Restoring Apostolic Faith

A Wake-Up Call to Bible Readers

Most Christians love their Bible. They quote it, highlight it, underline it, and post verses with sunsets behind them on Instagram. But if we’re honest, most of us read it like it was written directly to us, in English, in the 21st century, and in our denomination’s dialect. We skip right past the original language, cultural context, and grammar—then get confused when someone disagrees with our interpretation.

The church today is full of people who can quote Scripture, but few who can explain it the way the original audience heard it. And that’s a problem. Not because God failed to make His Word clear, but because we often refuse to slow down long enough to understand it on its own terms.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: you can build an entire doctrine on a single word—and be completely wrong if you don’t understand how that word functioned in the original language.

This isn’t about becoming a Greek scholar, buying lexicons, or conjugating verbs for fun. This is about care. Do we care enough about God’s voice that we want to hear it clearly, not through the static of English translation or church tradition?

And that brings us to something so small most readers never notice it—Greek prepositions. Tiny words like apo and para. Two or three letters long. They’ll never make a church sign. But they quietly carry meaning that can reshape theology.

They can change how we understand Paul.

They can change how we understand revelation.

They can change how we understand the Lord’s Supper.

And if that sounds dramatic—good. It should.

The Problem with “Plain Reading” Christianity

If you’ve spent any time in church, you’ve probably heard this:

“I just read the Bible literally. I take it at face value.”

It sounds humble. It sounds faithful. But it hides a dangerous assumption—that our face value is the same as their face value. That reading the Bible in English today is the same as hearing it in Greek or Hebrew 2,000+ years ago.

But words shift. Cultures shift. Grammar shifts. Meaning slips away when we don’t chase it back to its source.

Here’s proof:

• In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God doesn’t just “hover” over the waters (as many English Bibles say). The Hebrew word rachaph can mean “to flutter, tremble, or vibrate.” The Septuagint Greek uses epipherō—“to rush over, sweep over.” That’s movement, not hovering like a helicopter.

• In Acts 1:8, when Jesus says “you will receive power,” the Greek word dynamis doesn’t mean “internal motivation.” It means raw supernatural power—explosive, active, outward. Like dynamite—because that’s literally where we get the word.

• In 1 Corinthians 13, “love is patient” isn’t passive. The Greek word makrothymei means “chooses to remain steadfast under provocation”—not just “puts up with stuff.”

See the difference? Translation isn’t wrong. It just flattens meaning to fit into English. The beauty gets ironed out. And meaning slips.

That’s why hermeneutics—the art of rightly interpreting Scripture—isn’t academic snobbery. It’s discipleship. It’s loving God with your mind.

And that brings us to Paul—the apostle who chose his words with precision, especially when it came to tiny Greek prepositions.

Because depending on which one he uses, Paul is either saying:

“Jesus told me this directly,”

or

“This teaching ultimately comes from Jesus, but it was handed down to me through others.”

And if you think that difference doesn’t matter, then buckle up—because it upends the “me and my Bible” version of Christianity.

A Crash Course in Greek Prepositions—Why Two Letters Can Shake Your Theology

You don’t need to be fluent in Greek to understand this. You just need to see how the language works differently than English.

Greek is a precise language. It has tools English doesn’t—especially when it comes to relationships between people, actions, and origins. One of those tools is prepositions—small words that tell you how things relate: “from,” “by,” “with,” “in,” “under,” “through.”

We use prepositions too, but Greek uses them with sharp edges. They aren’t vague. They don’t overlap as generously as English does. So when a biblical author chooses one preposition instead of another, it matters.

Here are the two prepositions that matter for our entire conversation:

Greek Word	Basic Meaning	Nuance	Example
apo (ἀπό)	from, out of	general origin or source	“from God,” “from the Lord,” “from the beginning”
para (παρά)	from, beside	direct source, from the very hand or mouth of someone	“from you directly,” “I heard it from him”

Two letters. Same basic English translation: “from.”

Completely different implications.

• apo is like saying: “This teaching originates from Jesus.”

• para is like saying: “Jesus Himself told me this directly.”

Think of it like this:

• If I say, “This law came from the president”—that could mean he wrote it, or approved it.

• If I say, “I received this document from the president’s hand”—that means I stood in front of him and he placed it in mine.

