dating, the Muratorian Fragment starts mid-sentence. It starts with an apparent list of approved reading materials. It starts saying Luke is the "third" gospel. It is fair to assume Matthew and Mark were first mentioned. Then it continues its list:

John, Acts, the Epistles of Paul (Corinthians (2), Galatians,
Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians (2),
Philemon, Titus, Timothy (2)), John's Apocalypse, Jude, John's
epistles (2) [N.B. not 3], the Apocalypse of Peter [although] some
of us are not willing [it] be read in church. 9

This omits all of the epistles of Peter and James. It drops Third John. Hebrews is not mentioned.

If this the Muratorian Fragment (MF) identifies canon as of 170 A.D., please note how early that John's Apocalypse (today known as Revelation) was accepted. Its subject matter alone is what created controversy one-hundred and fifty years later.

The MF lacks any clear mention that inspiration is the criteria for each book listed as canon. It speaks of 'receiving' works. It does not ever suggest inspiration is the sole criteria for receiving.

In fact, in reference to Paul, the Muratorian Fragment describes Paul's works in a flat manner. It reads: "As to the epistles of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed." 10 There is no excitement that we have here inspired works. It is described in utter blandness. Then, slightly with more excitement, the MF refers to Paul's epistles to Timothy as follows: "[There are] two [epistles] to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline." This says clearly these two Pauline epistles were held as esteemed guides on how to institute discipline in the church. Otherwise, there is nothing more to imply about inspiration.

The MF also speaks of canon as including the Gospel of Luke but yet holding it in less than 100% certainty of its inspiration. As to Luke's Gospel, the MF says Luke is one who was "studious" and who "himself [never] saw the Lord in the flesh." Then it says Luke "according as he was able to accomplish it" wrote the nativity of John the Baptist. There human historical research, not inspiration, is ascribed to Luke. (This was precisely Tertullian's assessment of Luke's gospel as well in Against Marcion.) Since the MF regarded Luke as canon, but MF had an understanding it was included because it was reliable rather than inspired, one can recognize a test is at work other than inspiration. Canon was formed due to esteem or high regard or trust, not because each and every work was deemed inspired.

Origen s List (240 A.D.)

Origen said there were four Gospels. He mentions that Matthew was "composed as it was in the Hebrew language..." just as the Ebionites had claimed.

9. The source of this list, and all the subsequent lists, you will find at New Testament Canon and Ancient Canon Texts quoted in full at http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html (last visited 8/26/05).

10. The entire MF text is at http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Muratorian-Canon.html (last accessed 1/7/07).

A Word About the Hebrew Matthew

Origen is the first mention of the Hebrew Matthew in the early lists outside the list of the Ebionites. Some people are surprised to learn Matthew was written originally in Hebrew, as the Ebionites earlier claimed. However, Eusebius in 325 A.D. agreed, and said the version we have today is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Matthew. 11 Irenaeus too in 125 A.D. knew of the Hebrew Matthew which later became the Greek Matthew. As the Catholic Encyclopedia relates,

"Irenseus... wrote about A.D. 125 [and] he speaks of Hebrew...
Sayings of Christ, composed by St. Matthew, which there is reason
to believe formed the basis of the canonical Gospel of that name." 12

The Hebrew Matthew was also said to have been brought to India by the Apostle Bartholomew. Pantaenus, visiting India late in the second century, reported that "he found on his own arrival anticipated by some... to whom Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached, and had left them the Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew." (Eusebius quoted by H.J. Schonfield. The History of Jewish Christianity (London: Duckworth, 1936) at 66.) 13

11. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 39; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk III, ch. 1; Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, ch. Ill; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew [12:13]. The only significant difference mentioned in ancient works between the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek is that the Hebrew Matthew is missing chapter one that is present in the Greek. (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.1-30.22.4). This means the Hebrew is lacking some serious errors that appear in the Greek. This first chapter in Greek contains the genealogy and virgin birth account. The genealogy is clearly flawed. Honest evangelical Christian scholars admit the Greek Matthew's genealogy has several errors. (Ben Witherington, New Testament in History: A Narrative Account (Baker

2001. at 70.) Also, other flaws in the Greek text disappear when we look at the Hebrew Matthew recovered recently from a medieval text. A modem translation of it can be found in the work of George Howard (Professor of Religion, University of Georgia) entitled Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (Mercer University Press, 1995). The original Hebrew Matthew that Howard recovered shows Jesus correctly saying the prophecy of the 30 pieces of silver is in Zechariah (11:10-13), but our Greek version from which our English translations derive has Jesus Himself incorrectly saying it was in Jeremiah. (Matt. 27:9.) Thus, the Hebrew Matthew is indeed the more authentic version. Whether by fortuity or God's design, it was preserved and we can all enjoy it now in Mr. Howard's scholarly book.

12. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm (accessed 8/27/05).

13. Thomas is typically regarded as the main apostle to the people of India. The traditional date of Thomas'martyrdom is 72 A.D. in Mylapore, India. See "History of Christian Missions," Wikipedia.

14. The Marcan priority claim rests on an unproven assumption: if Mark wrote after Matthew, he would have relied upon Matthew. Based on that assumption, then it is allegedly hard to explain why Mark omits the Sermon on the Mount. However, if Mark was relying primarily upon Peter's recollections, as was Origen's claim, then Mark has no need to read Matthew. The assumption at stake that Mark would rely upon Matthew is an unfounded supposition.

Incidentally, for some inexplicable reason, the early existence of the Hebrew Matthew is ignored in the scholarly analysis of the dating of the gospels as well as the order of their writing. This is apparently so because its very existence puts in doubt many pet theories to attack the gospels, such as the Marcan priority claim. Many scholars, typically liberal ones, argue that Matthew relied upon Mark. If true, this casts in doubt that Matthew, an apostle, wrote from an understanding he was inspired by the Holy Spirit. This Marcan priority claim, while not having a shred of evidence to support it, 14 has become modem dogma. It runs against the grain of the history we do have. Irenaeus in 125 A.D. and Origen in 240 A.D. both say Matthew came first. (Against Heresies 3.1.1. and Origen in Eusebius' Eccl. Hist. 6.25.3-6.) Likewise, Augustine, writing in the 300s, said the evangelists "have written in this order: first Matthew, then Mark, third Luke, and last John." (De Consensu Evangelistarum 1.3.)

The Marcan priority claim crumbles if the Hebrew Matthew is acknowledged to exist and pre-exist the Greek version. For if Matthew came first in Hebrew, this explains perfectly why Mark-who as a Gentile at Rome evidently did not understand Hebrew-would not have included the Sermon on the Mount which is present in Matthew. Mark could not read Hebrew! Mark did not omit the Sermon on the Mount because of the frequently heard argument that the Gospel of Matthew did not exist yet. This omission of the Sermon by Mark-the main support for the Marcan priority claim-therefore vanishes as relevant evidence. No wonder no scholar wants to discuss the existence of the Hebrew Matthew. They fear their pet theory will evaporate. Conventional thinking has taken over.

Furthermore, the Hebrew Matthew affects dating issues as well. The Ebionites' reference to it appears to predate 70 A.D. The first Ebionites disappear at about that time, which supports their canon list predates 70 A.D., as explained above. Also, their canon list does not mention Mark, Luke, John or any other NT writing except Paul, whom they reject. Their canon list thus spans as early as 45 A.D. to 65 A.D., but not beyond. (See page ix supra.) Thus, the Hebrew Matthew must have been written in that approximate time frame.

This matches the textual clues in the Gospel of Matthew itself. John A.T. Robinson in his book Redating the New Testament (SCM Press: 1976) rejects the modem dogma that Matthew was written in 85 A.D. He redates Matthew to 40-50 A.D. Robinson argues that because Matthew does not mention the fall of Jerusalem, which took place in 70 A.D., and Matthew includes Jesus' prophecy of its fall, then likely the fall had not yet happened when Matthew wrote his gospel. Thus, it was written pre-70 A.D. This is a reasonable position because Matthew had a penchant for citing all the fulfilled prophecies he could find. Matthew would not omit mention of the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem had he been writing post-70 A.D.

However, most skeptical modem scholars merely assume hue prophecy is impossible, and put Matthew necessarily after the events of 70 A.D. Based on that logic, they date him to 85 A.D.

There is no justification for such skepticism. The prophecy of the fall of the temple after the Prince Messiah was cut-off is clearly in (Dan. 9:25-26). This writing is traditionally dated by Jews and Christians to 600 B.C .! Would these same scholars, who assume prophecy is impossible, redate Daniel 9:25-26 to 85 A.D. too? Of course not. There is no more reason to redate Matthew to post 70 A.D. than there is to redate the book of Daniel to post 70 A.D. As long as you put aside the supposition that the temple destruction prophecy could not possibly be uttered pre-70 A.D., all the evidence points to a pre-70 A.D. date for the original Hebrew Matthew. Of course, these same scholars are partially correct about the dating of the Greek Matthew. It would be true that the Greek translation of Matthew came later - possibly in 85 A.D. Then it is true the Greek Mark comes before the Greek Matthew. This would then explain perfectly why Mark does not have the Sermon on the Mount which is in the Greek Matthew. This also perfectly explains why Luke has parts of the Sermon on the Mount. His gospel account comes after the Greek Matthew.

Continuing With Origen's List

As to Mark's Gospel, Origen says Mark "composed it in accordance with the instructions of Peter." Then Origen mentions the gospels of Luke and John.

Origen continues his list by simply saying "Paul," without listing the individual epistles.

Origen next mentions Peter who "left one acknowledged epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed." Origen means Second Peter was disputed as not genuinely written by Peter.

Origen next mentions Revelation: "[John] wrote also the Apocalypse." Again please note that in the Muratorian Fragment of 170 A.D.(?) and now again in the Origen list of 240 A.D., John's Apocalypse (what we call Revelation) was clearly accepted.

Origen next adds 1 John and raises dispute with 2 John and 3 John. "[John] has left also an epistle of a very few lines; and, it may be, a second and a third; for not all say that these are genuine but the two of them are not a hundred lines long."

As to the Epistles of James and Jude, Origen is sometimes firm of their inclusion and other times waffling. James is an "epistle in circulation under the name of James...." This seems waffling. As to Jude, he likewise says: "And if indeed one were to accept the epistle of Jude...." However, in Origen's Homilies on Joshua, viii. 1, Origen is firm that they are both authentic canon:

So too our Lord, whose advent was typified by the son of Nun, when
he came sent his apostles as priests bearing wellwrought
trumpets. Matthew first sounded the priestly trumpet in his
Gospel. Mark also, Luke and John, each gave forth a strain on
their priestly trumpets. Peter moreover sounds loudly on the
twofold trumpet of his epistles; and so also James and Jude.

As to Hebrews, Origen says its writing style is certainly not Paul's. Yet the thoughts are admirable and on par with Paul's thoughts. Thus, it is commendable to attribute it to Paul, although Origen 'concedes' the author's identity is unknown.

Eusebius ' List (324 A.D.)

Eusebius acknowledges the four Gospels, Acts, and Paul. For Paul, he counts 14 epistles. This apparently means he was including Hebrews as a work of Paul's. Then Eusebius mentions Hebrews was disputed by the Roman Bishop. "[I]t is controverted by the church of Rome as not being Paul's."

Eusebius next acknowledges John and IPeter.

Then as to John's Revelation, Eusebius is the first published source in church history to raise any doubt. He says:

After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse
of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at
the proper time (Concerning the Apocalypse men's opinions even now
are generally divided). These, then, are among the recognized books.

Please note the test Eusebius utilized was recognition, with no mention of inspiration.

Eusebius then repeats about Revelation: "This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books." Eusebius then goes on, and becomes the loudest voice against the book of Revelation. He raised as many points as possible to undermine its validity. He did not appreciate its content, apparently because it contained anti-Roman millenialism. Because Roman rulers now embraced Christianity, the prophecies in Revelation were embarrassing to the church. Eusebius thus did everything he could to support doubts about the Book of Revelation. 15

Then Eusebius discusses James and Jude and 2 Peter. He says:

Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the
majority, there are extant the epistle of James, as it is called;
and that of Jude; and the second epistle of Peter (that which is
circulated as his second epistle we have received to be
uncanonical-, still as it appeared useful to many it has been
diligently read with the other scriptures).

Please note he affirms strongly here that Second Peter is non-canonical.