Both are technically “from,” but one is mediated and one is immediate.

Why This Matters for Paul

Paul uses language carefully. He’s not sloppy or careless. So when he says in Galatians 1:12 that he did not receive his gospel “para anthrōpou” (from a human), he’s saying—“No man directly gave me this.” That makes sense. He’s defending his calling.

But in 1 Corinthians 11:23, when he says, “I received apo tou Kyriou (from the Lord) what I also passed on to you,” most English readers assume he means Jesus came to him personally and taught him the Lord’s Supper during a vision.

But if that’s what Paul meant, he would have used para, not apo.

Because para is direct transmission.

apo is source or origin—but it allows for something to be delivered indirectly—through tradition, through witnesses, through the apostles.

Real Examples: Seeing It in Action

To make that clear, look at two real examples from the New Testament where Paul or Luke uses para:

Philippians 4:18

“I have received from Epaphroditus (παρ᾽ Ἐπαφροδίτου) the gifts you sent.”

Paul literally means: Epaphroditus physically handed these things to me. That’s para.

Acts 28:22

“We want to hear from you directly (παρὰ σοῦ) what you think…”

They don’t want rumors about Paul. They want it from his own mouth.

That’s para.

So—if Paul had meant, “Jesus personally appeared and taught me the Lord’s Supper,” he would have used para.

But he didn’t. He used apo.

That difference holds the weight of apostolic tradition, communal teaching, and the way revelation flows through the Church—not just through private visions.

The Point So Far

We’re not splitting hairs. We’re uncovering intention.

• Paul’s gospel commission came directly from revelation—para God(Galatians 1).

• But when it came to teachings like the Lord’s Supper, he received them as tradition sourced from Jesus, but handed through the apostles—apo tou Kyriou (1 Corinthians 11).

And that single difference dismantles the idea that Christianity is “just me, my Bible, and Jesus.” Paul himself learned from others—and he wasn’t ashamed of it.

Galatians 1 — What Paul Actually Said Came by Revelation

Galatians is Paul with his sleeves rolled up.

He’s not writing a gentle devotional letter. He’s putting out a theological fire: Gentile believers are being told that to be “real” Christians, they must first become Jews—get circumcised, follow Torah, enter through Moses before they can belong to Messiah.

Paul’s response? Absolutely not.

And to make that case, he goes straight to his credentials—not his education, not his résumé as a Pharisee, but his source.

“For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not kata anthrōpon (according to man). For I did not receive it para anthrōpou (from any man), nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”

—Galatians 1:11–12

Most people stop reading there and assume: Paul never learned anything from the apostles. He got his whole gospel in a direct download from Jesus in heaven.

But that’s not what he’s claiming.

What Paul Is Actually Saying

Break it down carefully:

Phrase	Greek	Meaning
“Not kata anthrōpon”	κατὰ ἄνθρωπον	Not human in origin, not invented by people
“Nor received it para anthrōpou”	παρὰ ἀνθρώπου	Didn’t receive this message directly from any human
“But through revelation (di’ apokalypseōs) of Jesus Christ”	δι’ ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ	God revealed Jesus to me and my calling through Him

Notice this: Paul isn’t talking about every detail of his teaching.

He’s talking specifically about the core claim of his mission:

That Gentiles can be full members of God’s people—without becoming Jews first.

Not through circumcision.

Not through proselyte conversion.

Not through Torah entrance rites.

This was the scandal. This was the shockwave. This is the “gospel” he defends.

And that—he insists—didn’t come from Peter, James, or any other human teacher.

It came directly from God—when Christ was revealed to him.

Revelation vs. Tradition: Paul Uses Both

And yet…

Just a few verses later (Galatians 1:18–19), Paul says he did go to Jerusalem. He didspend fifteen days with Peter. He did meet James, the Lord’s brother.

He’s not anti-apostle. He’s not anti-tradition.

He’s anti-derivative. He refuses to let the Galatians think his gospel is secondhand or man-made.

In other words:

Paul did not receive:	Paul absolutely did receive:
His commission from people	Fellowship and affirmation from apostles
The idea that Gentiles don’t need Torah	Knowledge of Jesus’ earthly ministry (Acts 9; Gal. 1:18)
The content of his calling	Historical traditions about Jesus and the Church

Paul is clear: his authority didn’t come from Jerusalem, but it was confirmed byJerusalem.

This Is Where the Prepositions Matter

When Paul said his gospel wasn’t para anthrōpou—he meant no human directly handed him this mission.

But when he later recounts teachings—like communion (1 Cor 11:23)—he doesn’t use para. He uses apo. Why?

Because he did receive those teachings through the apostolic tradition.

The origin is Jesus (apo tou Kyriou),

but the delivery came through church leaders who were actually in the upper room that night.

This isn’t a minor grammatical point. It’s Paul showing us the two streams that feed Christian truth:

• Revelation — God breaks in directly (Acts 9).

• Tradition — The Church faithfully passes on what Jesus did and said (1 Cor 15:3).

Paul lives within both.

Why This Section Matters

Because many modern Christians—especially in evangelical and charismatic streams—think true spirituality is “Jesus told me this personally.” Paul isn’t impressed by that.

Paul’s gospel came by direct revelation, yes. But his doctrine was also shaped by the apostles, by Scripture, by community.

If Paul needed both revelation and tradition—why do we act like we only need a quiet time and Wi-Fi?

Did Paul Receive the Lord’s Supper Directly from Jesus? Why Apo Says No

Most of us have heard a sermon like this:

“Paul didn’t learn Communion from the apostles. Jesus Himself revealed it to him directly! That’s why he writes, ‘I received from the Lord.’”

It sounds powerful. It fits well in sermons about intimacy and revelation. But it’s not what Paul actually said—or meant.

Let’s look closely:

“For I received from the Lord (ἀπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, apo tou Kyriou) what I also delivered to you…”

—1 Corinthians 11:23

The English makes it sound like Jesus appeared to Paul and personally explained the Eucharist. But if Paul wanted to say that—if he wanted to emphasize direct, personal transmission—he wouldn’t have used apo. He would have used para.

Let’s line it up clearly:

Greek Phrase	Translation	Implies	Used Where
apo tou Kyriou	from the Lord	origin/source is the Lord, but not necessarily face-to-face	1 Cor 11:23
para tou Kyriou	from the Lord Himself	directly from His mouth/hand	Expected wording if Paul saw or heard Jesus explain it

Paul didn’t use para.

He used apo.

And Paul uses these differently on purpose.

So Where Did Paul Get the Lord’s Supper Teaching?

From the apostles.

From those who were actually in the room on the night Jesus was betrayed.

This makes even more sense when you remember that Paul spent time with Peter and James in Jerusalem (Galatians 1:18–19). He didn’t get his calling from them—but he certainly could have received traditions from them.

And he says elsewhere that he “delivered” (paredōka) to the Corinthians what he himself had “received” (parelabon)—which is the same technical language used for passing on Jewish rabbinical tradition.

But Doesn’t This Weaken Scripture?

Not at all. It actually strengthens it.

Because now we’re not talking about Paul having secret mystical knowledge.

We’re talking about something better—apostolic continuity.

• Jesus gave the teaching to the apostles.

• The apostles passed it to Paul.

• Paul passed it to the churches.

• The churches guarded it, practiced it, and passed it on.

That’s exactly what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:3:

“For I delivered (paredōka) to you as of first importance what I also received (parelabon), that Christ died for our sins…”

Same language. Same process. Same theological weight.

What This Blows Up in Modern Christianity

This destroys one of the most dangerous assumptions in modern church culture:

“I don’t need tradition or teachers—Jesus tells me everything directly.”

Paul—who actually saw the risen Christ—doesn’t even claim that.

He submits to the apostolic tradition. He preserves it. He passes it on.

He doesn’t brag about private revelation.

He brags about faithfulness to what was handed down.

That’s not weakness. That’s how the Church survives.

Summary of the Lesson

• Paul’s gospel mission came by direct revelation (di’ apokalypseōs).

• Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper came from apostolic tradition—apo tou Kyriou—meaning its origin is the Lord, but its transmission is through those who were with Him.

• Paul isn’t anti-tradition. He’s anti-manmade distortion.

• Christian faith has always been revealed by God and handed down through the Church.