What was the dispute over the Epistle of James? Eusebius writes that it was supposedly not frequently cited by the 'ancients':

These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be
the author of the first of the so-called Catholic epistles.

But it is to be observed that it is disputed; at least, not many
of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with
the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the
seven so-called Catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these
also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.

We now know that James was cited by several of the 'ancients' very early on. 16 Eusebius was either unaware of this or was unimpressed.

As to 2 and 3 John, Eusebius wrote:

I recognize one epistle only as genuine and acknowledged by the
ancient presbyters, and those that are called the Second and Third
of John (these two remaining epistles are disputed), whether they
belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

It is interesting to see that early on up through Eusebius' day that 3 John was always disputed.

15. For proof that Revelation is authentic, see Canonicity of the Book of Revelation at www.jesuswordsonly.com.

16. See https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/james.html and under e-catena it shows James was cited earliest by 1 Clement (80-140 A.D.), the Epistle of Barnabas (80-120 A.D.) and Justin (150-160 A.D.)

Please also note that Eusebius is concerned whether the source is genuine rather than whether it is inspired. His list does not purport to list inspired texts. He lists only works which are genuinely written by the author to whom it purports to belong.

Council of Laodicea (363 A.D.)

This council is estimated to have taken place in 363 A.D. It was under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). The council rulings clearly reflect RCC practices. In canon 60 of the council decrees, it has a list of both approved Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament books. The only omission from the New Testament at odds with our present usage is the Book of Revelation. The only significant omission from the 'Old Testament' which Christians previously had accepted was the Book of Enoch. These two books would be politically incorrect to the Roman emperors.

Some claim the materials proving this list ever existed are inaccurate and unreliable. 17 This criticism, however, is weak. The disputed Canon 60 appears in the oldest records. However, it does not appear in a work written in 544 A.D. In that year, a Roman Catholic historian Dionysius Exiguus omits Canon 60 from his version of the council decrees. Likewise, in 610 John of Antioch, a monk in Orthodox territory, omits it.

These later omissions are unimportant. What is ignored is why later Roman Catholic historians would omit canon 60 and want to rewrite history. It is fairly obvious. The Pope in the Council of Rome of 382 re-issued a new NT list. This list restored Revelation to approved reading material in the church. This rejoining Revelation to NT canon was repeated by Pope Innocent I in 405 A.D.

So why would Dionysius Exiguus in 544 A.D. omit canon 60 in his summary of the Laodicean decrees of 363 A.D.? The Roman Catholic church would not want to admit popes and councils make mistakes. If Dionysius repeated the significant deletion of the Book of Revelation in 363 which appears in the earliest reliable texts from the Council of Laodicea, it would embarrass the church. It would also promote uncertainty about the Book of Revelation, which the Roman Catholic church now was willing to endorse. These realities destroy our ability to rely upon Dionysius. John of Antioch apparently used Dionysius uncritically as his source. Thus, one biased presentation leads to a later unwitting repetition of that same bias.

17. History of the Canon of the New Testament (4th Ed.) Ill at 428, excerpted at http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/2ancyra/Laocn60.htm (accessed 2005).

Furthermore, the omission of Revelation in the Council of Laodicea was combined with deletion of the Book of Enoch in 363 A.D. This twin deletion completely matches the political-religious feelings at that time. It matches the thoughts and ideas of Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History written sometime after 325 A.D. Eusebius was Emperor Constantine's favorite bishop. Eusebius strongly disliked the Book of Revelation, and spoke vigorously against its inclusion in canon. Political issues explain his outlook. The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) was in the early 300s well on the way to becoming the official religion of the Roman empire. (This officially took place in 380 A.D.) The Roman bishop came to dominate all other churches within the empire. Previously, the Christian church was a loose confederation of bishops. That original confederation traces directly to what we know today as the Orthodox church. It does not trace to Roman Catholicism, contrary to RCC myth. The Orthodox church of that earliest era was centered in Jerusalem. What could undermine this shift from the Orthodox council to a Rome-dominated church was precisely the Book of Revelation. Revelation was in turn a continuation of the Book of Enoch from the pre-Christian era. Thus, Constantine's imperative would be to erase the Book of Revelation and Enoch. He naturally feared how Christians would interpret end-time literature that made the "city on seven hills" (Rome) into the seat of the Great Whore/Beast/Anti-Christ. (Rev. 17:9).

Thus, this list at Laodicea appears to be historically accurate, even though, for dubious reasons, it is not recognized.

Athanasius ' List (367 A.D.)

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (Egypt), published the following list of approved reading sources in church in his Easter Letter of 367 A.D.:

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, James, Peter (2), John epistles
(3), Paul, 14 epistles total (naming Romans, Corinthians (2),
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians (2),
Hebrews, Timothy (2), Titus, Philemon), and the Revelation of John.

It therefore omits Jude.

The Syrian Apostolic Canons (380 A.D.)

The Syrian book of church order includes on its list of approved reading sources a book entitled The Constitutions of the Apostles. It purports to be first person statements by Peter, John, Andrew and other apostles. It is a blatant imposture. No scholar seriously contends otherwise today. However, it contains a list of approved NT-era reading sources as of 380 A.D.

The list includes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Also Paul, 14 epistles (which means it includes Hebrews), Peter (2), John (3), James, Jude, Acts, Clement's Epistles, and lastly the Constitutions of the Apostles. The latter two are no longer in our NT.

Rufinus List (380 A.D.)

Rufinus, an elder at Aquileia in northeastern Italy, prepared a list in 380 A.D.

His list includes Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. Also Acts, Paul, 14 epistles (which means he includes Hebrews), James, Jude, John [3], and Revelation. He totally excludes the two epistles of Peter.

Augustine & Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)

Augustine, the famous bishop of Hippo (West Africa) who was the principle formulator of Roman Catholic doctrine, made up a list in 397 A.D. This list was identically adopted by three other African Bishops at the regional Council of Carthage. It is the same as our modem New Testament list.

The Carthage ruling provides us little context to deduce upon what criteria inclusion or exclusion was based. Its decree was:

The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts
of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul,
thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two;
of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the
Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the
Church across the sea [i.e., Rome] shall be consulted. On the
anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

Thus, even this list was uncertain. It needed confirmation and input from the church at Rome. No one knows if such confirmation was ever obtained.

How We Arrived At Our Modern Canon

The foregoing history is the sole tradition of how our current list of New Testament books were formed prior to the modem era.

In 1522, Luther assembled a New Testament based on the 397 A.D. list. However, in his Preface to the NT, Luther specifically declared the Epistle of James and the Book of Revelation were uninspired and should not be viewed as scripture.

As a response to Luther, in 1543 the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent created an identical list to our current New Testament canon. The council decreed that the basis of this list was its traditional acceptance, not whether there was prophecy that justified inclusion of any specific book.

Then later in the 1500s, Calvin declared Second Peter should not be regarded as a valid part of scripture, as discussed next.

After Calvin's statement, credible challenges to canon by sincere Christians have ceased.

The Special Question of Second Peter

As the history detailed above shows, the only consistently rejected document (until 367 A.D. but dropped again in 380 A.D.) in our current New Testament canon is Second Peter. This bespeaks forgery. It should now be finally eliminated. The word of God is too precious to permit tradition to justify inclusion.

This recommendation is not the product of radical liberal insight. The flaws of Second Peter are so self-evident that even Calvin provides support for it being a pseudograph. As Metzger explains:

Calvin applies philological tests as to authorship of various
books...The style of 2 Peter differs from that of 1 Peter and
was therefore probably not written by the apostle himself.... 18

Furthermore, Eusebius thought it a pseudograph in 325 A.D. 19 Eusebius wrote that among the disputed books are "the second epistle of Peter." One of his reasons was how few early church leaders cited Second Peter. Especially troublesome was that those who knew of First Peter did not know of Second Peter. Polycarp and Irenaeus, for example, only reveal knowledge of First Peter. One can verify this by visiting the computerized cross-reference of every verse of First and Second Peter to the writings of the early Church leaders. You can find this resource at Peter Kirby's excellent website: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html.

However, as Peter Kirby explains, there are many other reasons to believe Second Peter is a pseudograph. One telling internal evidence is a reference by "Peter" to Paul's writings as if they already had been collected and assembled in "Scripture." ((2Pet. 3:16).) Such an event did not occur until well after Peter's death. Peter Kirby then explains: "Accordingly, we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of 'early Catholicism.'" Id. The pseudograph nature of Second Peter is now "widely acknowledged." Id.

18. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) at 245.

19. See "The Canon of Eusebius, " Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament (ed. Bart D. Ehrman) (Oxford University Press: 2003) at 337-38.

Appendix C: The Easter Error

Jesus ' Command Of A Passover Remembrance

The Hebrew word for Passover is Pesach. The King James Bible translates the word for Passover in Greek ( Pascha ) with the word Easter in Acts 12:4. The King James translators thus believed Easter was synonymous with Passover. Why was this? To find the answer, we need to go back to what early Christians understood (and everyone but English-speaking Christians still understand) was the context in which Jesus intended the communion command to be fulfilled.

We English-speaking Protestants are generally ignorant of Jesus' intention behind the "remembrance of me" command at the Passover dinner before He was crucified. (Luke 22:19.) As explained below, 1 the command from Jesus was supposed to be part of the Passover service that his Jewish apostles were to keep and celebrate annually. When Jesus said "do this in remembrance of me," He did not envision a new ceremony called Communion. When He did likewise with the cup of wine, Jesus was not envisioning a new second step to what we call Communion. Rather, Jesus was saying when you "do this," that is, recite remembrances as the head of the table shares the unleavened bread and as each table-participant drinks from the Cup of Redemption in the Passover Dinner, the participants were henceforth to now do this in remembrance of Jesus. The story of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins would now be added as a remembrance at these two junctures of the Passover Dinner.

This explains why the early church practiced Passover. The Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp (died 155 A.D.), asserted Passover observance was directly handed to him by the apostles. Polycarp also said he was taught by them to keep it on 14 Nissan, exactly as prescribed as the day for Passover in the Law given Moses. 2

It may surprise an English-speaking evangelical to learn this, but it was this apostolic practice which explains why the Catholics and Orthodox still keep Passover each year. We find the Catholics in Italy call it Pasqua. In the Orthodox church, Pascha. Among Catholics it is an eight day period. 3

1. See "Jesus' Intention to Transform the Passover Dinner" on page xxiii.

2. Of this there can be no doubt. Polycarp (martyred 155 A.D.) spoke of Christians keeping Passover at 14 Nissan, which he claimed he learned from Apostle John (whom he claimed to know as a child) and other apostles. Eusebius records that Polycarp went to Rome to convince the bishop of Rome to change back to apostolic practice. Eusebius says the bishop of Rome could not "persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he associated." (Eusebius, EcclessiasticalHistory, Ch. XXIII.) Likewise, passover for Christians on 14 Nissan was recorded in the Apostolic Constitution which dates somewhere between 220 A.D. and the late 300s.

3. "In the Roman Catholic Church, Easter is actually an eight-day feast called the Octave of Easter." ("Easter," Wikipedia, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter (last accessed 1/7/07).)

In fact, even in the evangelical Protestant church outside English-speaking lands, the celebration week ending with Resurrection Sunday still retains its correct name of Passover, e.g., Pascua in Spanish; Paschen in Dutch, P&ques in French, etc. I first learned this by living abroad in Costa Rica. I was puzzled why Protestant Christians there called Easter Pascua. That's how I stumbled across this issue.

The Law of Passover

The Passover Season was comprised of two parts: a Passover dinner and a week-long Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passover dinner was celebrated at a dining-room table in a house ((Exod. 12:46)) besides at the Temple (Deut. 16:2). The home-observance was typically led by the head of a family. The house had to be cleaned of all scraps of unleavened bread in preparation for passover and the feast of unleavened bread. The sojourner (Gentile sharing community with the Jews) was enjoined only not to eat unleavened bread in this season. Exodus 12:19. Otherwise, the sojourner did not have to keep the Passover dinner or celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Yet, if the sojourner chose to keep the Passover dinner, he had to be circumcised first. Exodus 12:49. Thus, it was an honor that a sojourner could share in, but it was not a requirement to do so.

How the Timing Was Changed From 14 Nissan

Why does Passover in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Evangelical Protestant communities no longer coincide with the Jewish day of observance of Passover? 4 Why in particular is this true even if they retain the name Passover as the festivalseason they celebrate?