Why This Changes Everything: Scripture, Tradition, and the Myth of ‘Just Me and My Bible’

If Paul himself—apostle, visionary, writer of Scripture—did not operate with a “just me and Jesus” mentality, then neither should we.

But that’s exactly what modern Christianity has discipled people into believing.

“I don’t need tradition. I don’t need church history. I don’t need the early fathers. I have my Bible and the Holy Spirit.”

The impulse sounds spiritual.

But in reality, it’s isolating, anti-historical, and unbiblical—because it ignores how God actually chose to preserve truth.

Paul received revelation, yes. But Paul also received tradition—and he guards it fiercely.

“Stand firm and hold to the traditions (paradoseis) that you were taught, whether by our spoken word or by our letter.”

—2 Thessalonians 2:15

He didn’t say, “Forget what the apostles taught—just read your Bible privately.”

He said the opposite: cling to what has been passed down faithfully.

But Doesn’t Tradition Equal Catholicism?

No. Tradition isn’t a Roman Catholic invention. It’s a biblical principle.

The word tradition (Greek paradosis) simply means:

“Something handed down from one generation to the next.”

It can be good—or corrupt. Jesus condemned human traditions that nullified God’s word (Mark 7:8), but He never condemned the idea of tradition itself.

Paul commands the Church to guard apostolic tradition.

He passes it on.

He expects others to pass it on after him (2 Tim 2:2).

So the question isn’t “Tradition or no tradition?”

It’s “Which tradition?”

Faithful apostolic tradition—or man-made religious clutter.

What Paul’s Prepositions Expose in Us

Understanding apo vs para isn’t just grammar. It exposes us:

• It forces us to admit Scripture isn’t self-interpreting.

• It forces us to admit Paul didn’t make it all up alone with a vision.

• It forces us to admit the Christian faith is a received faith—not a reinvented one.

Christianity is not invented. It is inherited.

Paul wasn’t an isolated genius creating theology from scratch.

He was a recipient—and then a steward—of a message that came before him.

Where This Collides with Modern Church Culture

This dismantles several popular habits in the church today:

❌ “God told me this verse means…” — while ignoring 2,000 years of faithful interpretation.

❌ Treating Bible reading like a personality test or horoscope.

❌ Preaching the Lord’s Supper as if Paul had a private Zoom call with Jesus.

❌ Using ‘the Holy Spirit told me’ to bypass accountability or correction.

Instead, Paul gives us a better pattern:

Paul’s Way	Our Way (too often)
Receives revelation, then confirms with community	“I don’t need anyone; God speaks to me directly”
Honors apostolic tradition	Suspicious of anything not invented yesterday
Submits his teachings to the leaders in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:2)	“I don’t answer to man; only God can judge me”
Passes on what he received (1 Cor 15:3)	Reinvents Christianity every generation

So What Are We Supposed to Do?

Not everyone needs to learn Greek or Hebrew.

Not everyone needs seminary.

But everyone who opens a Bible is doing hermeneutics—whether they know it or not.

The only question is: Are we doing it carefully, or carelessly?

So here’s the challenge:

• Learn to ask: What did this mean to them—before I ask what it means to me?

• Be slower to speak for God, quicker to study His words.

• Stop treating tradition as the enemy.

• Start treating interpretation as worship—not just analysis.

See It in Real Life: How Apo and Para Actually Work in Scripture

Before we go any further, we need to make sure this doesn’t sound like some abstract grammar lecture. Paul isn’t sitting in a dusty library moving prepositions around for style points—he’s using language deliberately, based on how people actually spoke, taught, and passed things along.

So let’s look at how these two key prepositions—apo and para—show up in everyday Greek usage in the New Testament.

Example 1: Money Delivered “From” Someone — Philippians 4:18

“I have received from Epaphroditus (παρ᾽ Ἐπαφροδίτου, para Epaphroditou) the gifts you sent.”

—Philippians 4:18

Notice: Paul doesn’t say apo. He says para. Why?

Because Epaphroditus was the direct handler. He physically brought the gift. Paul’s saying, “He put it in my hands.” That’s para.

Then Paul shifts slightly and says:

“They are a fragrant offering…from you (τὰ παρ᾽ ὑμῶν, ta par’ hymōn).”

This underlines a key detail:

If Paul wanted to stress physical, personal, direct transmission, he used para.