At the Council of Nicea in 325, Passover's day of celebration was changed at the urging of the Emperor of Rome. He specifically demanded it be a different day other than 14 Nissan so as to spite the Jews. Emperor Constantine's ostensible reasons were all blatantly grounded on a virulent anti-semitical tirade! 5

4. For reasons too complex to narrate, the Orthodox do not agree with the Catholic date for Passover.

5. Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. stated the ostensible rationale for the change. He thought it imperative Passover not he held on the same day as Jews keep Passover. Constantine stated victoriously at the Council: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival....Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries.... avoiding all contact with that evil way.... Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any tiling in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord.... no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews." (Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History .)

However, there were actually some other competing considerations not specifically mentioned in the records from the Council of Nicea. The true Passover could fall in March. However, the new chronology guaranteed Passover would land in April. Why was this important? Because in that era, the English and Germanic name for April was Eostremonat or Ostaramonath respectively. What did this name mean? In April, the pagans celebrated the festival of Osiris. It was her month. In Britain, her name was Eastre. There is no dispute this is the origin of the name for Easter. In the Eighth century, a Christian monk and historian, Bede, explained why English-speaking lands persisted in calling the Passover by the name Easter. He explained: "Eosturmonath, which is now interpreted as the paschal month, was formerly named after the goddess Eostre, and has given its name to the festival [Passover in Britain]." 6

Thus, there was a more compromising rationale and purpose to Constantine's change. He desired to appease pagan citizens. This is why Constantine would not tolerate those who wanted to retain the apostolic practice of keeping Passover on 14 Nissan. These were known as Quatordecimans, i.e., 14-ers in Latin. Like we call the gold-rush enthusiasts 49ers, these adherents were called the 14ers. Because Constantine was able to heavily influence doctrine, the Roman Catholic church now inflicted excommunication on all Quatordecimans. This resulted in all kinds of civil penalties, e.g., inability to inherit, etc. 7 This is how the true apostolic practice of observing 14 Nissan as the true day for Passover was wiped out in the Roman territories. Yet, the name Passover continued to be used. This is why the feast is still called Passover in all of Christendom except in English-speaking lands.

Thus, it was the British who solely refused to observe Passover under any name other than that of their goddess Eastre. She would have a priority over Passover. The Catholic church tolerated this in Britain. This was simply inherited by the Protestant English Church without any re-examination. As a result, Protestants in English-speaking lands came to completely forget the very context in which the drama of the Resurrection was to be recreated each year: it was the PASSOVER week, which starts with the Passover Dinner and continues in what is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread.

Jesus ' Intention to Transform the Passover Dinner

But why did the early apostolic church follow Passover? Because Jesus commanded a change within the Passover Dinner. (Luke 22:19.) It was not something new called Communion. Jesus instead was adding a memorial to step four of the traditional Passover Seder where the unleavened bread is broken. He added another memorial at a later juncture where the Cup of Redemption was drunk. At each point, the bread and wine are shared by the head of the table with a recitation of certain traditional remembrances. Thus, the early church had to know this was the true nature of Jesus' command regarding Communion. This is why the apostles kept Passover, as Polycarp affirmed.

6. He wrote in Latin: "Eosturmonath, qui nunc paschalis mensis interpretatur, quondam a dea illorum quae Eostre vocabatur et cui in illo festa celebrabant nomen habuit." (Venerable Bede: The Reckoning of Time Faith Wallis (trans.) (Liverpool University Press, 1999) at 54.)

How do we know this was Jesus' meaning? First, the Passover ceremony had been standardized for millennia prior to Jesus Christ. It had fifteen clearly defined steps. We have Gospel-confirmation there had been no significant change in the fifteen steps by Jesus' day. The record in the Gospels shows Jesus followed six of the fifteen steps in exactly identical order. The only thing not mentioned are the steps involving the meal itself in the middle. While those steps are not mentioned, the six steps mentioned in the Gospels do not vary in the slightest from the traditional Passover seder even as it is kept to this very day by Jews. 8 The dinner's outline was never enacted as a law in the Bible or otherwise, yet one can see Jesus went through it stepby-step in the First Century A.D.

Therefore, we know that Jesus was first saying at step four, we need to change something. This is when we eat the unleavened bread. It was at that point that Jesus commanded we were to " do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19.) Next, Jesus clearly henceforth was associating the Passover Cup of Redemption with Himself: "this is the cup of the New Covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20.) Our Redemption was now from His blood, symbolized by that cup.

What else confirms Jesus' intent to modify the Passover Seder? His remembrance terminology in Luke 22:19 also fits in with the nature of the Passover Seder. The head of the table leads the participants in a series of remembrances of the work of God with the people of Israel. It includes not only the Passover but the bitter herbs the people of Israel ate in the desert. There is a remembrance too that Elijah will come back before Messiah, and so on. All Jesus was saying was He wanted to add one more work of God to the list of remembrances which were already being recounted at every Passover.

7. The Quatordecimans were vigorously routed out by Roman Catholicism which deemed them heretics for refusal to move Passover to a day of man's choosing. See "Quatordecimanism," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodeciman (last accessed 1/7/07). A subsidiary issue was that Catholics insisted that the Resurrection celebration must always coincide with a Sunday. The Quatordecimans disagreed. If you kept 14 Nissan as Passover as a memorial each year, the celebration of the Resurrection does not always fall on a Sunday. Why? Because 14 Nissan is not always a Thursday in our solar calendar as it was in the year Jesus was crucified. (The Jews used a lunar calendar which is why variances will creep in from year-to-year.) There is no doubt this was the day of Passover in the year of Jesus' crucifixion. The Passover Sabbath falls on 15 Nissan regardless of the day that the weekly Sabbath may fall. ((Exod. 12:16); (Lev. 23:7); (Num 28:16-18_.) The Gospels say Jesus was crucified and died just before the Passover Sabbath. This is called the "day of preparation." (Matt. 27:62.) This was a reference to just before the beginning of 15 Nissan. Thus, when Jesus resurrected Sunday, Jesus would be three days and three nights in the grave, as He predicted. (Matt. 12:40). But if you accept a memorial of Passover as 14 Nissan, but tolerate the Catholic idea of always celebrating the Resurrection on a Sunday, then because of the variance in the solar versus lunar calendars involved, sometimes Sunday will be less than three days and more than three days from 14 Nissan. Anyone knowing Jesus' prophecy will suspect Jesus was a liar. (Sometimes atheists spot the inconsistency, and they hurl this back as proof that Jesus was a liar.) Thus, the Quatordecimans were additionally trying to argue Sunday was an inappropriate day to celebrate the Resurrection in a week in which you were observing the Passover correctly on 14 Nissan. Such Sunday-observance combined with Passover on 14 Nissan would leave the faith open to attack by making Jesus appear to be a liar. The Quatordecimans had a compromise solution. They suggested, to simplify things, that the resurrection should be celebrated on 14 Nissan (with the Passover) even though technically the Resurrection did not fall on Passover. Look at the validity of the Quatordecimans' concerns even among Protestants. We Protestants like Catholics persist in calling the Friday before Easter Sunday the "Good Friday." Good Friday commemorates the crucifixion. Now do the math! Three days and three nights later is Monday, not Sunday.

Now hopefully you can understand why it was so imperative to retain Passover within the early church. This is why Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Church continued the observance of Passover all these centuries. To rid ourselves of Passover's observance completely would be to rid ourselves of the very context in which at least a Jewish Christian was to obey the commandment of Jesus to "do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19.) If our intent is to enjoy the privilege of Passover, then our persistent use of the word Easter for Passover has a negative effect. It has led to ignorance. What else explains an otherwise brilliant and famous commentator like Gill actually saying: "the passover was... abolished, and not to be observed by Christians." (Commentary on Acts 20:6.) Due to the Easter moniker for Passover, no one within English-speaking Christianity has any footing to even begin to suspect Gill is wrong. At least for the Jewish-Christian, Jesus intended they "do this in remembrance of me," i.e., share the bread and wine at Passover with a remembrance of Jesus' work on the cross. For the Gentile Christian who exercises the privilege to keep Passover, then he must follow Jesus' revision to that dinner celebration.

The Orthodox Confront English-speaking 'Easter" Terminology

This background now allows you to understand why the Orthodox Church in English countries cannot fathom the practice of calling this feast Easter. As Michael Harper, an Orthodox 'father,' notes: "This is a much more important subject than a mere dispute about words." Harper acknowledges that virtually no one realizes the original pagan goddess worshipped in April was named Easter. Yet, it is this very meaninglessness of the name Easter which effectuated a loss of the real meaning of the season. This is how we lost the content of what we were trying to do - amend the Passover service to remember Jesus while we simultaneously remembered all the other works of God which were part of the Passover dinner. Harper explains the Orthodox' Church's viewpoint on this phenomenon among English-speakers:

[There is a] constant temptation to drop the word Pascha and for
clarity (and sometimes charity) use the western word Easter. But
perhaps the time has come for us to make a stand against this.  In
our increasingly secular and pagan society the use of a pagan
word, of which no one knows the meaning.  is hardly suitable to
describe the greatest day in the Christian year. When most people
knew the Christian meaning of the word Easter [as Passover] one
could perhaps make out a case for using the word. But not today! 9

In other words, if we did retain the substance of Passover practice within our Easter-observance, perhaps you could say using Easter as a name is harmless. But now the word Easter obscures rather than highlights what we are trying to celebrate to honor Jesus' command to revise the Passover ceremony.

8. There are fifteen points covered in a standard Passover Seder. When you correlate John, Matthew and Luke, steps one through four are mentioned in exact parallel; steps five through twelve (i.e., the particulars of the meal) are omitted; and then steps thirteen and fourteen are repeated again in identical parallel to the standard service. (See http://home.earthlink.net/~lionlamb/PassoverSeder.html.) What Jesus was saying in context was He wanted step four (the bread) and step thirteen (the wine) to now be done "in remembrance of Me."

9. See Michael Harper, It IS Pascha not Easter! http://www.antiochian-orthodox.co.uk/pascha.htm (accessed 1/5/2007).

Any Imperative To Reform ?

There is absolutely no dispute factually that the early apostolic church kept Passover. There is no dispute that universal non-English speaking Christianity has always kept Passover, whether Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic. There is no dispute that it was only in 325 A.D. that this observance was moved from 14 Nissan to a date that coincides instead always with a date in April. (This is because the Christian Passover-Easter is measured in relation to the vernal equinox.) There is no dispute that the current date does not coincide with the Passover in God's Law. There is no dispute that the only reason English-speaking Christianity lost the memory of the Passover festival was due to the stubbomess of Englishmen. By the time of the Eighth Century, as recorded by Bede, the British Christians preferred to worship under their pagan goddess' name of Eastre.

With these indisputable facts, what should a Christian do? First, assuming Passover is something still to be observed, it is impermissible to move the timing.

When King Jeroboam moved the feast of tabernacles by one month from the time specified in the Law, the way this is described shows God's displeasure. ((1Kgs. 12:33).)*o The Spanish Reina Valera is the closest to the correct translation. Jeroboam selected a "month he invented in his heart." (Reina Valera.) The Hebrew is bada, which means "to invent." (Strong's #908.) Cf "devised in his own heart" (ASV KJV); "fixed by him at his pleasure" (BBE); "of his own choosing" (CEV).

What did Jesus likewise teach when we invent our own traditions in place of God's commands?

(6) And ye have made void the word of God because of your
tradition.

(7) Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

(8) This people honoreth me with their lips; But their heart is
far from me.

(9) But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their
doctrines the precepts of men. (Matt. 15:6-9 ASV.)

Thus, moving Passover, if we observe it, to anything other than 14 Nissan is vain (empty) worship, so says the Lord Jesus Christ. It is moved solely by tradition. Jesus says God does not accept vain worship. Jesus was alluding to the second commandment which says "do not use the Lord's name in vain."

10. Keil & Delitzsch explain this was an "arbitrary alteration of the Law." They explain: "Jeroboam also transferred to the eighth month the feast which ought to have been kept in the seventh month (the feast of tabernacles, Lev 23:34.)."

Nor can one ignore that Daniel says what will mark "another" who "puts down three rulers" (Dan. 7:24) is that he "shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the times and the Law ; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time." Dan 7:25. Thus, God gives us an idea that this "other" acts wrongly by changing the "times and the Law." 11 If this is so, then how can moving the date for Passover as provided in the Law given Moses be correct? As the Psalmist says, "Your royal laws cannot be changed." (Ps. 93:5.)