Example 2: “We Want to Hear from You Directly” — Acts 28:22

When Paul arrives in Rome, the Jewish leaders say:

“We desire to hear from you (para sou) what your views are…”

—Acts 28:22

Not hearsay. Not rumors. Not secondhand reports.

They want to hear from Paul’s own mouth.

Again—para.

Example 3: Information “From” God — but Indirectly — Hebrews 2:2–3

“For the message declared by angels (δι᾽ ἀγγέλων)…

…was attested to us by those who heard.”

—Hebrews 2:2–3

The writer of Hebrews draws the same distinction Paul does:

Origin	Transmission
The message comes from God	But delivered through angels → prophets → apostles → us

There’s a chain. Divine origin doesn’t erase human transmission.

Why These Examples Matter for 1 Corinthians 11:23

Now, go back to Paul’s language:

“For I received apo tou Kyriou (from the Lord) what I also delivered to you…”

Does Paul mean Jesus pulled him aside in a private revelation?

If he meant that—based on all his other uses—he wouldn’t say apo tou Kyriou.

He would say what he said in Galatians 1:12: para Theou (from God Himself).

But he doesn’t.

He intentionally uses the more general, origin-focused preposition—apo.

That means:

• The teaching comes from the Lord.

• But Paul received it through those entrusted with it before him.

Let’s Be Crystal Clear (Because This is the Pivot Point)

Question	If Paul meant this…	He would use…	But he used…
Did Jesus directly teach Paul the Lord’s Supper?	“Jesus Himself told me.”	para (direct)	❌ He didn’t
Did this teaching originate from Jesus?	“This tradition comes from Him.”	apo (origin)	✅ He did

So What Does This Prove?

1. Paul’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper is not private revelation.

2. It is apostolic tradition, handed down from eyewitnesses.

3. Its origin is Jesus, its transmission is through the Church.

4. Paul respects tradition rather than bypassing it—even as an apostle.

What This Reveals About Scripture, Authority, and How We’re Supposed to Read the Bible

At this point, someone might still shrug and say, “Okay, neat Greek lesson. But does this really matter for my faith?”

Yes. It absolutely does. Because this isn’t just about apo versus para. It’s about how God chose to communicate truth—and what that demands of us as readers, teachers, and disciples.

Let’s make this unmistakably clear.

1. Christianity Is Not a Private Revelation Movement

Paul shows us something crucial:

False Idea	Biblical Reality
“Christianity is me, Jesus, and my Bible.”	Christianity is a faith handed down—from Christ → apostles → Church.
“Tradition is man-made religion.”	Some traditions are corrupt. But apostolic tradition is commanded to be preserved (2 Thess 2:15).
“If it didn’t come to me directly, it’s not spiritual.”	Paul himself received and passed on tradition—and called it obedience.

Paul did not treat Christianity like a spiritual download.

He treated it like a sacred trust:

“What I received (parelabon), I delivered (paredōka) to you.” —1 Cor 15:3

2. Scripture Wasn’t Written to You—But It Is For You

This is one of the most freeing—and humbling—truths you can learn about the Bible.

• It wasn’t written in English.

• It wasn’t written in the modern Western world.

• It wasn’t written directly to 21st-century Americans.

It was written to them—ancient Jews, Greeks, Romans, Corinthians, Thessalonians.

But it was written for us (Romans 15:4; 1 Cor 10:11).

If we skip their world, we will misunderstand God’s Word.

3. Words Carry Theology—Even the Small Ones

A single preposition can reveal:

• Whether a doctrine came by revelation or tradition

• Whether Paul stood before Jesus or learned from apostles

• Whether authority rests on private visions or historical continuity

That’s why we must care about words—not to be academic, but to be accurate.

Misreading Scripture isn’t just sloppy—it’s dangerous. We end up doing the very thing Peter warned about:

“There are some things in [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable distort—to their own destruction.”

—2 Peter 3:16

Words matter. Grammar matters. Context matters. Because truth matters.

4. This Calls Out Three Modern Errors

Let’s be blunt—this exposes three bad habits in today’s church:

Habit	Problem
“God told me what this verse means.”	Bypasses Scripture, history, counsel, and accountability.
Anti-intellectual faith	Treats study as doubt and ignorance as holiness.
Biblical isolation	Builds theology apart from the historic church, producing confusion and division.