The remaining question, and the most important, is whether Jesus intended the apostles to keep Passover.

First, in broad terms, it is undisputed that the command to keep the Passover applied to Jews. It was optional for sojourners (Gentiles), but if they elected to keep it, they had to be circumcised. Thus, only if God abrogated the Law as to Jews can one say Jesus did not intend the apostles to keep Passover.

There are some fundamentally difficult passages to overcome if we contend God intended to abrogate the Law (Torah) in the New Testament. The New Testament was prophesied to "inscribe the Law (Torah) on our hearts." ((Jer. 31) GIBS.) When a Redeemer is sent to Israel to create a new covenant, God promises that "these words that I have given you " (the Law) "will be on your lips and on the lips of your children and your children's children forever ((Isa. 59:21) NLT.) 12 When His Servant (Messiah) comes, God "will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it honorable." (Isaiah 42:21 ASV/KJV.) Jesus, for His part, did everything possible to put the Law given Moses on our lips and in our hearts forever. Jesus said immediately after just referring to the "Law (given Moses) and the Prophets" (Matt. 5:17):

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:19 KJV)

In an identical spirit, Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for a shallow teaching of the "less weighty matters of the Law," but leaving the "weightier matters of the Law undone." (Matt. 23:23). Jesus attacked the Pharisees' oral traditions which made of none effect the written commandments of God given Moses. Matt. 15:6-9 (the Pharisees taught that a special korban payment which they invented would excuse later having to honor one's parents if they fell into poverty - in violation of one of the Ten Commandments.) Jesus did everything He could to elevate obedience to the Law given Moses. Jesus' critiques all reveal the Pharisees had a shallow defective Law-negating doctrine. The people merely assumed the Pharisees were teaching the Law because the people were told by the Pharisees what the Law was. Bible-texts were not ubiquitous as they are now. But Jesus said this supposition about the Pharisees was untrue.

11. Daniel shows this other's activity is viewed negatively by saying in (Dan. 7:26) "But the judgment shall be set, and they shad take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." Then in turn the kingdom taken from him "shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High: His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him." (Dan. 7:27.)

12. All commentators agree (Isa. 59:21) is a promise of the New Covenant. Bames says "these words" or "my words" means God's truth previously given "for the guidance and instmction of the church." Clarke says this means the "words of Jesus." But this overlooks the tense, which is a past tense. "These words" are words given prior to the coming of the Redeemer. Keil & Delitzsch concur, but they try to claim the prior "words" are the words of a covenant given to Abraham in (Gen. 17:1) et seq. No one wants to accept the simplest solution: Isaiah is saying the same thing as Jeremiah. God intended the Law is on the lips and in the hearts of all those who belong to the New Covenant.

Moreover, if the New Testament somehow abrogates the Law, including the Law of Passover, this would contradict God's repeated emphasis that "these ordinances" of the Law shall be "everlasting for all generations." (Exod. 27:21; 30:21; Lev. 6:18; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8; 15:15.)

Luther reculctantly came to accept Jesus intended the Law given Moses remains the rule of life for the Christian. While Luther originally subscribed to an anti-Law position in his Commentary on Galatians, Luther eventually made an about face. He insisted the Law, in particular the Ten Commandments, applies to Christians. (Shorter/Longer Catechisms (1531-32); Antinomian Theses (1537); cfr. Commentary on Galatians (1531).) 13 x Thus, it would appear that Jesus at least intended His Jewish apostles to keep Passover. It remained an honor for a Gentile to keep it.

What confirms this is that Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, said the apostles themselves personally taught him to keep Passover. If Polycarp were lying, it makes no sense that there is such a strong universal memory (other than in English-speaking lands) that the festival we call Easter is everywhere else called Passover, and is universally kept.

Finally, Jesus' command to "do this in remembrance of Me" during the Passover dinner has one obvious meaning. Jesus gave two remembrances that would be spoken of when the apostles "do this"- distribute the unleavened bread and share the Cup of Redemption at Passover. The context defines what do this meant. The later tradition of what we do on Sunday in Communion does not define what Jesus meant by do this. To think Jesus meant "do this" in a vacuum of a Sunday church communion service which observance is itself nowhere commanded in Scripture is replacing tradition for what is the import of Jesus' command. He clearly assumed that the apostles would keep the Passover dinner, as the Law mandated upon a Jew. It is within this context the apostles would fulfill His remembrance-commands of the communion cup and wine. To use tradition to avoid the import of Jesus' command would be "empty" worship. Jesus specifically said worship is vain when tradition replaces commandments of God. (Matt. 15:6-9.) This includes commandments from Our Lord to remember Him when we 'do this' (i.e., keep passover sharing of the bread and wine).

Thus, we should re-examine our own practice of Easter: do you know it is Passover that we are attempting to celebrate? If not, that is the first sign of an empty and vain worship. Do we know we are being told to exchange unleavened bread and a Cup of Redemption as remembrances at a Passover dinner at home if we are electing to keep the Passover season as a Christian? If not, that is a second sign of an empty and vain worship. Finally, are we troubled in the slightest that we are worshipping Christ under the name of a pagan goddess albeit a long forgotten association? If not, then that is a final sign that our worship has become so empty and so vain that even the clear historical taint of idol-worship does not concern us.

13. See page 102 et seq., viz., at 106. See also page 472.

Appendix D: The Abrahamic Covenant

Most Christians are unaware that Paul also overthrew the true Abrahamic Covenant. Paul's arguments create a defacto new Abrahamic covenant from (Gen. 15:5-6), which he insisted had priority over the true Abrahamic covenant which is recorded in Genesis 17:1-7. Paul says the alleged promise in Genesis 15:6 of justification by faith is inherited by the offspring of Abraham, including believers in Christ (Gal. 3:6, 26). However, Genesis 15:5-6 does not say any such thing. In making this claim, Paul makes of none effect the terms of the true Abrahamic Covenant of (Genesis 17:1-7). How so?