Paul didn’t do that. Paul knew his Scriptures.

He spoke Hebrew. Quoted the Septuagint. Studied under Gamaliel.

Then he submitted what he received to the apostles (Gal 2:2).

5. Real Spiritual Maturity Isn’t About Original Ideas—It’s About Faithful Ones

The most dangerous people in church history were rarely those who doubted Scripture.

It was those who confidently misinterpreted it.

Satan himself quoted Scripture perfectly when tempting Jesus.

He just applied it wrong. Wrong interpretation is more dangerous than ignorance.

Spiritual maturity isn’t measured by how creative your interpretations are.

It’s measured by how faithfully you handle what has already been given.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

It leaves us here:

• You don’t need a seminary degree to read Scripture well.

• You do need humility, curiosity, and a willingness to let the text speak in its own language, not yours.

• You do need to recognize that God speaks through Scripture, community, and tradition rooted in Christ.

• You do need to care about words—because God chose words to reveal Himself.

So What Do We Do With This? — A Call to Real Hermeneutics

Here’s the simple truth: you don’t need to know Greek to love Scripture well, but you do need to love truth more than convenience.

The point of this whole journey isn’t to make people feel unqualified to read the Bible. It’s the opposite. It’s to wake us up from casual, surface-level reading so we can become the kind of disciples Jesus actually wanted—people who hear and understand.

So how do we start?

Step 1: Admit the Bible Wasn’t Written in English

The Bible wasn’t written in our language, culture, or categories. And that’s okay.

Faithful interpretation begins not with intelligence, but with humility—choosing to listen to Scripture on its own terms rather than forcing it to speak ours.

Step 2: Ask Better Questions When You Read

Instead of jumping straight to “What does this mean to me?”—start here:

• What did this mean to them?

• Why did the author choose that word, not another one?

• What assumptions is the text making that I might not see?

• What did the first hearers already know that I don’t?

That’s hermeneutics: not guessing, not inventing—but listening closely.

It’s not about knowing Greek; it’s about respecting the text enough to ask what it actually says.

Step 3: Recover the Role of Tradition—The Right Kind

“Tradition” isn’t a dirty word. Paul literally commands the church to hold to apostolic traditions (2 Thess. 2:15).

Not human-made religion. Not denominational fluff.

But the teachings handed from Jesus → to apostles → to the early church.

We didn’t invent this faith. We inherited it. And what’s inherited must be guarded, not rewritten every generation.

Step 4: Stop Treating Personal Revelation as the Highest Authority

God speaks, yes. But Scripture shows us He speaks in community, through Scripture and through faithful teachers.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t make us independent of study—He makes us hungry for truth.

If Paul didn’t trust private visions without confirming them through the apostles (Gal. 2:2), neither should we.

Step 5: Start Somewhere Tangible

Here are small, real ways Christians can practice healthy hermeneutics without a seminary library:

Simple Habit	Why It Matters
Read slower	Scripture isn’t a fortune cookie—it’s revelation.
Look at multiple translations	Helps reveal where English struggles to capture nuance.
Use a good study Bible or interlinear tool	Not to replace thinking—but to inform it.
Read with others, not just alone	Truth survives best in community, not isolation.
Learn a few key Greek/Hebrew words where meaning shifts (like apo vs para)	You don’t need to master the language—just start to respect it.

The Final Thought: Why Words Matter

Because God chose words to reveal Himself.

Not vibes. Not vague impressions. Words.

• A single preposition (apo vs. para) can tell us whether Paul learned directly from Jesus or through the apostles.

• A single verb tense can distinguish prophecy from fulfillment.

• A single nuance can reshape our view of faith, grace, salvation, or the church.

If we care about God, we should care about His words.

Conclusion

This isn’t about becoming scholars. It’s about becoming careful.

It isn’t about learning Greek. It’s about learning to listen.

It isn’t about tearing down preachers or churches. It’s about building a church that can no longer be easily deceived, divided, or dulled.

So let this be the beginning of something:

A church that reads slowly.

That thinks deeply.

That loves Scripture with both heart and mind.

That can say with Paul—not proudly, but truthfully—

“What I also delivered to you, I first received.”