First, Paul tries to claim the promise of (Gen. 15:6) created faith alone as a basis of Abraham being right with God. (Gal. 3:6). (As discussed elsewhere, this verse had nothing to do with imputed righteousness.) 1 Then Paul says we inherit the promise of Genesis 15:5 (blessing of offspring as the number of stars) by the sheer step of faith that supposedly justified Abraham in Genesis 15:6. (Gal. 3:26.) The problem is that Paul has utterly ignored that there is no covenant offered with either Abraham or with any offspring in Genesis 15:5-6. A covenant with Abraham is only offered in Genesis 17:1-7, specifically mentioning it runs in favor of Abraham's offspring: "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (Gen. 17:7.) Please also note it was an eternal covenant. Its terms would never expire.

1. See pages 251-53, 495, and 507.

2. Pauline-biased scholars try to assert the covenant was put in place fourteen years earlier than (Gen. 17:1-7). They claim it really was instituted when we read the promise in Genesis 15:5-6. (Keil & Delitzsch.) However, that is not testing Paul by God's word for consistency, is it? That is backward reading into a passage to vindicate Paul. However, there is nothing in Genesis 17:1-7 to suggest any covenant was previously in place. In fact, as worded in Genesis 17:1-7, a covenant is still only a plan of God in the future, dependent on Abraham's obedience which had to be proven, not assumed. Genesis 17 reads: "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, Jehovah appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be thou blameless [a]nd 1 will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." (Gen. 17:1-2 NAS.)

3. Some break these two clauses by putting a period before and. The apparent rationale is to weaken the embarrassing conditionality of obedience to God's adoption of the Abrahamic Covenant. The correct translation has no period , such as in the Geneva Study Bible, Latin Vulgate, Websters, Young's Literal, Italian Riveduta, Contemporary English Version, etc. The period punctuation appears in the KJV, NAS and the German Luther Bible. Yet, even with a period before and, the conditionality remains.

Furthermore, the condition of the Abrahamic covenant is not faith, but the obedience of Abraham: "walk before me, and be thou blameless and I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly." (Gen. 17:1-2.) Consequently, Abraham and his "seed after you" had a duty in turn to "keep my covenant." (Gen. 17:3). God repeats this in (Gen. 18:8-9), saying that the covenant promise of God is contingent on the Abraham obeying and teaching his children to obey God's commands. 4 Then, after Abraham's death, God affirmed to Isaac that Abraham had obeyed all God's law, which now justified God keeping His side of the covenant to Abraham's seed, namely Isaac:

(1)... And Isaac went... unto Gerar.

(2) And Jehovah appeared unto
him, and said, Go not down into Egypt. Dwell in the land which I
shall tell thee of.

(3) Sojourn in this land, and I will be with
thee, and will bless thee. For unto thee, and unto thy seed, I
will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I
sware unto Abraham thy father.

(4) And I will multiply thy seed as
the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these
lands. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed.

(5) Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws. Gen 26:1-5 (ASV)

Thus, Paul turned a mere promise to Abraham alone in (Gen. 15:5-6) into something it was never intended to be. Paul made it a distinct covenant of righteousness by faith that belonged to Abraham's offspring. Paul has caused generations of Christians to ignore the true covenant made between Abraham and God that was inheritable. It was clearly one premised on Abraham "walking with me blamelessly" in which case God "wilF later enter into a covenant with Abraham. Gen. 17:1-2. We know from Genesis 26:1-5 that Abraham did obey God's commandments, and that God did assume His obligation under the covenant. God at that juncture brought a blessing on offspring of Abraham. The blessing was obtained by a covenant of obedience, not one upon faith alone.

Indeed, thereafter the terms of the true Abrahamic Covenant remained "eternal," just as God said. (Gen. 17:7.) This is ignored by Pauline Christians for it would overthrow Paul's Gospel if ever accepted.

For the same terms of the Abrahamic Covenant were then repeated by Moses in the Law in (Deut. 6:25:) "And it shall be righteousness unto us, if we observe to do all this commandment before Jehovah our God, as he hath commanded us." Mercy is always possible for transgression if you turn from evil (Deut.l3:17), but righteousness was only to be imputed again if repentance ensued. ((Ezek. 33:12-14).)

4. "For 1 have known him Abraham, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of Jehovah, to do [work] righteousness and justice; to the end that Jehovah may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." (Gen. 18:19 ASV.)

This is why the Prophet Daniel likewise repeated the obedience-requirement for covenant promises to be kept: "And I prayed unto Jehovah my God, and made confession, and said, Oh, Lord, the great and dreadful God, who keepeth covenant and lovingkindness with them that love him and keep his commandments...''' (Dan. 9:4).

Then of course Jesus put the same emphasis on "obeying" all "my teaching" for eternal life in (John 8:51). Then, of course, if you fail to obey but you repent from sin and turn back to obedience, you are once more "justified" with God. (Luke 18:10 ff.) But those who "keep on disobeying the son continue to have the wrath of God reside on them." (John 3:36 ASV.)

Thus, we see all three covenants have identical principles on obedience and justification. They are a continuum of an identical message. God's promise of salvation is upon those who obey all His commands, statutes and ordinances. Atonement under such a system only applied to those who fled the altar first to be reconciled to the one they knew they had sinned against, as Jesus Himself said. ((Matt. 5:23) 24.)

5 As Jesus repeatedly said, if you violate the commandments, you must engage in severe repentance (figuratively cut off offending body parts) to avoid being sent to hell. ((Matt. 5:29), Matthew 18:8, and (Mark 9:42-48).) Thus, all three covenants match each other with the same salvation doctrine.

This explains why God could say the Abrahamic covenant was "an everlasting covenant" (Gen. 17:7) just as God could say "these ordinances" given Moses in the Law shall be "everlasting for all generations." (Exod. 27:21; 30:21; Lev. 6:18; 7:36; 10:9; 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3; Num. 10:8.)

But if obedience to the Law creates justification (Deut. 6:25) this never meant it does so without faith, as Paul assumed. A command to have faith is not absent in the Law. Jesus said the "weightier matters of the Law" include not only Justice and Mercy, but also Faith. (Matt. 23:23.) A command to have faith/trust is found numerous times in the Law and Prophets, e.g., Deut. 31:6; (Isa. 26:4); and Jer. 17:7.

5. For a full discussion on this passage, and the clear reference to the Days of Ten, see page 265 et seq.